HOUSE OF DRACULA (1945) - Review

House of Dracula

Fantasy/Horror/Sci-Fi
1 hour and 7 minutes
Approved

Written by: Edward T. Lowe Jr.
Directed by: Erle C. Kenton
Produced by: Paul Malvern

Cast:
Lon Chaney Jr.
Martha O'Driscoll
John Carradine
Lionel Atwill

HORROR UPON HORROR in the HOUSE OF DRACULA

Following the success of its first run monster films: Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, etc, Universal Pictures may in hindsight appear to have been a tad too greedy when it came to cashing in on the exploitation of these great Gothic horror figures. Surely, movies like Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein show contemporary audiences that this infamous movie studio intended to showcase these icons for every penny that they were worth, even if that meant placing them smack dab in the middle of a comedy. Luckily enough, Universal would later find its footing again in the 1950s with Creature from the Black Lagoon. When it comes to House of Dracula, however, there might be a reason why this film is hardly ever discussed when it comes to the Universal Monsters canon.

The story of House of Dracula, is actually one that is deeply rooted with promise. From the start, audiences are introduced to the titular character of the Count who seeks out Dr. Edlemann in order that he may cure him of his vampirism. This of course raises for the first (and possibly only time) the brilliant scenario regarding Bram Stoker's most famous creation: What if Count Dracula didn't actually want to be Count Dracula? And because of this interesting introduction into the film, House of Dracula - at first - seems to be a movie that will be much more intelligent than some of its previous predecessors and later successors within this canon. Unfortunately, the whole thing comes crashing down faster than an ancient castle once it is revealed that Dracula is only using Edlemann - or rather pretending that he wishes to be cured - so that he may get closer to Edlemann's beautiful female assistant, Miliza. Had maybe the story given Dracula some sort of genuine desire to be rid of his curse, then maybe it could be one of the more intelligent films to showcase the character.

Adding further to the problems of the film are the introductions of other monsters. Lon Chaney Jr.'s character, Lawrence Talbot, appears seeking the same thing Dracula had fooled Edlemann into believing he wanted - a cure. Only Talbot actually does seek a cure for his werewolf condition. Unfortunately, this is nothing new to viewers. What Wolf Man movie does the werewolf character actually want to be a werewolf? It is not an exciting premise the way it might have been with the character of Dracula. The random inclusions of Frankenstein's monster and a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde scenario also make the story too convoluted and problematic.

Even with these problems though the film does manage to have a few good shocks. Dracula's betrayal of Edlemann, thus damning the man to a similar fate, is truly shocking and in itself comes as a bit of a surprise, despite the disappointment it leaves within the story. With the film's conclusion, it must be stated that it's enormously refreshing to see Lon Chaney Jr. play both the wolf man and the hero within the same film.

And on that note, the acting within House of Dracula is enormously impressive. Chaney really shines, no doubt relishing in the opportunity to finally play the hero. The character's fears and conflicting nature are all easily felt given the damn near flawless performance of Chaney. Similarly, Onslow Stevens gives a riveting performance as Dr. Edlemann. He seems to be a man of great curiosity and yet also one of enormous compassion - something rarely seen in these mad scientist characters. One believes that Edlemann truly wants to help Dracula and Talbot, just as he wants to help his hunchbacked nurse, Nina. This is perhaps why Dracula's double crossing of Edlemann is so powerfully shocking. Stevens' performance makes us feel compassionate for Edlemann in his quest to save these monstrous beings. Seeing him turned into one by the end is assuredly a powerful piece of writing that shines through the murky mess that is the rest of the story. The supporting cast of Martha O'Driscoll, Lionel Atwill, and especially Jane Adams all help the film seem much more professional than it is. Perhaps the only acting downfall is John Carradine's Count Dracula. Carradine, an enormously talented performer, seems off. His gaunt, mustachioed appearance is no doubt right for the role of Stoker's titular vampire, but given that this is fresh off of Bela Lugosi's enormously iconic portrayal of Dracula, something about Carradine's mannerisms in the role just doesn't seem right. One can take relief in knowing that Carradine's Count, despite having his name in the title, disappears entirely halfway through the movie.

Adding to the film's charm are its glorious sets and terrific soundtrack. Cinematographer George Robinson captures every set beautifully, from the towering castles to the gadget filled laboratory, and even the coastal caves. Robinson and editor Russell F. Schoengarth also manage to create some truly remarkable practical effects using a bit of visual trickery. Both Chaney's transformation into a werewolf and Carradine's into and from a bat are brilliant to see, even today. The film's music, composed by William Lava, is fun and typical of what one might expect from a 1930s/1940s Universal Monster flick. In a sequence between Carradine and O'Driscoll, the piano score proves to be incredibly haunting, adding to the grim atmosphere surrounding the character of Dracula.

Even with some impressive performances, cinematography, sets, and effects work, House of Dracula remains one of the Universal Monster films that perhaps ought to go unnoticed by more mainstream viewers. Its charms - such as seeing Lon Chaney Jr. play the hero - will no doubt impress horror and film junkies, but for the average, everyday film lover it won't be enough to save it from mediocrity.

