1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die- Halloween

#657- Halloween (1978)
Starring: Donald Pleasence, Jamie Lee Curtis, Charles Cyphers
Directed by: John Carpenter


Plot Summary: On Halloween night in 1963, 6-year-old Michael Myers brutally murdered his sister Judith. Fifteen years later, Michael escapes from the hospital he was kept in and makes his way back to his hometown of Haddonfield, Illinois. Michael's psychiatrist Dr. Samuel Loomis is on a desperate pursuit to find Michael and take him back to the hospital before he goes on another killing spree. Michael has returned home and targeted Laurie Strode and her friends for a murderous celebration of the night he came home.


You had to know this was going to be the film I'd choose to close out the month. Halloween is one of the most universally recognizable names in horror for a number of reasons, from its characters to its atmosphere, to the fact that this film was made independently and at a time when the box office was being dominated by big budget blockbusters. I remember Halloween being one of the first horror franchises I ever got interested in, thanks to a marathon airing on TV that took me through most of the original franchise. After seeing all the Halloween films, including the 2007 remake and its sequel, I can easily say that the film had an effect on my life (both good and bad, depending on which Halloween film) as a fan of horror. Because of that, I feel like there is no better way to celebrate Halloween than to talk about Halloween.

The main attraction to Halloween is the creation of Michael Myers, played by Nick Castle (he was played by numerous actors in the first film, but Castle is the most recognized name that played him throughout the film). I would credit Michael Myers for creating the stereotype for many slasher villains to follow, including Jason Voorhees from the Friday the 13th franchise. Myers is a slow moving, mask wearing killer with a knife, the concept is so simple but it paved the way for what many would imagine a slasher villain to be. While the sequels help the viewers understand WHY Michael is targeting Laurie, I think it is much more horrifying in the first film when there were no planned sequels and Michael Myers was just a ruthless killer with no motivations.

Michael's main target in Halloween is Laurie Strode, played by Jamie Lee Curtis. Laurie doesn't have a whole lot to do worth mentioning in terms of the first Halloween film (her character goes through major developments in many of the sequels) except screaming her lungs out. There are many scenes in which all she does is scream, and I think it's some of the most effective screaming I've heard in a horror film. Even if it was her first film, I give Jamie Lee Curtis a lot of credit for giving an audible amount of pain and depth in each of Laurie's screams. After the success of Halloween, Jamie Lee Curtis went on to star in many other cult horror films and garnered the reputation of a "scream queen," following in the footsteps of her mother Janet Leigh, who earned her "scream queen" title from playing Marion Crane in Psycho.

Sam Loomis is Michael's main psychiatrist, played by Donald Pleaseance. When we are not following Michael and Laurie's segments, we are looking at Loomis frantically searching for Michael. It's clear when we see Loomis that a relationship has developed between him and Michael. There's an amazing monologue he gives about his first encounter with Michael, and it is there that Pleaseance gives Loomis a self-knowledge about what Michael truly is, pure evil. Pleasance was a popular name used to attach to this film (other actors considered for the role were Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee), and his performance is one of the best highlights the film, and the entire franchise has to offer.

Halloween has left an indelible imprint on the horror franchise. Without it, it would be rare for a horror franchise to go further than 6 installments, independently made horror films would stand out less at the box office, and we wouldn't have half of the modern horror franchises we have now (Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream, etc.). Whether you feel that the slasher movement was good for the horror genre or not, you have to admit that Halloween was the film that helped start one of the most popular trends in horror history.


Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars.

Halloween introduced some of the most legendary characters in the horror canon and was able to frighten people and popularize the slasher genre, despite a low budget. Not much else I can say, except that I strongly recommend all horror fans owning this film in their collection, and since I'm posting this on October 31, watch it TODAY.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review

Halloween and movie images are copyrighted by Compass International Pictures

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die- Ghostbusters

#739- Ghostbusters (1984)
Starring: Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Sigourney Weaver
Directed by: Ivan Reitman


Plot Summary: Peter Venkman, Raymond Stantz and Egon Spengler are a group of parapsychologists who have recently lost their jobs at Columbia University. After their first encounter with a ghost, the trio establishes a new paranormal exterminator business in an abandoned firehouse, called "Ghostbusters." With more ghosts showing up around New York City, the trio adds Winston Zeddemore as their fourth member, just in time for the Ghostbusters to prepare for their biggest and most dangerous case yet.


Who am I to take a subject with the utmost seriousness? As much as I love the horror genre, I thought there would be room to cover one horror comedy, so I chose Ghostbusters. I wonder if modern audiences actually can fathom how big a hit Ghostbusters was in 1984. The film was number one at the box office for numerous weeks and after a re-release in theaters a year later, it became the most successful comedy of the 1980s. With a reputation like that, Ghostbusters has some important expectations to live up to, including being a comedy that is till funny nearly 30 years later, AND being able to successfully mix the comedy with horror elements.

