Drácula (1931 Spanish version)

Happy Halloween everyone! To end this great month of October, I think it would be best to review the Spanish version of the 1931 “Dracula” movie. At first you might be thinking, “wouldn’t that be the same movie, but just dubbed in Spanish?’ Not exactly see, this is the jest:

Director George Melford had filmed this movie at night, on the same set as Tod Browning’s “Dracula.” In the beginning of the birth of sound pictures, it was common for Hollywood studios to film a foreign-language version of films using the same sets and costumes. Usually the languages were Spanish, French, Italian, or German. Of the Spanish cast members, the only one that saw the Browning “Dracula,” was Carlos Villarías, who played Dracula in the Spanish version, and was encouraged to imitate Lugosi.

In recent years, this version is highly praised to be better than Browning’s “Dracula.” The Spanish cast had seen unedited footage of Browning’s “Dracula” when they came in the evening to shoot the movie. From that, they would see what better camera angles and lighting they needed to shoot to top the other version. End result: this version has been said to be more artistically effective. Roman Gubern, the Spanish semiologist says that since this film has a little bit more running time, it allowed for a better development of the plot as opposed to shooting the film in a shorter time with a smaller budget. The reason why this film runs longer is largely because of extended dialogue.

To be perfectly honest, I had never heard of this version until I saw James Rolfe’s review on the film. I was familiar with the Tod Browning “Dracula,” since that is a classic that everyone has heard of, even though many people may not have seen it. However, about two years ago, I saw this film and the differences are really noticeable. For instance, when Renfield first meets Dracula in Browning’s version, it’s a simple static shot. In the Spanish version, the camera actually moves, making the scene more dramatic. There are many added scenes that you don’t see in the English version, like Mina (or Eva in this version) gets killed in the graveyard, and it shows a little more violence. The costume of Lupita Tovar, who plays Eva in this movie, is much more revealing than Helen Chandler’s, which tells you that the Spanish audience was less uptight. Most foreign audiences are though. Pablo Alvarez Rubio as Renfield is more psychotic than Dwight Fry, even when the nurse passes out and he crawls up to her, he eats a bug off of her. Carlos Villarías as Dracula looks more insane than Lugosi, which is creepy in its own respect.

Other differences include: the Bargo Pass driver (who is Dracula in disguise) has his face covered. When Renfield is in Carfax Abby, he carried a torch rather than a lamp. Renfield cuts his finger with a breadknife, not a paper clip. Rather than Dracula biting Renfield, Dracula's Brides bite him. His death is more violent in this version, and Dracula shows pleasure in killing Renfield. The names are obviously Hispanicized. For example, Johnathan is Juan, Lucy Westenra is Lucia Weston, and Mina is Eva. The Brides look more seductive and dressed in a way that a person would want them, but in the English version they are covered and behave calmer. When Dracula knocks the mirror out of Van Helsing's hand in the English version, it simply falls to the floor. In the Spanish version, Dracula smashes the mirror with his cane. In an interview on the Legacy Collection DVD, Lupita Tovar said that the Latinos are less uptight than Anglos. The sun is seen rising near the end to prevent Dracula from killing Eva.

My verdict: if you have seen Tod Browning’s “Dracula,” but not the Spanish version, go see it. It’s the best way to celebrate Halloween night. I have to give this film a solid 10, as it is another one of my favorite Halloween films, but it’s debatable whether this one is superior to Tod Browning’s version.

Well, thank you for joining me on “Halloween Month.” Happy Halloween, enjoy tonight, go out and get as much candy as you want, sit back, watch a scary movie, and stay tuned tomorrow when I start back up with my Friday reviews.

Dracula (1931)

Now in these last two days until Halloween, I think it would be appropriate to talk about the king of all the monsters out there, Count Dracula. You might have read the Bram Stoker novel, which is what the number of film adaptations is based off of. The only adaptations I have seen are both 1931 versions. At first you might be thinking, “What? They made two adaptations back in 1931?” Yes they did, and I will look at both of them in these last two days. Today, I will look at the classic 1931 masterpiece, “Dracula,” directed by Tod Browning.

