Leaderboard

I love technology. I recently watched an 82-year-old movie, The Goldwyn Follies, and it was almost as clear as if it had been filmed yesterday! Between the 55-inch TV and the HD streaming, it was a pleasure to watch. (The movie was so-so but oh well.) EDIT: Yes, it had to have been remastered to be so clear. I like The Scarlet Pimpernel, made in 1934, and that's muddy as all get out. A private YouTube video is below. https://youtu.be/vyM2cwIdfew

Haven't seen this movie since it was in theaters in 2014, but I liked it a lot at the time. I thought Kent showed great control over the cinematic form (lots of smart show-don't-tell visual storytelling) and that the metaphor was well delivered under the horror surface: the monster is the stress of being a widowed single mother (maybe it doesn't even exist!), and you "defeat" it by learning to live with it, not by killing it. So it's really good, but I'm a no vote because (1) it's still pretty new and (2) I'm not sure if this is really the best Jennifer Kent can do. She might have an even better masterpiece coming down the line, and this is her Mean Streets or something. The Nightingale also had some pretty impressive filmmaking going on. I'm also now realizing I saw this before becoming a parent, so it might resonate differently upon rewatch.

While I think Frankenstein is a better horror movie, I think Bride is a better film in general. But Universal monsters needs a place - there are just too many horror film tropes it spawns. As mentioned upthread, Young Frankenstein is almost a complete recreation of Son of Frankenstein - same exact plot, characters, the Inspector with the artificial arm, etc. Watch Son, then Young Frankenstein. YF copies some scenes from F and Bride (the child, the blind man etc), but the plot is SOF. It's like watching Zero Hour then Airplane. Glad to see the theme of Frankenstein wanting to create life while ignoring his wife -- while ignoring the very thing which naturally allows him/them to actually create life. Also, the theme in the book is about not escaping the results of our prying into natures secrets, not "secrets we were not meant to meddle with" which is one of the film's themes. Yes, we can create life, built an atomic bomb, clone dinosaurs etc - but they don't go away.

Are you sure he meant roosters?

Heeeeeeere's Johnny!

Another One of my favorite lines—that goes by so fast it’s easy to miss— as Micky is desperately looking for Mitch:”Is there a cockfighting ring nearby?” the image of Eugene Levy as that depressed character on a downward trajectory that involves cockfights ...that’s some funny shit!

If you happen to be a fan of Prince and The Muppets, have I got a treat for you! I vividly watching it when it first aired but haven't seen it since. https://youtu.be/t_Xq-mUlq5o

The Thing(1982) John Carpenter classic with Kurt Russell at the top of his game. Also great practical effects!

A couple months back, a bunch of us forum folks watched and discussed Purple Rain, and something that struck me watching that movie, and something that continues in Cherry Moon, is that Prince seemed to be completely unafraid of coming off as the bad guy in movies that centered around him. This is especially evident in Purple Rain where his character, The Kid, is extremely flawed and problematic. I think it would be tempting for a musician at the height of their fame to want to be portrayed on film as a sort of idealized version of themselves, and I find it absolutely fascinating that Prince was unafraid to play the more unsavory characters and allow his co-stars to play the moral centers. Similarly, as discussed in the podcast, I always think it's endearing when celebrities allow themselves to come off as goofballs. Especially for someone like Prince dabbles with artifice. It's an interesting juxtaposition to see someone who is both acutely aware of their carefully calculated image and also doesn't really seem to care if that image is slightly tarnished. Honestly, the more I think about Prince, the more I like him.

I just want it known I will pay double for a book with purple paper? Also this now makes me think of that scene in Legally Blonde with Else's resume which is pink and scented!

I think some representation of the Universal monsters belongs as part of the film canon. At the very least in horror film canon. Their influence on horror is massive. There are some great horror movies that predate this, but none of them seem to have the reach they did. Maybe it's because other movies of the day aren't kind of packaged together as a thing. If Dracula or Frankenstein were completely on their own, they would have been big but maybe not as big.

The 1910 Frankenstein isn't lost! You can watch the whole thing here: If another person corrects you for calling the monster Frankenstein and says: "Frankenstein is not the monster, he's the doctor," you can correct that person right back, because in the book, Victor is not a doctor at all. He's a student of chemistry and does not get his doctorate. The Adam thing is from the book, where the monster says to Frankenstein: "I ought to be thy Adam." (He talks a lot in the book.) "Burgomasters" or "burgermeisters" still exist. In the English-speaking world, they're now called mayors. Young Frankenstein arguably takes most of its plot and characters from Son of Frankenstein, which is also the first movie in which Frankenstein has an assistant named Igor, brilliantly played by Bela Lugosi. They were so sure they wanted Lugosi for the role of the monster in the 1931 movie, they even had a poster made with his name on it. Though the artist didn't seem to know what Lugosi looked like, nor what the story of Frankenstein was about. Still an awesome poster.