A great part about the film is that it utilizes different types of comedy for its main characters, including all four Ghostbusters. Ghostbusters mainly follows the character of Dr. Peter Venkman, played by Bill Murray. Murray's brand of sarcasm is what makes Venkman stand out as a unique comedic character, appearing with both a charm and an annoyance to him. Dr. Egon Spengler, played by Harold Ramis, is the group's smartest member, so there is a mad scientist kind of comedy used with his character. He loves all things science and is confident in his element, yet is socially awkward when it comes to other things in life, such as love.

Dan Aykroyd plays Dr. Raymond Stantz. Aykroyd knows how to play off the humor that Murray and Ramis bring. Aykroyd's comedy is more on a naivety and innocence. He has a kind heart and is optimistic for the team, making him arguably the most lovable member of the group. The final Ghostbuster to talk about is Winston Zeddemore, played by Ernie Hudson. While not in the film too long (his character is more explored in Ghostbusters 2), Winston is made enjoyable through Hudson's brand of class and charm (tell me he doesn't make you smile when he says "That's a big Twinkie"). With all four members utilizing different character and comedy types, they're able to have chemistry with the other members in the group and their interactions lead to some of the most memorable and quotable moments of the film.

The comedy doesn't end with the Ghostbusters, as they are supported by a tremendous cast of side characters. There's Walter Peck, played by William Atherton, a lawyer from the EPA determined to prove the Ghostbusters as frauds. Venkman's love interest Dana Barrett, played by Siguorney Weaver, along with the Ghostbusters' secretary Janine Melnitz, played by Annie Potts, are able to hold their own as memorable and interesting female characters in a film with a predominant male cast. But by far, the best side character is Louis Tully, played by Rick Moranis. Louis is Dana's flirtatious neighbor and Moranis plays him with just the right amount of confidence, while also making it painfully aware of how pathetic he is, a great recipe for comedy.

I love the irony of choosing to do Ghostbusters after reviewing Poltergeist. Ghostbusters has the opposite effect Poltergeist has on the main characters. The audience is there primarily to see the Ghostbusters, and the ghosts are an added bonus of entertainment. Knowing how to incorporate the proper elements of comedy in creations like Slimer and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, along with elements of horror in the form of Gozer the Gozerian or the librarian ghost, the monsters that the Ghostbusters have to capture serve as evidence of the film's ability cross the streams of what can be scary and what can be hilarious.


Rating: 4 out of 5 stars.

The popularity that Ghostbusters has had for years is thanks to its ability to bring together some of the biggest names in comedy and put them on-screen to work off one another. The ghosts are just icing on the cake for an already entertaining film. I will give the film a solid recommendation to all fans of comedy, even if you aren't a fan of horror.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review

Ghostbusters and movie images are copyrighted by Columbia Pictures

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die- Poltergeist

#708- Poltergeist (1982)
Starring: Craig T. Nelson, JoBeth Williams, Heather O'Rourke
Directed by: Tobe Hooper


Plot Summary: The Freeling family is enjoying their quiet, suburban lifestyle until one night when their youngest daughter Carol Anne begins talking to "the TV people." Soon after, they begin noticing strange occurrences in the house, culminating with Carol Anne being sucked through her closet into another dimension. Now it is up to the Freeling family, with the help of parapsychologists, to rescue Carol Anne from this strange dimension and flee from their house before they encounter more paranormal interactions.


Here's another Tobe Hooper horror classic to look at. Poltergeist is directed by Hooper and is produced by Steven Spielberg. If you're familiar with Spielberg's filmmaking style, then I'm sure you'll be able to pick out specific examples in Poltergeist, a much more domesticated film environment than Hooper's other famous horror film The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. With Spielberg's name attached, it almost breaks the conventions that the horror genre established, including a cult following and not trying to be a commercial success. Because of that, Poltergeist blurs the lines of what it is marketed at, a Spielberg-like family blockbuster, or a true horror film. While the tones appear to be a bit disjointed, there are some good things to look at in the film.

The film follows the Freeling family, including parents Steven and Diane, played by JoBeth Williams and Craig T. Nelson. For the most part, Williams and Nelson play very concerned and frightened characters about what is going on in their house and around their children. Because of this, the characters appear empathetic, an important factor in getting your audience to like the main characters. But then there are some strange scenes where Steven and Diane are laughing hard, and one scene specifically where they are depicted smoking marijuana. Why? I don't know. Is it ever brought up again? No. Does this moment of character exposition stick out like a sore thumb when looking at the overall film? Absolutely.