What makes this film so great? Bela Lugosi. He is a Hungarian actor who did not know English, but only learned it through the roles that he was doing either on stage or on screen. Originally, the king of the silent film era, Lon Chaney, was supposed to play Dracula, but he died before they could even start production on the movie. So they went for Bela Lugosi instead. The rhythm and accent of Dracula’s voice in this movie would forever be imitated in that same way. If you ever hear someone impersonating Dracula, they are mimicking Lugosi’s Dracula. You have to love it when Lugosi delivers such great lines like, “I am Dracula,” “Listen to them, children of the night. What music they make,” and “I have charted a ship that will take us to England. We will be leaving tomorrow eeeeevening.” I know that Lugosi was not the first person to play Dracula, since in 1922, “Nosferatu” was released, but remember, I haven’t seen that one…yet. I’m not sure if I’ll ever get around to it, but time will tell. Lugosi was the first person to set the image of Dracula into the mainstream pop culture. He was even buried in the Dracula cape. The way Lugosi had portrayed Dracula in here; you know that he gave the right spook value to make you afraid of Dracula. When he gives you that famous scary stare, you know that you would be in serious trouble.

Since this was 1931, Universal Studios had made all the famous horror icons have their own sound picture, since talking movies were born in the 30s. It would be obvious to start off with Dracula, since that book is probably the most popular amongst the other novels the horror icons were in. And because this was one of the first sound pictures, they didn’t add any music during the movie. Unless you count the opening title screen and the end credits, but still, there isn’t any music. This is a slow paced movie, but because of the parts where there isn’t any audio or dialogue spoken, that just adds to the creepy, surreal atmosphere of Transylvania. This is why this is, hands down, the best Dracula movie ever made.

The supporting cast also does a great job all around. Helen Chandler does an excellent job as Mina Harker, the woman who gets bitten by Dracula. David Manners gives out the hard work and commitment he did for his role as John Harker, Mina’s fiancé.  Dwight Frye as Renfeld, goodness, what can I say? He is completely demented. Especially you have to love his line, “Rats, Rats, RATS!” Even his laugh would make you pass out, and people always imitate that laugh as well. Herbert Bunston as Dr. Seward is very convincing. Charles K. Gerrard as Renfield’s assistant, Martin, does lighten up the mood as the comic relief. Edward Von Sloan as Dr. Van Helsing is really believable in the role, as the man who wants to kill Dracula.

Overall, I give this film a solid 10, as it is one of my favorite Halloween movies. If you haven’t seen it yet, what are you waiting for? Halloween is tomorrow folks. Go out and watch it to celebrate the holiday with so you can be scared. But how good is the other version? And what is that version about? Find out tomorrow in the epic conclusion to “Halloween Month.”

Ghostbusters 2

Five years after the groundbreaking comedy, “Ghostbusters,” the sequel came out in 1989, “Ghostbusters 2.” This one a lot of people seem to dismiss, but I think that this film is still good and a good sequel to the first one. It is the not impossible basis of “Ghostbusters 2” that Manhattan, as one of the characters say, “is about to blow, like a frog on a hot plate.”

Everything that is channeling the people’s anger is a river of slime running in the sewer line. Obviously it’s not easy to tell since the people of New York are already rude to begin with. They knock someone off of their crutches and laugh when a baby’s carriage rolls out into the middle of First Avenue and is almost run over. Most of the locals will tell you that it’s just another day at the Big Apple.

That’s not what Dana Barrett, played by Sigourney Weaver, thinks, who is an art restorer. At the end of the first film, we get an idea that her and Peter Venkman, played by Bill Murray, would get together. In the five years between these two comedies, they break up, Dana marries someone else, has a son, and is now divorced, leaving her for Peter to get back together with. That’s just a sub-plot to the film though.

When Dana realizes that there is something going horribly wrong after her baby was almost run over, she goes to the Ghostbusters for help. Working together, they see what is going on in Manhattan and how an evil is out to get Dana’s baby, Oscar, played by William T. Deutschendorf and Henry J. Deutschendorf II.

I know that this doesn’t make a lot of sense, but Dana does get the chance to say this line: “Oh, Peter, the most awful thing has happened. The bathtub tried to eat Oscar.” Any movie with a line like that can’t be entirely bad.

