Count Dracula.

Review #1913: Count Dracula.

Cast: 

Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Herbert Lom (Professor Abraham Van Helsing), Klaus Kinski (R.M. Renfield), Frederick Williams (Jonathan Harker), Maria Rohm (Mina Murray), Soledad Miranda (Lucy Westenra), Paul Muller (Dr. John "Jack" Seward), Jack Taylor (Quincey Morris), Jesús Puente (the Minister of Interior), and Franco Castellani (Renfield's Warden) Directed by Jesús Franco.

Review: 

Consider, for a moment, the state of Dracula movies in 1970. I think we can agree there are two actors you can think of when it comes to Count Dracula: Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee. Lee first played the role for Hammer Film Productions in Dracula (1958), which also featured Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. Lee didn't return for The Brides of Dracula (1960), but he would return for the next couple of films with Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966), and Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968). Now here we are in 1970...with Christopher Lee playing the role of the Count in three films (as star, not counting any guest appearances), two of them from Hammer. Taste the Blood of Dracula was released in May while Scars of Dracula was released in November. But we are here to talk about the odd man out: Count Dracula, released in April of 1970 as a production between Spain, Italy, West Germany, Liechtenstein, and the United Kingdom. An experimental film comprised from behind-the-scenes footage from the making of this film (which shows how the effects and sets were designed) was shot in high-contrast black-and-white that was called Cuadecuc, vampir (1971), which was directed by Pere Portabella. Lee would do a few more movies as Dracula, which even included a comedy with Dracula and Son (1976). Oh, but there is one more thing to consider: This was directed by Jesus Franco, a Spanish filmmaker proficient in many, many, many exploitation / B-grade movies (as done in Spain, France, West Germany, Switzerland, and Portugal) who directed from 1959 to 2014 that specialized in sex and sadism in his horror features (for which there are nearly 200 of them), which varied in budget depending on who was his producer. Harry Alan Towers, who he shot nine films for, was the producer on this film, which evidently was presented as a more faithful adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel (incidentally, Towers was behind the production of films that had Lee star as Fu Manchu). Well, at least as faithful as one can be, anyway, because not even the death sequence in the climax matches the book (as opposed to being stabbed with knives...here he dies in a fire). At least Lee's Dracula changes in age throughout the movie. There are a handful of writers: Erich Kröhnke did the story, while Augusto Finocchi and Jesus Franco did the screenplay, but there are others responsible depending on the language version: Harry Alan Towers did the English screenplay, while Dietmar Behnke did the German script and Milo G. Cuccia and Carlo Fadda did the Italian version.

So, when looking at the Dracula movies played by Lee (not counting the comedy), there is an undeniable appeal...it sure is a shame that it is not nearly as good as even the most average Hammer Dracula movie. Imagine being outclassed by Dracula movies that see an atheist-turned Christian lead hero. Well, the movie may be hampered by a low budget when it comes to failing to live to expectations, but the real problem is that the movie is just not exciting enough. It seems too static to go anywhere beyond what might have worked on television than a film experience. Granted, telling a book that is comprised of diaries for a film is hard, but there isn't an interesting perspective to really latch onto here. The 97-minute runtime moves with pale pacing that doesn't have a single striking element beyond just having Lee look slightly more interested to play the role with dialogue than usual. So yes, when viewing performances on a curve, his performances usually reflect the energy of the movie more than anything, which means he is the best part of a dull time despite not being his best portrayal of the character. Lom was apparently cast after Franco's first choice of Vincent Price fell through (my God, could you imagine how Price would have been? Oops, where were we?). Lom is technically a wise choice to counteract Lee as Van Helsing, mildly dignified in what is needed despite a silly script. He may not compare well to say, Peter Cushing (who went 12 years between portrayals), but he does fine in the exposition sequences, even if Lom and Lee don't share a scene on screen together (since heaven forbid both actors be on set at the same time). The core of Williams, Rohm, Miranda, and Muller are not particularly special, and this is a problem when Dracula isn't around for a good chunk of the feature (you know, the time after the Transylvania sequence). Kinski barely has anything to do besides a handful of "weird" moments involving flies and yep, it sure is a shame to be outclassed by Dwight Frye without saying a word. The silliest thing is not Dracula's death but instead a sequence where our characters are being stalked by deadly animals...that are stuffed. At least it makes one a bit complimentary to Francis Ford Coppola trying to do his own "faithful adaptation" of the book 22 years later. In short: Count Dracula may seem more like the book, but it doesn't come close to the exploitative fun that came from the Hammer movies, which means this movie is only worth watching if one is really into seeing Christopher Lee in movies or like cheesy horror movies. Don't take my word for it, Terence Fisher (who directed Lee in the first Dracula film twelve years prior) was quoted as saying “For the first ten minutes I thought, my God, it’s better than mine – and then I thought no it’s not!” I cannot recommend the movie as a good one, but if one really wants to see something with Lee or Franco, well, here is something to bite on if better movies aren't easier to find. A stinker is a stinker, but some stinkers are more fun to write about than others as opposed to actually sitting down and watching it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Happy Halloween, everyone. I hope you have enjoyed the horror reviews in October and enjoy your holiday time....and stay tuned for November.