Their children are Dana, Robbie, and Carol Anne, played by Dominique Dunne, Oliver Robins and Heather O'Rourke respectively. The kids all do well in what they offer and all have distinct roles for me. Carol Anne is the poster child for the film, with most of the plot centered on rescuing her. Robbie is featured in the film's scariest and memorable moments (which I'll get into in the next paragraph), making him a more memorable victim out of the Freeling family. Dana is the...older one. While I said Dunne did well in what was given to her, I will say that a big critique I have is that she isn't given a lot of screen time to actually leave an impact (outside of Dunne's tragic murder). Think about it, she is the ONLY Freeling family member in the film to not have an iconic scene with one of the spirits, such a shame.

The Freeling family isn't what the people came to see though. If you're going to watch a film called Poltergeist, you should be expecting to experience a house filled with spirits haunting everything around the Freeling family. Don't expect to see floating ghosts with the appearance of a white bed sheet, as these ghosts possess numerous objects to create a different kind of ghost story that the audience had never seen before, executed through Spielberg's synonymous use of top notch special effects. From a giant tree, to a clown doll, to a scene that will make you want to NEVER eat chicken or steak again, to even early scenes where the activity is whimsical and enchanting, the ghosts can offer experiences that range from the spiritual to the paranormal (there is a difference, look it up).

There's an infamous behind the scenes myth that is centered on a scene near the end of the film, involving the use of skeletons. Supposedly, real skeletons were used instead of replicas in an attempt to cut costs on props. Because of this, many have placed that scene as the cause for the Poltergeist curse, which is derived from the fact that four cast members died between the filming of Poltergeist and its sequels, including Dunne only a few months after the release of the first film, and O'Rourke at the age of 12 during the filming of Poltergeist III. Whether the curse is real or merely coincidental, many were spooked enough to believe that Poltergeist would never be remade. However, a remake has been scheduled for a 2015 release and all I can say to the cast and crew is USE PROPS.


Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars.

Poltergeist is a film that I refer to as a "spot fest," meaning that there are some well done and memorable scenes in the film, but it requires sitting through some drawn out scenes as well. The effects and cultural impact it had is enough for me to recommend that it be seen by all horror fans at least once, but probably as a rental.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review

Poltergeist and movie images are copyrighted by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Warner Bros.

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die- The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

#609- The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)
Starring: Marilyn Burns, Jim Siedow, Gunnar Hansen
Directed by: Tobe Hooper


Plot Summary: Siblings Sally and Franklin Hardesty are traveling with their friends Jerry, Kirk and Pam to visit the grave site of the Hardesty's grandfather. After having a dangerous run in with a hitchhiker, the group finds that they are low on gas and continue on their trip. Looking for help, they stumble upon a house occupied by Leatherface, a mask wearing, chainsaw wielding psychopath who begins picking off Sally's friends one by one.


When it comes to mainstream horror films I wanted to cover for this month, particularly in the slasher genre, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was one of the films I wanted to see most. Usually looked at for being controversial at the time (I've been using that phrase a lot this month, but then again, it is the horror genre), the film laid the ground work for what slashers like Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers would be able to bring to the genre, while also giving the audience a natural form of fear that many modern audiences probably wouldn't pick up on while looking at what is commonly known about the series.

The selling point of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is the introduction of Leatherface, played by Gunnar Hansen. Leatherface is not used as much as people would think (in fact, even the chainsaw is not used that much, despite what the title would suggest), as there is more of a focus on many terrifying events the group has to encounter on the road. Leatherface is the most memorable aspect of the film though because of his look and how he acts in comparison to other slasher villains. While he wears a mask, he is not some indestructible force, but rather a large, intimidating phenom that can impose his strength on his victims. Also, he wears a mask made of human skin and chases you with a chainsaw, now that's someone I would never want chasing me...just saying.

Marilyn Burns plays Sally Hardesty, our female protagonist. Sally doesn't get a whole lot of depth to her, more or less blending into the group. She doesn't really come into the forefront of the characters until the rest of them begin disappearing. The best scenes featuring Burns is when Sally is fleeing from Leatherface, screaming her lungs out and really capturing the fear someone would have if they were in her situation. I often wondered whether the reaction I was seeing was Sally reacting to Leatherface or Burns reacting to the man in the mask wielding the chainsaw. Either way, you'd probably run and scream like that too, making it seem all the more realistic to see and hear.