“Ghostbusters 2” isn’t all that bad. Vincent Canby says, “In truth, the movie, strikes me as being far easier to take, funnier even, than the first film, which seemed overproduced and sloppy. ''Ghostbusters II'' seems more modest, less aggressive, not so oppressively extravagant.” I know that this film isn’t as good as the first one, but I think they are both just as good.

Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd handle the screenplay, who both know how Manhattan is like after spending just a few short minutes in the city: It’s the angriest place on Earth. Vincent Canby says when they recognize this, “Mr. Ramis, Mr. Aykroyd and Ivan Reitman, the director, have made a remarkably cheerful film. It has the weight and stylishness of designer toilet tissue, but it doesn't offend.”

Now the supporting cast is all just as good, since they are familiar faces from the first film. Most of them are really good friends, including Murray who plays Venkman as a really laid-back type of a guy, and, as his partners, Ramis, Aykroyd, and Ernie Hudson. Sigourney Weaver looks great as always and is in control even in the silliest moments, and Rick Moranis is just as funny as the Ghostbusters lawyer.

Vincent Canby says, “It is probably heresy to say to ''Ghostbusters'' fans, but the funniest performance in this film is given by Peter MacNicol, as Dr. Janosz Poha, a prissy but lecherous Carpathian art historian, the conduit by which the Evil One hopes to take over Manhattan (not having heard that it's already his).” This Evil One is a painting of Vigo the Carpathian, a seventeenth-century magician trapped in the painting, played by Wilhelm von Homburg and voiced by Max von Sydow.

Canby also says, “Even the special effects are more to the point of the comedy than they were in the first film.” I take it he loved this one over the first film, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Very oddly, this let’s our main heroes give their funny lines that we all know and love them to do, or how they react with most ease.

So if you like the first film, you should definitely check the sequel out, and at least give it a chance. I would also give this film a 10.

One final note: Ghostbusters 3. I have been hearing rumors on that movie for the past couple of years, but Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis seem to be having a tough time trying to get Bill Murray to sign on for the movie. However, I hear that they will be making the movie without Murray, so if that is the case, then I hope that it will come out soon.

Alright, I have done the two Ghostbusters films, what film do you think I will end “Halloween Month” off with? I think it would be appropriate to bring up a famous monster that everyone associates Halloween with.

Ghostbusters

Since Halloween is close by, I thought that we should look at one of my all-time favorite comedies from 1984, “Ghostbusters.” This is a good film to watch around Halloween, but isn’t really scary for today’s standards. Still, those of you who grew up with this film and were scared by it when you saw it as children may not be scared by it today with an adult perspective.

This film is a head-on collision of two comic approaches that only work in that once in a blue moon lifetime. In this film, it did work. It’s a special-effects blockbuster and has a clever dialogue, where everyone talks to one another like graduate students who are a part of the joke. In the climax, a Sumerian shape-shifting god is raising havoc in Manhattan, "and our main heroes talk like Bob and Ray," according to Roger Ebert.

“Ghostbusters” is one of those rare movies that rebuttals the rule of special effects ruining a comedy. Special effects are hard work and those people have to put a lot of detail to make them look good. Comedy is all about impulse and improvisation, or what it should feel like regardless of how much effort is put in. When you watch Spielberg’s “1941,” look at the vast beauty of the special effects in that film which was the main driving force over everything else. You won’t laugh at that film because you have no reason to, but in this film, there is.

When you look at the effects in this movie, a lot of them are neat. Some of them mess with your head; others look like they were recycled. For example, look at when Slimmer (played by Mark Bryan Wilson, and voiced by the director, Ivan Reitman) eats away at the hot dogs. No matter what effects are used, they are there to help the actors out. Instead of us thinking that the characters have been placed in front of the effects, we feel that they are just improvising this as they shoot the film.

Our stars of this film are Bill Murray, Harold Ramis, and Dan Aykroyd, three comedy graduates either known from National Lampoon, SNL, or Second City. They are hilarious in this, but they also show how quick-witty and intelligent they are. Ebert comments that their dialogue “puts nice little spins on American clichés, and it uses understatement, irony, in-jokes, vast cynicism, and cheerful goofiness.” This is one of the most quotable films ever made, which comes around once in a while.