Doctor Zhivago.

Review #1421: Doctor Zhivago.

Cast: 
Omar Sharif (Dr. Yuri Andreyevich Zhivago), Julie Christie (Lara Antipova), Geraldine Chaplin (Tonya Gromeko), Rod Steiger (Victor Ippolitovich Komarovsky), Alec Guinness (Lieutenant General Yevgraf Andreyevich Zhivago), Tom Courtenay (Pavel "Pasha" Antipov / Strelnikov), Siobhán McKenna (Anna Gromeko), Ralph Richardson (Alexander Maximovich Gromeko), Rita Tushingham (Tanya Komarova), Jeffrey Rockland (Sasha), Bernard Kay (Kuril), and Klaus Kinski (Kostoyed Amoursky) Directed by David Lean (#286 - Lawrence of Arabia)

Review: 
"Secrets are what you confide to people in the dark. I think one of the things we've lost in the cinema is intimacy. Now you see appalling things happening and high excitement, but you rarely get right into people."

If one needed to view an epic drama or romance, one could find a great argument to be made for David Lean. He was born in England to Quaker parents; he had his first experience with watching cinema at thirteen, and receiving a Brownie camera as a gift from his uncle served as a good hobby for him. He found work as an apprentice in his father's accountancy firm, but he found himself more interested in the cinema, and this led to him joining Gaumont Studios in 1927. He served in various roles for the studio such as tea and clapper boy and eventually cutting room assistant. Over the next few years, he would become chief editor at Gaumont British News before shifting to editor on film in 1939. Three years later, playwright Noël Coward gave him a chance to direct with him with the war film In Which We Serve (1942), which served him well in directing further films (which he would do through forming Cineguild Productions with cinematographer Ronald Neame and producer Anthony Havelock-Allan, which lasted from 1944 to 1949), with his next six films being adaptation of plays and novels (three of them being works from Coward), which led to noted movies like Brief Encounter (1945) and Great Expectations (1946). A perfectionist with a tendency for autocratic behavior on set, Lean would make sixteen films in a career of 42 years, receiving plenty of attention for works such as Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), and Lawrence of Arabia (1962, which like this film was written by Robert Bolt), and his final work A Passage to India (1984, which he also wrote and edited).

The film was based on the 1957 novel of the same name by Boris Pasternak, a poet whose work is noted for its long and intricate structure that span over forty years against the backdrop of an evolving Russia in the 20th century (with the poet's views on said transition being the reason for the Soviet Union opposing its publication), and the controversy over the novel meant that it could not be filmed in Russia, with a majority of filming instead being in Spain. The film runs at 200 minutes (after an original length of 197 and a restoration that occurred in the late 1990s) with the intent of something intimately romantic and epic. How much the film accomplishes in that regard is up to the viewer, and there have been plenty who encountered it, since it ranks as one of the highest grossing films of its era (behind fellow 1965 film The Sound of Music), and this film won Academy Awards in art direction, cinematography, screenplay, costume design and score. All of this window-dressing for a film held n some ways as a classic is me trying to figure out exactly why the actual experience for me was just fine at best. Can it be possible to make something that has scope and ambition to tell a long story and yet seem lacking in making a romance epic whole? The words seem to be there, and there is plenty of interesting scenery and set design to go around with acting that is generally convincing, but it doesn't seem as great as it wants to portray itself. It has a sappy seductive power that can either sweep you off your feet or make you struggle to not roll your eyes in where it (theoretically) wants to go. Thrust into a title role is Sharif, an Egyptian actor of numerous British and American productions that had approached Lean about a supporting role but ended up being cast as the lead by Lean. His performance comes off decent, where his expressive eyes seem to try and hide a passive character that has bare chemistry with everything that happens to occur around him. Christie, a British actress who rose to prominence through films like this and Darling (1965), proves adept in generating passion through chemistry with Sharif that gradually builds to something halfway meaningful, a soap opera that mutates itself into trying to be taken seriously. Chaplin, a dancer-turned-model-turned actress in her English-language debut, can only do so much with a doormat type of character, one who generates far more interest in her kindness than the others who is doomed to be the first wheel to fall off the proverbial romantic vehicle. Of the whole cast, it is method icon of volatility in Steiger that proves most interesting, as he commands your attention with his intimidating nature that serves the film well in starting and ending things without becoming too much in blustering for the sake of it. It is nice to see Guinness from time to time, even when serving as a framing device for everything around him. Courtenay rounds things out with composed rebelliousness that serves him well from time to time.

There are tough choices to make for a film like this, and in some ways the film carries those dilemmas with a right touch and other times with a heavy-handed approach. It is like a piece of art that has plenty of color and lines but seems to be missing that central focus to bring it all completely together. It proves no wonder why no one has tried to make a second theatrical adaptation of this work: For one thing, television seems more adept in covering such an expansive work like this, and it might very well be folly to think one can top the highs generated by a film as iconic as this one is - regardless of how it might land for folks like me. It is immensely flawed, but it is nevertheless something to consider as a film for the 1960s worth pondering over, whether for its sweeping images or its gestures of romance that come together for a spectacle that can help lend inspiration to audiences then as before, if one has the patience and understanding for it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Nosferatu the Vampyre.