While Leatherface is the main character in this franchise, the first film offers an even greater form of horror in a surreal aspect of having a film inspired by true events. The film was marketed as an actual story that took place (that's somewhat true, the film was inspired by Ed Gein), and even the way the film is shot gives the idea that this could be real. The footage shown to us looks like something out of a documentary and the cast interactions seem much more natural than reading from a scripted dialogue. The horror really comes out at the end of the film (particularly the last 30 minutes, which I will NOT spoil), where Sally encounters horrific events that no audience member would want to experience, and the fear stays with the audience at the thought that they COULD happen.


Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

The horror genre owes a lot to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. It took the slasher genre that was introduced through earlier films and helped popularize and modernize it for horror films to follow its patterns. I recommend that all horror fans should see, and even own the film in your collection.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and movie images are copyrighted by Bryanston Pictures

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die- The Exorcist

#592- The Exorcist (1973)
Starring: Ellen Burstyn, Jason Miller, Max von Sydow
Directed by: William Friedkin


Plot Summary: In Northern Iraq, archeologist and priest Father Lankester Merrin discovers that Pazuzu, a powerful demon has returned to this world. Pazuzu possesses the body of a young girl named Regan McNeil, the daughter of actress Chris McNeil. Concerned for her daughter's life, Chris goes to young priest Damien Karras, who has recently lost his faith in God, for help and it is up to Karras and Merrin to perform an exorcism and expel the demon out of Regan's body.


Before the '70s, most horror films had to be out for a while before gaining popularity through what most movie buffs call a "cult following." Yet, here comes a film like The Exorcist that is considered a financial and critical success, gets nominated for numerous film awards and is often referred to as the scariest film of all time. With so many horror films out there, it's hard for me to say if I think it is the scariest of all time. But I will say that my most recent viewing of The Exorcist does help me understand why so many others were frightened and horrified with the film when it was released 40 years ago.

Throughout the month, we've looked at vampires, werewolves and zombies, but in The Exorcist, our monster is a little girl as a demon possesses the body of Regan McNeil, played by Linda Blair. We're made to like Regan thanks to her scenes with her mother Chris, played by Ellen Burstyn. I don't think any audience member would say this girl deserves what's happening to her and we would like to see her get help, but from a distance. Regan is really made to suffer and Blair does an amazing job of seeming helpless as Regan, and downright mean and scary as playing Regan when she's possessed by the demon Pazuzu (yes, I know that name sounds a bit silly).

In order to save Regan, she must have an exorcism, performed by Father Lankester Merrin and Father Damien Karras, played by Max von Sydow and Jason Miller respectively. I think when most people think of the exorcism scene, most remember von Sydow as Merrin, but he's actually only the film for the first and last bits of the film. The priest we follow for most of the film is Karras, who I think was the most interesting character as he plays a man of God who has lost his faith. You see scenes of Damien with his elderly mother that really help humanize him and when he speaks on his beliefs, he is able to draw empathy from the audience.

For a film that came out 40 years ago, it is a film to marvel at for its innovative and often shocking effects. From the shaking bed, to the spider-walk, to Regan's slow transformation as Pazuzu possesses her, each effect bends reality for the audience. I know many times I had to remind myself that the girl was not really possessed, that it was wire work for levitation scenes, or mechanics for the bed, or makeup for the demon. There are many times in films where I am a bit of a snob at pointing out obvious special effects (see my review of Avatar), so when a film comes along and actually has me in amazement of the effects, that's quite a compliment to the film.

So, is The Exorcist the scariest film of all time? I don't think I'll go that far, but I will say as far as scary movies go, it is VERY well made and should be regarded as a classic and even a superior film in the horror genre. Upon my viewing, I could figure out what scared audiences 40 years ago. The film was controversial for its vulgar language, shocking visuals and, of course, using religion as a theme for a mainstream horror film. As an enthusiast for film analysis and discussion, that is why I really like this film, because it knew all the right lines to cross and was able to draw just as much controversy as it did critical acclaim, meaning whether you liked the film or didn't, you had an opinion about it.


Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

This horror classic is a great combination of groundbreaking practical and makeup effects with a powerful plot worthy of film discussion and debate from even the most conservative of viewers. I recommend that all fans of horror should see The Exorcist once, if you've got the stomach for it.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review

The Exorcist and movie images are copyrighted by Warner Bros.

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die- Night of the Living Dead

#507- Night of the Living Dead (1968)
Starring: Duane Jones, Judith O'Dea, Karl Hardman
Directed by: George A. Romero


Plot Summary: In rural Pennsylvania, a series of mass murders are taking place in which the deceased are being reanimated and begin feasting on human flesh. Barbara is saved from an attack from the living dead by Ben and they barricade themselves in what they think is an abandoned house, but it is actually occupied by Harry Cooper, his wife Helen and their daughter Karen, and a teenage couple Tom and Judy. Mass hysteria ensues as it becomes a struggle to see if they can survive the night with each other and the group of living dead trying to break into the house.