Now the plot involves a series of psychic reports all around Manhattan. Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis have lost their jobs as college parapsychologists, after their reports have been called bogus by the dean, played by Jordan Charney, so they open up their own business called “Ghostbusters.” They say that if people are haunted by ghosts, then they will be there to rescue them from the ghosts. However, business hasn’t been picking up until the attractive Sigourney Weaver calls in to say that her eggs were frying on her kitchen counter and her fridge has some sort of demon castle inside it. Her neighbor, played by the funny Rick Moranis, also notices demonic beasts in the apartment hallway. Apparently the apartment both of them live in is a gateway to another world. The Ghostbusters go down to the apartment suited with their Proton Packs, and having Ernie Hudson along as the new member. This is the highlight of the movie since a lot of the psychic knowledge in the dialogue is made up before they have a showdown with the Sumerian god, Gozer (Slavitza Jovan and voiced by Paddi Edwards), and his minions, Vinz Clortho, “The Keymaster,” and Zuul, “The Gatekeeper” (also voiced by Reitman). Around that time, the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man arrives, and I will leave it there or else I will give away too much of the plot.

As I have already stated, this is a film where the comedy works well along with the big budget production. It is not proof for big-budget comedies, since the rule still applies that the more you spend, the less you get the audience to laugh. But the money is spent the right way, and when the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man stomps all over Manhattan and climbs the skyscraper, you can see where they spent the money since this is one of the funniest scenes in the entire movie.

Just a heads up: expect a cameo appearance of adult movie actor Ron Jeremy and Reginald VelJohnson.

For this film, I have to give it a solid 10, it’s one of my all-time favorite comedies, and I just adore it. Sure it’s right for Halloween since the effects in this film could scare children today, but not the adults who watched the movie when they were once their children’s age. It might still scare them, but that depends on who it is.

What can be said for the sequel that came out 5 years later? Find out tomorrow when I talk about the equally good sequel, in my opinion.

Jaws: The Revenge

Studio executives, if you see a franchise going downhill, don’t continue making sequels to it. You should have quit while you were ahead with the “Jaws” franchise, especially since the third one was really bad. Instead, they tried one last time with another bad sequel. Sorry to put you through this again online audience, but it looks like we have to go back underwater for the worst of the worse. I’m talking about none other than the 1987 film that killed the franchise for good, “Jaws: The Revenge.”

This is not simply a bad movie, but a stupid and useless sequel – basically a rip-off. Our main star this time is Lorraine Gray as Ellen Brody. By the start of the film, she is a widow since Martin has died from a heart attack, which she claims to be caused by the fear of the shark. That’s your best reason? Mitchell Anderson plays Sean, now taking over his father’s position as police chief. Wait a minute, why is there no mention of him as an employee of the SeaWorld Park or of Katherine? Apparently Universal Studios considers this horrendous piece of garbage as the third in the so called “remarkable Jaws trilogy.” Remarkable nothing! This series is down in the dumps!!!

You want to know how this film starts. Well, the previous films started around summer time. Not this one. Instead, this opens on Christmas Day. Why? Sean is eaten by a shark when he goes out on a boat to clear a log from a buoy. Instead of hearing his screams, the children tune him out by singing Christmas carols. Nice going you little idiots!

In order to get away from everything and spend more time with the family, Sean’s older brother, Michael, played by Lance Guest, convinces his mother to come with him to The Bahamas. Since Ellen has become hydrophobic and is sure the shark is out to kill her entire family, she tells Michael and her grandkids to stay out of the water. But you know what? In a short number of three days, the shark arrives at The Bahamas. Does the shark have a Brody radar equipped to him that he knew they were in The Bahamas?

Ellen spends some time with a pilot named Hoagie, played by Michael Caine, which results in a subplot of Michael jealous of this man in her life. What is going on here, an Oedipus complex? I wouldn’t be surprised, but that would be disgusting! Like all bad movies, this subplot goes unresolved. The screenplay is mainly focused on meaningless stuff of Michael and his crew on the boat going after the shark. One of Michael’s friends is Jake, played by Mario Van Peebles.

Since we see the shark “way” more often than in the previous films, you would think that they would build it up to a scary shark, right? Ebert comments that the shark looks like “canvas with acne” in some scenes and others you can easily see the fake effect.

