The Return of the Vampire.

Review #2260: The Return of the Vampire.

Cast: 

Bela Lugosi (Armand Tesla), Nina Foch (Nicki Saunders), Roland Varno (John Ainsley), Frieda Inescort (Lady Jane Ainsley), Miles Mander (Sir Fredrick Fleet), Matt Willis (Andreas Obry), Ottola Nesmith (Elsa Walter), Gilbert Emery (Dr. Walter Saunders), Leslie Denison (Detective Lynch), and William Austin (Detective Gannett) Directed by Lew Landers.

Review: 

Believe it or not, I actually was trying to find time to do this film for quite a few years. Sure, it probably doesn't sound like much, what with the title being probably the most generic one could ever do...but it is Bela Lugosi playing a vampire again. Sure, Mark of the Vampire (as directed by Tod Browning in 1935) had you going with the idea of Lugosi as a lead vampire (until that twist), but, well, here you get the real deal. This is for a movie that is basically a discount version of Dracula (1931), complete with a subservient person that, uh, turns into a wolf. It was released by Columbia Pictures, who could be efficient in cheap B-moviemaking, which is probably evident pretty quickly here, complete with select stock footage shots (the climax involves WWII footage, take a guess what that means). The film was written by Randall Faye and Griffin Jay based on an idea by Kurt Neumann; Faye was a regular writer (and sometimes director) on plenty of cheap features from 1926 until he died in 1948. The movie was directed by Lew Landers, who actually had a handful of experience in horror as a journeyman director, as he went from actor to assistant director by the early 1920s before becoming a director of pretty much anything and anywhere, such as The Raven (1935), which also featured Lugosi as star (Landers would then shift over to TV by the 1950s prior to his death in 1962). It wasn't quite the last time Lugosi played a vampire, but further efforts were, well, comedies such as Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) and Mother Riley Meets the Vampire (1952). The movie was released in the same year as Universal's Son of Dracula and ended up being a decent hit.

You have to remember that Lugosi was basically typecasted after the success of Dracula (1931), particularly because of his Hungarian accent (of course by that time he was a naturalized US citizen). He couldn't get that many starring roles unless it involved horror or being with studios beyond Universal Studios. Chronic sciatica (and taking drugs to treat it that left him addicted) did not help matters for an actor that was relegated to doing stuff for studios such as Monogram Pictures. This was one of those rare times in the 1940s where he could actually do something as a star for a name studio, and I think he handled it confidently enough to make one want to see it as more than just a cheap Dracula imitation. Lacking the elegance befitting of the older film for something more akin to a creature of the night, he carries the film when required to do so to go with a movie that is generally paced well enough to let things go where they need to without overextending itself. Sure, it was made during the war, but there sure is something to making a vampire feature involving "bombing raids" with complete seriousness for a runtime of 69 minutes. Inescort and Mander prove suitable presences to do the investigative aspects required (the "vampire pursuit" is a bit cheekier when you consider the ending is addressing the audience!). Foch plays the object of pursuit patiently enough to make one go with the usual flow. Willis doesn't exactly have the werewolf makeup do him many favors, but the dilemma of a once-devotee is at least semi-compelling enough to view in the lens of trouble and toil to be free. I kind of like the idea of having a vampire tale told in two different war-time settings (the opening quarter of the film involves Emery and Inescort during 1918 putting a stake in the vampire only to inspire questions about putting a stake in a "living" person 25 years later!), complete with the vampire trying to impersonate a concentration camp escapee. It is the kind of brazen horror film that one can appreciate even as a clearly average movie, and the fact that Lugosi was there to lead the way rather than be trapped by a hokey foundation is a worthwhile thing to say when recommending a decent way to start the horror season.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Welcome to October. It probably won't be as busy as last year's extravagant event, but we will try to cover plenty of new ground in horror, whether that involves sequels long awaited or remakes to go along with new directors and familiar ones. For example, the next review is Macabre and the one after that...is Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III.

An American in Paris.

Review #986: An American in Paris.

Cast: 
Gene Kelly (Jerry Mulligan), Leslie Caron (Lise Bouvier), Oscar Levant (Adam Cook), Georges Guétary (Henri "Hank" Baurel), Nina Foch (Milo Roberts), and Eugene Borden (Georges Mattieu) Directed by Vincente Minnelli (#405 - The Reluctant Debutante, #510 - Father of the Bride, #620 - Lust for Life, and #878 - The Long, Long Trailer)

Review: 
This was inspired by the 1928 orchestral composition of the same name by George Gershwin; I can't say I've done many movies based off a orchestral piece before, and I also can't say that they also have a 17-minute dance included as the climax either. In any case, this is a fine film, with a good amount of execution with its music and how it is shot. The music by Saul Chaplin and Johnny Green is fairly entertaining, but the biggest help to making all of the connections click is the things around it; the cinematography by John Alton and Alfred Gilks is top-notch, having a look that just syncs up with the mood; the costumes by Orry-Kelly, Walter Plunkett, and Irene Sharaff are also fine in giving the movie some fine flair. Admittedly, the plot is a bit thin in construction (with the kind of turns that you'd expect from a romance standpoint), but it manages to be enough of a showcase that it doesn't really drag the film too much. It isn't as great as something like Singin' in the Rain (released the following year), but both movie are good in their own right. Kelly is charismatic as ever, having the kind of charm and usefulness that one would expect from him, graceful in movement and stature. Caron, a dancer in her film debut, does alright, although she shines more in the dancing scenes than when sharing time onscreen with the plot, mainly because she doesn't really have chemistry with either Kelly or Guétary, although she at least has some screen presence. Guétary has some mild charm in the scenes that he is in. Levant is fine to watch, with his piano sequences being pretty entertaining. Foch is okay, although her scenes with Kelly don't really go anywhere too special in terms of appeal. The biggest highlight is probably the sequence at the end (lasting 17 minutes), being the ultimate showstopper spectacle for a film musical like this.

This movie won six Academy Awards, with wins for Best Production Design, Cinematography, Costume Design, Best Music Scoring of a Musical Picture, Original Screenplay, and Best Picture. In addition, Kelly received an Academy Honorary Award for "his versatility as an actor, singer, director and dancer, and specifically for his brilliant achievements in the art of choreography on film", and it certainly seems fitting. He pulls in a tremendous performance that (along with all of the other things that shine in the movie) make for a great piece of entertainment that works in most of the right places, charm and all.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.