When it comes to horror films, one of the most profitable sub-genres is the zombie flick. And of the zombie flicks, no name is more famous than George A. Romero, creator of the ...of the Dead movies. With a recent resurgence of the zombie craze, including one of my favorite shows The Walking Dead, I thought it would be appropriate to cover arguably one of the most recognized zombie films of all time, Night of the Living Dead.

At the time of the film's release, one of the more potentially controversial aspects of the film was its African American protagonist Ben, played by Duane Jones. Ben is the kind of character you would want to be with during a zombie movie, as I felt he showed the most competence of the group. He's unsure of what is going on, but knows what he should do in order to survive. By today's standards, Ben would be a very stale character and by today's horror standards, Ben would die first (I'M JUST SAYING...), but at the time, he was a different kind of character audiences were not used to, regardless of the color of his skin.

Barbara, played by Judith O'Dea, is ANNOYING. Most of Barbara's screen time is used to either scream at everything or lie down in shock. Since the film's release, Barbara has received major criticism for being catatonic and helpless during most of the film. And considering that this is the main female protagonist, that is REALLY bad and not engaging, at all.

Surprisingly, Night of the Living Dead does not follow the general ideas most modern fans of zombie films would expect to see. The "zombies" are referred to as the living dead and do not have a decaying, discolored skin that we would see on something like The Walking Dead. Instead, George A. Romero created a unique look for the living dead by adding dark makeup under the eyes and giving them a slow, haunting stride as they are stalking their prey, as well as filming the movie in black and white, giving it the look of a classic horror film. Romero's take on zombies would change throughout the years, but it is with Night of the Living Dead that Romero was able to popularize the zombie sub-genre.


Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

This film is VERY tame by today's standards, but at the time was very controversial and horrifying to viewers. Night of the Living Dead did set the precedent for all future zombie films and because of that, I will recommend that every fan of horror should rent the film and watch it at least once.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review

Night of the Living Dead and movie images are copyrighted by The Walter Reade Organization

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die- Psycho

#378- Psycho (1960)
Starring: Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, John Gavin
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock


Plot Summary: Marion Crane plans to embark on her new life with her boyfriend Sam Loomis. Marion embezzles 40 thousand dollars from her workplace and leaves town. A terrible rainstorm leads her off the road looking for a motel to stay in when she comes across the Bates Motel and its proprietor, Norman Bates, who discusses many things with Marion including his relationship with his mother.


It's about time I've tackled an Alfred Hitchcock film. And since it is a month to celebrate horror films, Psycho is an appropriate choice for both. When it comes to what is often looked at as one of the most influential films of all time, there was some stuff about it that I absolutely loved, and even a few things that I found extremely grating. Nevertheless, by the end of my viewing experience I couldn't ignore that Psycho was going to be one of those films that I would be talking about for a very long time.

My favorite part in the film was watching Anthony Perkins portray Norman Bates. The best part about Bates was that he is really able to make the crowd empathize with him upon his introduction. When we hear of his problems concerning his mother, we really feel sorry for the guy. Throughout the rest of the scenes, Norman's behavior and tone is constantly changing back and forth and Norman finds himself always pulling himself back to the kind, yet awkward character that we were introduced to. It's moments like that that really make Bates stand out in the film...and that's all I can really say about him without spoiling MOST of the movie.

One of the only problems I have with Psycho is the main protagonist Marion Crane, played by Janet Leigh. The biggest problem I have with Marion is in her actions of embezzling money from work to start her new life with her boyfriend, whom she's had to sneak around with during work breaks. There's scenes in which Leigh is having to sneak around trying to avoid being suspicious, but the problem I have with the scenes is that she is really not keeping a low profile, which makes one wonder how she wasn't caught or arrested sooner. Marion obviously plays an important part in the film, but I can't help but look at her and feel like she's a tad on the incompetent side.

Of course, I don't think I could talk about Psycho without talking about "the shower scene." Even if you haven't seen the movie, you know this scene inside and out because it is one of the most famous and well recognized scenes in film history. There are so many aspects about this scene that you could dissect and analyze for hours, from the shock value of when it takes place on film, to the innovative camera and lighting techniques, to those iconic violin strings. Even if the scene only lasts a few minutes, it left such an indelible imprint on viewers that people probably STILL look over their shoulder while taking a shower, over 40 years later.