These shark models move like snails and they look like they are supporting the boats instead of attacking them. Up until the last sequence, the scariest creature we see in the film is an eel. A STINKING EEL!!! That’s how low we have gotten people.

What happens at the end? Ellen is convinced this shark is after her family for revenge, hence the reason it keeps following her. Here is what Ebert had to say about the film, “Her friends pooh-pooh the notion that a shark could identify, follow or even care about one individual human being, but I am willing to grant the point, for the benefit of the plot.”

I am convinced that the shark is after the Brody family, since Martin was the first person responsible for killing the shark and blowing it to Kingdom Come. What shark wouldn’t want to get revenge on the family of the man who blew up their entire family?

Here is a list of things Ebert did not believe: “That Mrs. Brody could be haunted by flashbacks to events where she was not present and that, in some cases, no survivors witnessed. That the movie would give us one shark attack as a dream sequence, have the hero wake up in a sweat, then give us a second shark attack, and then cut to the hero awake in bed, giving us the only thing worse than the old “it’s only a dream” routine, which is the old “is it a dream or not?” routine. That Mrs. Brody would commandeer a boat and sail out alone into the ocean to sacrifice herself to the shark, so that the killing could end. That Caine’s character could or would crash-land his airplane at sea so that he and two other men could swim to Mrs. Brody’s rescue. That after being trapped in a sinking airplane by the shark and disappearing under the water, Caine could survive the attack, swim to the boat, and climb on board - not only completely unhurt but also wearing a shirt and pants that are not even wet. That the shark would stand on its tail in the water long enough for the boat to ram it. That the director, Joseph Sargent, would film this final climactic scene so incompetently that there is not even an establishing shot, so we have to figure out what happened on the basis of empirical evidence.”

You know what else is ludicrous? March 30, Michael Caine brushed away his chance to get the Academy Award in person because he was working on this film. You want to know what was going through his head. The same thing a marine biologist is thinking in this movie: if you don’t go back into the water after something terrible happens to you, you might be too afraid to ever go back in again.

Bottom line, I have to agree with The Nostalgia Critic on what he said about this film: “This is not only stupid, but it’s mostly kind of a bore. The set up is crazy, the characters are not interesting, and it mostly feels padded out. The shark is not as fake as the third film, but it’s still pretty fake. And for a film called ‘The Revenge,’ it’s a pretty lame revenge.” It’s not scary, the writing is all bad, and the script has some of the worst dialogue ever. James Rolfe remembers watching this film on TV, and the shark does get impaled by the bow of the boat, but in theaters, the shark spontaneously combust after getting stabbed with the bow. This film will be rated with a big, fat 0. It’s one of the worst sequels and one of the worst films ever made!

Thank goodness I am done with this horrible series. Check in tomorrow where we will change gears to a much more light-hearted film that you can watch around this time. “Halloween Month” will look at a comedy.

Jaws 3D

Seriously, what’s the whole idea of making “Jaws” into a franchise? What can they possible think of for the sequels? All the films are about a giant killer white shark that just preys on its victims until a group of people come around and they kill the shark. In the case of “Jaws 3” or better known as “Jaws 3D,” released in 1983, we are taken away from Amity Island and instead are in SeaWorld. Unlike Amity Island, this place has underwater tunnels and plenty of people for the shark to feed on.

As I had stated already, “Jaws 3D” takes place in the SeaWorld water park. Suddenly a new white shark arrives into the park and starts to feed on the park employees, water skiers, and so on. Then at the climax of the film we get a sudden twist. Apparently what they thought was the shark that was killing people apparently was the baby shark, whose mother is obviously larger in size. In case you’re wondering, she “is” in the park.

There are no familiar faces reprising their roles from the first two films, even Roy Scheider as the ever loving Martin Brody. I think that after the second one, he thought that he didn’t want to be in another shameful sequel of “Jaws,” if they ever thought of making one. Who can blame the guy? However, this film focuses on Brody’s two sons. Randy Quaid’s younger brother, Dennis Quaid, is playing the elder son, Mike, who along with his girlfriend Kay, played by Bess Armstrong, are SeaWorld employees. Mike’s younger brother, Sean, played by John Butch, arrives to stay at the park, and befriends the lovely Kelly Ann Bukowski, played by the attractive Lea Thompson (ashamed that she will not get another good role after “Back to the Future”). There is only a passing mention in this film as to why Sean is hydrophobic. All they say is, "something that happened when he was a kid." Why is that? I blame bad writing. Now the person they are having trouble convincing that there is a shark in the park is the park’s manager, played by Louis Gossett Jr.