4/10

MAD MAX: FURY ROAD (2015) - Review

Mad Max: Fury Road

Action/Adventure/Sci-Fi
2 hours
Rated: R

Written by: George Miller, Brendan McCarthy, and Nick Lathouris
Directed by: George Miller
Produced by: George Miller, Doug Mitchell, and P.J. Voeten

Cast:
Tom Hardy
Charlize Theron
Nicholas Hoult
Hugh Keays-Byrne
Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
Riley Keough
Zoë Kravitz
Abbey Lee
Courtney Eaton

THE FUTURE BELONGS TO THE MAD

Australian filmmaker George Miller, despite a career of only having a handful of noticeably good motion-pictures, is undoubtedly one of the most brilliant minds working within the film industry to this very day. That genius began in the late 1970s with the cult classic: Mad Max, and of course was followed up remarkably with its brilliant apocalyptic sequel: The Road Warrior. Ignoring the disaster that was Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, Miller has earned his respect as a creative genius with just these two brilliant motion-pictures alone. He took the elements of numerous exploitation genres, including road movies, carsploitation, revenge flicks, the Italian poliziotteschi films, and of course post-apocalyptic shockers, and combined them into a mélange in order to form something that no one had ever seen before, and something that would continue to be imitated both inside and outside the Ozploitation markets, never as effectively. When it was announced that Miller would be returning to this Frankenstein's monster of a genre that he had given birth too, many were worried it would not live up to the quality of its predecessors (excluding Beyond Thunderdome, of course). And with news of star Mel Gibson being replaced by the younger Tom Hardy, those fears grew more and more.

Whatever trepidation one may have had about Mad Max: Fury Road, the fourth and presumably not final film of the franchise, were washed away the moment the film began rolling in theaters. Fury Road is a dark, gritty, violent, exciting, and yet still wonderfully human motion-picture that manages to encapsulate all the elements that worked well and them some from its predecessors.

Like any exploitation film the plot is simple, but it is because of this simplicity that it succeeds. We are given a broken and desolate universe, one that raises many questions (probably hundreds for those who hadn't seen the first three movies), and yet Miller expertly doesn't waste time in handing the audience detailed explanations about this world, about these characters, and about anything we are going to see. Like all successful exploitation movies, Fury Road assumes its audience is with it from the start for the entire ride, not once taking a detour down explanation road. Like the story the film's dialogue remains just as simplistic due to the fact that the bulk majority of the film doesn't warrant it. What conversations our characters have serve to move us forward from one exciting action set piece to the next, never hitting the brakes to let us marinate on what on earth is going on.

And Fury Road's action set pieces are undeniably its tour-de-force. Each one is as stunning and mind-blowing as the next, and by the story's conclusion one can't help but wonder just how those involved managed to plot so many that continuously built off of one another in such an awe-inspiring manner. Like all big-budget action films of today, the film is CGI heavy. In a very minor way this becomes irritating as it always does. However, Miller - an auteur of exploitation - understands this. In less capable hands, Fury Road could have been a CGI disaster in the vein of Transformers or Gods of Egypt. Instead, Miller's brilliance shines through, allowing the direction of the action sequences to rise to the top - essentially pushing the obvious visual trickery to the back of the viewer's mind and shifting focus to the pure exploitative entertainment unfolding before our very eyes.

Fury Road is not a movie that would require particularly believable performances, and yet the film is chock full of them, adding more to the over all quality of the final piece. The supporting cast of Nicholas Hoult, Hugh Keays-Byrne, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, and Melissa Jaffer all give powerfully convincing performances adding to the film's merit. Even Tom Hardy, a performer whose previous works have been below subpar, manages to give a decent-enough performance as Max. Although one can't help but wonder if Hardy had been given more lines and less stunts would this have gone the other way? The film's most outstanding performance is delivered by Charlize Theron, who possibly puts forth what may be the best performance of her entire career - if not a strong contender for that title. Theron's Imperator Furiosa is powerfully believable and is what allows us as viewers to immediately buy into this story that could have otherwise been noted as being nothing more than B-movie quality. In other words, Theron's performance, and that of her supporting cast, injects a level of humanity into this simplistic action film.

When it is all said and done, Mad Max: Fury Road is a worthy sequel that manages to live up to the high expectations set by its brilliant and remarkable predecessors. And even with its few hiccups and excessive use of CGI, it is a fine example of why exploitation cinema, even to this very day, deserves its fair share of praise and recognition. 

9/10

PULP FICTION (1994) - Review

Pulp Fiction

Crime/Drama
2 hours and 34 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Quentin Tarantino
Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
Produced by: Lawrence Bender

Cast:
John Travolta
Samuel L. Jackson
Uma Thurman
Harvey Keitel
Tim Roth
Amanda Plummer
Maria de Medeiros
Ving Rhames
Eric Stoltz
Rosanna Arquette
Christopher Walken
Bruce Willis

You won't know the facts until you've seen the fiction.