Despite the use of color technology being available, Alfred Hitchcock decided to film it in black and white, which really gives the film the look of a "classic" horror film from the Universal Monster era. I would never go as far as to say it's definitely his best work (there are a LOT of his films that could be up for debate on that subject), but I do know that Psycho is a film that strongly represents why Alfred Hitchcock was known as The Master of Suspense, as he directed possibly the greatest suspense thriller of all time, and certainly his most well-known film.


Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

This film is definitive Alfred Hitchcock, definitely one of his best. The horror genre and film in general owe a lot to this film and I would recommend Psycho for everyone and their mother to check out at least once.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review

Psycho and movie images are copyrighted by Universal Pictures and Paramount Pictures

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die- The Wolf Man

#153: The Wolf Man (1941)
Starring: Lon Chaney, Jr., Claude Rains, Evelyn Ankers
Directed by: George Waggner


Plot Summary: After hearing about his brother's death, Larry Talbot returns home to visit his estranged father. While home, Larry becomes romantically involved with Gwen Conliffe, a woman who helps run the local antique shop. After trying to rescue one of Gwen's friends from a wolf attack, Larry is bitten by the creature. Larry learns that the wolf that bit him was actually a werewolf, and that he is now cursed to become a wolf at night.


Closing out my look at the classic Universal Monster films is The Wolf Man. Is it a scary film? No. Does it live up for its time? Not really. Does it have any redeeming qualities to it? Yes, it does actually. While it may not be a "scary" movie anymore, I'm sure it frightened viewers in 1941, and I think there's some good stuff to acknowledge when talking about a film that not only set the standard for werewolf films, but also created a movie monster that is ranked up there with Lugosi as Dracula and Karloff as The Monster.

Lon Chaney, Jr. plays the tragic protagonist, Larry Talbot. Chaney, Jr. is able to give Talbot the right amount of empathy that the audience can identify with. Talbot is also given plenty of relationships to develop throughout the film, from his relationship with his estranged father, played by Claude Rains, to his relationship with Gwen Conliffe, played Evelyn Ankers. No matter the character he's interacting with, because he is made likable, the audience is able to root for Talbot to succeed in whatever he is given as a character, especially hopeful that Talbot can break the curse of being a werewolf.

While Talbot is an important aspect of the film, he's not the main attraction. The effects used to create The Wolf Man are some of the most memorable makeup effects in film history. While the look is iconic, many other werewolf films have created scarier looks and I often felt that Chaney looked more like a dog than a wolf. Obviously due to the technology at the time, the transformation scene only shows Talbot's legs and feet changing into The Wolf Man, but it is still a great effect. It might surprise people, but The Wolf Man also doesn't appear on screen for long periods of time, as the film focuses more on Talbot, which could possibly disappoint first time viewers.

The Wolf Man goes for a traditional form of the Universal Monster films, filling out many cliches that are in the horror genre of the '30s and '40s. What is added to the film that does help it stand out is a story about "the monster within." Talbot's battle with wanting to break his curse of being The Wolf Man echoes many tones of a psychological thriller. I would have preferred if we didn't know until the end of the film if he was actually a werewolf, or if he was insane. The question is solved around the middle of the film, but I feel it would have benefited towards the end, as it would have really helped this Universal Monster film stand out as something really unique and different from films like Dracula and Frankenstein.


Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

The Wolf Man has some very good acting performances, but they aren't memorable in the horror canon, in my opinion. The driving force of the film is Lon Chaney, Jr. as Lawrence Talbot and The Wolf Man. I'll give it a mild recommendation to horror fans wanting to watch a classic Universal Monster movie.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review

The Wolf Man and movie images are copyrighted by Universal Pictures

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die- Dracula

#60- Dracula (1931)
Starring: Bela Lugosi, Edward Van Sloan, Dwight Frye
Directed by: Tod Browning


Plot Summary: Renfield makes a trip to Transylvania in order to speak business with Count Dracula. Renfield seems confused as to why the townspeople are in fear of Dracula, until he stays the night in his castle. Count Dracula is a vampire, who hypnotizes and attacks Renfield to be his slave and help him travel to England. In England, Renfield is declared insane and sent to a sanitarium, leading Dracula to his newest group of victims to prey on.


Looking at classic horror flicks, not many get more iconic than Dracula. While there have been many films about vampires (too many, in my opinion), many would regard the 1931 Universal film as a standard for all vampire films. After watching it for the first time, I felt that it had aspects to it that were worth remembering, but not a lot of it had aged well. The underlying question while going through the film was if I thought the film was scary and finding out what made it scary back then and what could keep it scary for modern audiences.