Like a lot of other bad sequels, this one just follows the same formula that the first two followed. Shark starts to kill people where our lead characters work, they go to their boss to convince him of a series of shark attacks out there, he doesn’t listen, more people get eaten, so the lead character decides to take matters into his own hands to kill the shark. What is there new for “Jaws 3?” The setting is really nice, it takes place in a water park, Louis Gossett Jr. plays one of the main characters, and a baby shark is captured first before the real shark is, the way the shark dies is awesome, and the final sequence is pretty original and entertaining.

“Jaws 3” is one of those horror movies from the 80s that was released in theaters in 3D, which was a relatively new gimmick at the time. But I have to agree with the Nostalgia Critic when he said that the special effects are terrible, even if you had the 3D it wouldn’t save the movie, but “the story is ludicrous, and the characters are so boring that there is literally nothing that can save it, even if it was in 3D.” Yahoo reviewer Mike Cameo said in his review of this horrendous sequel, “Considering that the studio missed a ripe opportunity for a good fourth 'Jaws' film with "Deep Blue Sea" (1999), it probably would have been best to end the series at "Jaws 3".” Just do yourself a favor and avoid this film. I would have to give this film a 1.

Did they end up leaving it as a trilogy? Find out tomorrow when I thankfully will finish off “Jaws-a-thon.”

Jaws 2

Apparently filmmakers didn’t feel the need to leave “Jaws” alone. Instead, they thought they could make a sequel to this great film. What did we get? The less than average sequel released in 1978, “Jaws 2.”

Want to know the sad part about this film? When you watch it, you will immediately miss Spielberg in the directing chair. Instead, Jeannot Szwarc directed this film, and the end result is that it’s not even that scary. The screenplay was still based on some of Peter Benchley’s original characters. It’s basically a rehash of the first film, which is based on a series of shark attacks on the fictional island of Amity. I guess you could call this resort something like Long Island which could resemble something you would see in the Caribbean islands.

Roy Scheider returns as Chief Martin Brody, and so do Lorraine Gray as his wife, Ellen, and Murray Hamilton as the Mayor. The remaining cast is mostly consisted of teenagers, making this film feel more like a teen flick, which is what it pretty much plays as. Vincent Canby of “The New York Times” said in his review that the teenagers are, “all of whom look enough alike as to make it virtually impossible to remember which kid has been gobbled up in what sequence. Not that it matters much.” The reason being is that the screaming in this film is so overused that you will not feel any sympathy towards these retards if they got eaten.

Some of the film can be scary, but it has been dropped so low in this sequel that there is no climax that gets built up. It just drags on and on making you feel so bored. Seriously, it feels more like a film that was made specifically for television than for the theaters.

Another mistake that they made is that they decided to show a mechanical shark really early. Canby comments on this by saying, “One of the canny decisions in "Jaws" was the withholding of such visual information until near the end, by which time suspense had overwhelmed logic to such an extent that our imaginations were in league with the movie makers'.” That’s what made “Jaws” so scary because all you saw was the fin for a good majority of the movie. Since the shark is shown really early in “Jaws 2,” you’re not really so scared as you were when watching the first one. Canby says that the shark in “Jaws 2” looks like one of those mechanical sharks used in the “Jaws” Disneyland ride, which I remember going on when I was six. Obviously I was scared because I didn’t know that it was all staged.

Bottom line: this film is not as good as the first. But what do you expect? They are trying to capitalize on the popularity of the first one, and they made this horrible sequel. You would miss Robert Shaw and Richard Dreyfuss from the first movie, since Roy Scheider pretty much plays it solo in this one. I would have to give this film a 5.

Do you really want to continue reading these reviews? Alright, well you asked for it. You’re punishment for reading the reviews of horrible films. Stay tuned tomorrow for the continuation of my “Jaws-a-thon.”