Review #1292: Nosferatu the Vampyre.

Cast: 
Klaus Kinski (Count Dracula), Isabelle Adjani (Lucy Harker), Bruno Ganz (Jonathan Harker), Roland Topor (Renfield), Walter Ladengast (Dr Abraham Van Helsing), Dan van Husen (Warden), Jan Groth (Harbormaster), Carsten Bodinus (Schrader), and Martje Grohmann (Mina) Written and Directed by Werner Herzog.

Review: 
Horror films can leave an impact on us all. This is especially apparent with the great ones, which can endure in the hearts of curious audiences regardless of any subsequent attempts at remakes or further adaptations. But there are exceptions to this at times, even for films as haunting as F. W. Murnau's Nosferatu (1922). It is evident early on that care and appreciation has been taken by Herzog to make something that stands tall in delivering its own brand of chills that begin with its title character (both versions utilize certain characters from Bram Stoker's book, with the former using composites and this one using four of the character names). It does a tremendous job in making a quality horror film without being tied down to the traditions that banded so many other Dracula films before it.

This success is in part because of its depiction of the character, who is shown with such a striking pallor alongside long fingernails and features reminiscent of a rodent that grabs your attention just as much as the actor playing him, for which Kinski should be commended for. He had to endure four hour long sessions in makeup, with fresh latex ear pieces being made for each day of filming due to destruction of the pieces during their removal. He does a wonderful job in delivering a subdued yet chilling performance, a creature of the night that is as lonesome as he is immortal. He may stalk others with the thirst for blood, but it is a lonely quest that could go forever if he had his way, and Kinski delivers with such pathos that one could almost find him to be playing an antihero. He does have his moments in delivering chills much in the same vein that others had done with the character, but he does it with careful precision that makes for a riveting time. Adjani does just as well, quiet yet graceful in a role that desires it, where one is interested to follow along with her in a film that slowly devolves into madness. Ganz also does well with his material, one who fits the nature of the journey (with accompanying moods that run the gamut of madness) without seeming overshadowed by the other parts of the main trio. Writer-turned-actor Topor is quite right for Renfield, unsettling for whenever necessary with morbid excitement. Ladengast doesn't have as much to do, but he does what is necessary without fail. Undeniably, the music from Popul Vuh (a German collective that fell into genres such as ambient, psychedelic rock, and electronic) plays a great part in heightening the unsettling nature of the film, striking in its composition that consumes the film's soul in darkness. This extends to the camerawork and cinematography by Herzog and Jorg Schmidt-Reitwein, where certain shots from the original 1922 film are re-created, and one must give credit for the location work done in places that range from Czechoslovakia to the Netherlands to Guanajuato, Mexico (more specifically, a museum that houses mummies from a cholera outbreak in the 19th century, which is used for the opening). By the time it reaches its well-done climax, the film has already sealed itself as a morbid charmer for the ages. There were plenty of vampire films to go around for the year of 1979, particularly with a character as lonesome and evil as Dracula, with this being one of five films featuring the character in some way released in that year. The easiest one to note is Universal's updating of Dracula, which also switched the roles of Mina and Lucy around, which marketed itself as a love story with its own rendition of the lonely evil Dracula. In any case, Nosferatu the Vampyre stands tall as a great piece of film, doing wonders in stylistically updating what had been done before with its namesake while standing as an excellent horror film in its own right with delivering chills.

Next Review: Dracula (1979), as part of my feature week, Halloween - The Week After. I couldn't quite get to all of the films I wanted to do for the month despite fourteen reviews, so I decided to extend the horror spotlight until November 7th. 

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: For a Few Dollars More.

Review #019: For a Few Dollars More.

Cast
Clint Eastwood (Manco (the "Man with No Name"), Lee Van Cleef (Colonel Douglas Mortimer), Gian Maria Volontè (El Indio), Mario Brega (Nino, Member of Indio's Gang), Luigi Pistilli (Groggy, Member of Indio's Gang), Aldo Sambrell (Cuchillio), Klaus Kinski (Juan Wild - The Hunchback), Benito Stefanelli (Luke 'Hughie'), and Luis Rodríguez (Manuel, Member of Indio's Gang) Directed by Sergio Leone.

Review
Under further review, it is determined that the Dollars Trilogy (#015, #017, #019) qualify as "World cinema" films due to being released in Italy. As such, they are retroactively the first world cinema films reviewed on Movie Night. Redux Reviews of these movies will happen by the end of this year - 2018.

The film, like the other two in The Dollars Trilogy is a good film with the same good story and acting decent. It's a memorable series that hasn't really aged badly, after 45 years (1964-1966) Not much to say, but that's how it is. I would review Hang 'Em High...but I need to lay off the westerns...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.