Of course, no one could talk about this film without talking about Bela Lugosi as Count Dracula. Lugosi reached iconic status in horror thanks to his contribution of playing the most recognized vampire portrayal ever. His voice was the inspiration for numerous homages and parodies of the character, and his presence is commanding throughout the film. One film technique I really enjoyed was the attention focused on his eyes. Today, we can look at it as just shining light near the eyes, but in 1931, I'm sure the effect was very unsettling.

Professor Van Helsing is played by Edward Van Sloan. Van Sloan does an alright job with what he has, but he doesn't really get to do a whole lot. The dynamic he has with Dracula in this film is more based on intellect, instead of vampire-slaying action. The role is a little too plain for my taste and his acting can range on the awkward with some of his line delivery. While he is a famous character, Van Helsing can be grouped with how I feel about most of the other supporting characters, with their acting ranging on bland and forgettable.

One of the more noteworthy performances was Renfield, played by Dwight Frye. Frye is really able to play two different forms of Renfield, a quiet and more reserved businessman in the beginning of the film, and a mindless servant of Dracula for the rest of the film. Dwight Frye is really able to sell his insanity with the use of his wide eyes, long smile and terrifying laugh. Aside from Lugosi, Frye is the only other performance that left a good lasting impression on me.

While I felt Lugosi and Frye gave good performances, I wouldn't say they were scary or nightmare inducing. Sure they were creepy, but for me, they aren't the selling point of the film's horror element. The sets in this film, particularly Dracula's castle provide a very haunting atmosphere that allows the viewer to be pulled into a mystical and chilling environment. There is so much attention to detail with the castle, from its winding staircases to the spider webs strewn throughout the entrance way, it really is able to paint the perfect atmosphere for a horror film that is both Gothic and romantic in its presentation.


Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

This is arguably the most famous vampire film of all time and should be recognized as a cornerstone in the horror department. Dracula gets a mild recommendation to all horror fans that should check it out for Lugosi's iconic performance.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review

Dracula and movie images are copyrighted by Universal Pictures

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die- Bride of Frankenstein

#97- Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
Starring: Boris Karloff, Colin Clive, Ernest Thesiger
Directed by: James Whale


Plot Summary: Dr. Henry Frankenstein's monstrous creation is still alive and is looking for refuge and acceptance from society. At the same time, Dr. Frankenstein has also survived their encounter at the windmill and is now focusing on his fiancee Elizabeth, believing that his creation perished in the fire. A new mad scientist, Dr. Pretorius, has arrived and wants Henry to help him create a mate for The Monster. Not wanting to repeat his mistakes, Henry refuses only for Pretorius to unveil that The Monster is alive, and has learned many new tricks. With Elizabeth's life threatened by The Monster, Henry has no choice but to create another life.


When I reviewed Frankenstein last year, I had felt like I dropped the ball on not following up on it with a review of its sequel, Bride of Frankenstein. I think now would be an appropriate enough time to share my thoughts on it. When discussed, Bride of Frankenstein is normally referred to as not only one of the greatest horror sequels of all time, but is often thought of as better than the first film. I don't think I'd go as far as to say that it's better than Frankenstein, but I will say its on par with the first film, and that it is a one of the better horror sequels I've seen. However, like the first film, I did enjoy Bride of Frankenstein, but I do have some issues with it that can't be ignored.

Boris Karloff returns as The Monster, his most iconic role. Karloff is given a lot more to do in this film, such as actually speaking. Thanks to a very famous scene where he interacts with a blind man, The Monster is able to feel a part of society, which is his main objective. Karloff knows how to play to The Monster's sympathy, allowing the audience to really feel bad for him when the villagers won't accept him. His motivations for wanting a mate and the lengths he goes to ensure he gets what he wants are not considered evil by the audience, but rather we can empathize with The Monster and know that he is beyond desperate to feel like everyone else. The scenes where Karloff can draw empathy from the viewers are some of the more memorable moments of the film, and even a tad unconventional of what you'd expect from the "traditional" Universal monster movies of the era.

One of my biggest disappointments with the film is that I felt there was a lack of development in Dr. Henry Frankenstein, played by Colin Clive. With new characters and story arcs introduced, I could understand James Whale putting some of his characters off to the wayside, but not the MAIN CHARACTER from his first film. Clive is good with what he is given, but I felt there could have been more for him to do. This film focuses more on a redemptive quality to Frankenstein, as he's only forced to create another monster when the life of his love Elizabeth, played by Valerie Hobson, is threatened. It is easier to relate and sympathize with Frankenstein here thanks, as we know he does not WANT to create another monster, as he's learned from the events of the previous film.

The Bride of Frankenstein is played by Elsa Lanchester. The Bride...has no character development. She is a plot device, not a character, and she is only on screen for the last five minutes of the film. She screams, hisses, and has a funny, yet iconic, hairdo. Moving on...