The 1990s, like the 1970s, served as another renaissance for independent filmmakers. After the polished, studio films of the 1980s-Reagan era, Hollywood was desperate for an injection of new ideas and new blood. The answers ended up coming from the indie market where filmmakers like Robert Rodriguez, Jon Favreau, the Cohen brothers, Kevin Smith, and Quentin Tarantino were beginning to come of age. Many of these filmmakers would soon surprise everyone with unlikely stories that would somehow manage to find an audience not only in their own decade, but in the many years that would follow - often reaching the much coveted status of becoming a cult classic. Unquestionably, Pulp Fiction is the biggest cult movie of the entire 1990s (with perhaps only some serious competition from The Big Lebowski).

So what is it that makes Pulp Fiction such an iconic motion picture? Was it really an innovative movie or did it in fact just recycle old filmmaking tropes without anyone realizing? Well, the answer to that question is actually both. Pulp Fiction's almost literary telling is nothing new. Filmmakers of the past had played around with continuity in their films - most notably Stanley Kubrick with his film The Killing and Mario Bava, who is verbally paid tribute to in the dialogue of Pulp Fiction, with his movie Black Sabbath. What made these old tactics so fresh again by the time 1994 rolled around was that no motion picture of the 1980s had really played around with its own storyline and been a major box office success (of course there are probably one or two exceptions to this). Think of all the John Hughes-esque movies of the 1980s told in a rather uninspired point A to point B fashion. Pulp Fiction moves from point A, to point B, to point C, and then back to point A again. It isn't the first film to ever do this (it isn't even Tarantino's first movie to do this), but after a decade of rather unimaginative Hollywood storytelling, Pulp Fiction revitalized an old trope successfully.

But this does not mean by any standards that Pulp Fiction isn't a creative motion picture. Quite the opposite in fact. Because Pulp Fiction is able to take these old filmmaking techniques, and these old stories, and rehash them into something entertaining and fresh is precisely why it is a creative tour de force that has earned its cult status. Think about it, what's more tiresome than the story of the man who has to take out his boss's wife but he can't touch her or the story of a boxer who must throw a fight but decides against it instead? Pulp Fiction makes these old stories feel fresh and entertaining by injecting them with what Quentin Tarantino does best: incredibly sharp dialogue. As we follow the conversations of hitmen, mob bosses, boxers, bartenders, and drug dealers - we learn that these are just people who, like the rest of us, have problems. They are definitely different problems than our own, but they're day-to-day problems that we as an audience can find both relatable and even quite comical.

Like any Tarantino movie, Pulp Fiction is full of top notch performances delivered by more than capable performers. John Travolta, who at the time was experiencing a career lull, shows why he won an Academy Award so many years ago. Samuel L. Jackson delivers what will most likely be the best performance of his entire career for as long as he is a working actor. Uma Thurman, Eric Stoltz, Ving Rhames, Tim Roth, Christopher Walken, and Harvey Keitel all showcase their incomparable talents as well. Perhaps the only disappointing performance is given by Maria de Medeiros, which is surprising given her range as an actress, who is given some rather flat dialogue that proves to be forgettable in this movie full of memorable quotes.

Despite all of this, Pulp Fiction is certainly a divisive movie. Not everyone could love it. Tarantino peppers the film full of references and nods to TV, art, and cinema of the 1970s to the point where only he could keep up with all of the allusions to Roger Corman, Brian De Palma, Mario Bava, and so on. Of course, this doesn't detract from the viewing experience of the film since the dialogue alone is enough to carry it, and to be completely fair what cult film doesn't have its group of naysayers to go with it?

Pulp Fiction's only major flaw lies solely within its third segment: The Gold Watch. Prior to this story, the film is one enjoyable piece of comedic but intelligent dialogue about the characters problems interrupted with moments of violence. Quintessential Tarantino. The Gold Watch follows this formula as well, except that the dialogue seems somewhat out of place compared to that of the sequences before (and after) it. In both The Bonnie Situation and Vincent Vega & Marsellus Wallace's Wife, the dialogue is funny, often juxtaposed around the mundane and the unbelievable. In The Gold Watch, the dialogue is far from being funny - in fact it feels uninspired and boring. The scenes between Bruce Willis and Maria de Medeiros fall short of their marks, causing the viewer to actually tune out, waiting for the inevitable interruption of violence to draw them back in. This is really such a shame given both the actors' talent and the talent of the filmmaker.

When it is all said and done, Pulp Fiction has earned every bit of its notoriety and cult appreciation. It is a film for true movie lovers across the globe who no doubt, even if they don't pick up on all of Tarantino's references, are quick to call the movie a cinematic masterpiece. While it may not be that, it certainly comes remarkably close of being a perfect motion picture. At the very least, it will always be discussed when dialogues of both cinema and Tarantino are brought up, and will undoubtedly be the film that many will always refer to as being Quentin Tarantino's finest film.

9.5/10