Dr. Pretorius, played by Ernest Thesiger, is my favorite part of this film. He takes over as the mad doctor role and really ends up stealing the whole show. Thesiger really knows how to play Pretorius as being intelligent, yet dementedly insane at the same time. He just has many character quips that he has where the audience would look and say "whoa, that's different." There's a particularly famous scene where Pretorius is sitting in a crypt to eat and ends up toasting a SKULL, then The Monster shows up and Pretorius just says "Good Evening." You can tell through a scene like that that Pretorius is difficult to scare and has a bizarre fascination with all things spooky.

When it comes to the horror genre, sequels are normally regarded as cheap rehashings of their original films. However, Bride of Frankenstein is a rare exception where the film not only tries to pick up right where the first one ended, but also attempts to raise the stakes, give us new characters that are able to leave a lasting impression, and develop themes and moments that allow the viewer to sit back and really think about what they've seen. It even has its own reputation as a significant film in the horror canon, not just a sequel to a significant film. It is widely considered to be better than Frankenstein, but I think I'd go in the middle and say it does a great job of living up to the standard set by its predecessor.


Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

While I wouldn't say it's better than the first film, Bride of Frankenstein does offer a lot of good aspects fans of horror can appreciate, including the introduction of Dr. Pretorius and further development of The Monster's human aspects. If you enjoyed Frankenstein, I recommend checking out Bride of Frankenstein to see a horror sequel that lives up to its predecessor.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review

Bride of Frankenstein and movie images are copyrighted by Universal Pictures

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die- The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

#6- The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
Starring: Werner Krauss, Conrad Veidt, Friedrich Fehér
Directed by: Robert Wiene


Plot Summary: Francis begins telling an elderly friend a story from his past, involving how he met his wife Jane in his home village of Holstenwall. They visit a carnival with a new exhibit from the mysterious Dr. Caligari. Caligari's act involves the hypnosis of a somnambulist named Cesare. Francis and Jane begin investigating Caligari and Cesare, under suspicion that they are responsible for the recent series of deaths in Holstenwall, unaware that Caligari knows of their investigation and has ordered Cesare to kill Jane.


For the month of October, I'm going to do something a little different than my conventional structure of having a review up only on Thursdays. Since October is the month of Halloween, I will be giving my thoughts on 11 horror movies spanning the various decades and eras of the genre, making it roughly a review every 3 days. Starting my look at the horror genre is a silent film from Germany, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, a horror film that I will argue still holds up as a scary movie with modern audiences. 

The strongest element the film has to offer is in its creepy settings and images. Since it's a silent movie, the sets and images have to be the main form of communicating the story and plot. The main story is told through flashbacks and gives us wonderful settings that are full of distorted and misshapen set pieces, giving it the look of a dreamlike world. Many might feel that with no sound, it isn't scary (considering that most modern horror movies rely on jump scares and loud sounds to create "horror"), but it honestly helps. With no one talking and no loud sounds to tell me what's scary, I find that I am mesmerized by the images and that creates the feeling of horror. The images are THAT creepy to look at that sound is not needed to tell the viewer that it is supposed to be scary, and while there is music that accompanies the version of the film I saw, it does not feel out of place and is able to carry the idea of the horror presented to the other senses.

The duo of Dr. Caligari and Cesare are played by Werner Krauss and Conrad Veidt, respectfully. They play the typical master and servant relationship, yet are able to stand out my mind as a top horror duo. Without using words, I found myself creeped out by their eyes. Cesare obviously has a decent amount of makeup under his eyes to allow them to stand out, but there's something about Caligari's face and eyes that illicit an eerie response from myself as a viewer. When Francis and Jane are investigating the duo, without them actually being on screen, you can still feel the haunting presence that at any time, Caligari and Cesare could show up. Now THAT is scary.

Besides being a prime example of German Expressionist movement in film, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari also has numerous contributions to film. It is often credited as the film that introduced the twist ending to cinema (and no, I won't spoil it). The character and concept of Cesare could be looked at as a predecessor to not only the Frankenstein monster, but also to the zombie genre of horror films. Considering that it's a film that was made in Germany, it is very interesting to see it grow in popularity with mainstream film audiences around the world, making The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari one of the most important films in the silent era of cinema.


Rating:  4 out of 5 stars.

At only an hour and eleven minutes, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is able to convey a story of terror that is able to hold up to this day. The imagery allows the viewer to feel like THEY are the ones in the hypnotic state and it is often recognized as one of the first horror films. I strongly recommend it to all fans of horror and silent films.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review 

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and movie images are copyrighted by Goldwyn Distributing Company