Reviews

Words almost fail me...where was Dracula or Bram Stoker in this? Oh yeah, right, the women character's names were taken from a book by Stoker.

There was no fantasy in this mess, nothing even particularly supernatural. What else was it missing? Let's see: No brides of Dracula; no live baby for Dracula's din-din; no Dracula castle wall-scaling; no Renfield; no insane asylum; no Bloofer Lady; no blood baptism and Host-scarred Mina; no night spent in a magic circle fending off the brides; no gypsies. Hell, where was Dracula? Did I miss something? They've just staked Lucy in this regrettable production as I write this, and all I can say is, "Thank you, Jesus!" Now if everyone else comprising the cast would just go up in flames in a good old fashioned Hammer conflagration, I'd be so happy.

Why call it Dracula when there is so little of Stoker's Dracula, save some character names, in it? Is this just to sucker folks in? Is it directorial arrogance presuming that its audience is unfamiliar with the source novel? When I sat down to watch this, particularly because it was broadcast on PBS as a Masterpiece Theatre offering, I expected something, somehow, approximating Stoker's work. Call it LORD BLOODYLONGHAIRANDDIRTYNAILS VS. THE WHINING YOUNG VICTORIANS and then it makes some sense, but don't call it Dracula.

I'm now watching it just to see how one of the most incoherent productions bearing the name Dracula will turn out. I guess I want a good laugh, or I can't stop watching the train wreck! And the ending is stunningly awful--why not just add a closing THE END? with shivery question mark? BLECH!

Well, I haven't seen it...yet. I'm going to see it tonight and approach it as if it's an SNL or MadTV spoof of the original.

From what I've read about it - so many negative reviews! - I'm thinking that it sounds like a misogynistic film. I'm surprised so many alternative religion-types are finding it unfavorable from a religious perspective but not a gender issue one.

I love the original film partially because it deals with men and women coming together to celebrate the procreative act. There is a division of the genders in terms of the roles that men and women play in society; but then, there is a blurring of roles emphasized by Lord Summerisle donning drag to lead the May Day rites.

Can't wait to take this film in and have a good "larf."

Suddenly seeing Little Nemo and his friends from Slumberland come alive took my breath away and almost brought a tear to my eye. This is pure cinematic magic: ingenuous, fantastic, and charming. Like peeping into a world of harmless ghosts and fairies.

As someone else has pointed out in this forum, the action of LITTLE NEMO unfolds unrestricted by narrative conventions. Nemo and Flip stretch as if they're waking, and for a viewer today, that's where the marvel is. Nemo wakes in 1911 into the world of moving, hand drawn pictures and, after so many years of neglect, he wakes, again, for us.

Well, I could just go on for days expressing my enchantment with this jewel from the past.

Musidora

This film is much, much better than I, and my friends with whom I watched it, expected. After reading reviews here and elsewhere, we're still not sure what folks find so problematic about it particularly as it's miles ahead of 1941's THE WOLFMAN which we thought was just dreadful considering all its hype.

Maybe it's the drawing room "comedy of manners" portions of the film that puts some off. We actually found that these sequences worked for us; and, unlike the comedy relief of so many other films of this period, caught ourselves sincerely laughing when we were supposed to. Overall, we consider this a terrific film for a dark and stormy night, and urge others to forget about Lyle Talbot.

Musidora

Yet another ho-hum Maddin pic that sounds great on paper but doesn't play so on the screen. I can easily imagine Maddin and his gang amusing themselves for hours on end by their oh-so-clever ideas. It's all just becoming so much tired filmmaking from someone who appears to have some "in" with Canadian government funding.

And let's face it: this particular film is great for an audience with absolutely no background in film history. For those folks, I'm sure this comes across as incredibly fresh and different. For the rest of us, it's just plundering the stills files of various film archives for ideas stretched far too thin.

Still, Isabella looks radiant in period garb and Vaseline halos. See this movie if you want to see how Ingrid Bergman might have fared in a Peter Greenaway conceit as filmed by Karl Freund.

Musidora

I don't have much to add about this film, which I consider quite effective, that hasn't already been stated by others; however, I'm a bit concerned by those who complain of this film being unwatchable because it is so dark. For those of you who've encountered this problem, I really think you need to take the issue up with the distributor of the video or dvd which you're watching. The dvd copy that I have, released by Diamond Entertainment, is just fine in the lighting department--or, at least, as fine as a low-budget, gloomy horror film is supposed to be. If you want shrill and gleaming horror films this isn't for you: stick to crap from Hollywood.

I've seen this movie, which I consider to be more of a vampire than a zombie film, 3 times, and it's gotten better each time:

1) The first time was on the old Elvira show back in the 80s. She made it very amusing, and, being the snot that I was at the time, I thought TOTBD was nothing more than a run of the mill, slow-moving, cheesy, Euro-trash horror film aided by Elvira's gags;

HOWEVER and BOY WAS I WRONG...

2) The second time I watched it--well, sort of watched it--was after I bought the subtitled, enhanced video by Anchor Bay. I admit, I fell asleep not long after Virginia gets it, but I don't think I did this because the movie is so slow. Instead, I think it was because I was just tired and the film made me really uneasy, so I opted to doze off;

3) The third time was within the last two hours, and I'm definitely on the side of those who laud the film. Whoa, what a nerve jangler! At this time, I think I prefer it over other films of its ilk just because it's so rich with detail.

Part horror story, part fantasy, party pseudo-historical romance, part Euro-trash sexploiter, part ethnography, it just has it all. Moreover, I found the plot to be just fine, and I actually noted the development of Betty's character and found her especially engaging.

I'm so glad I gave this film another try. As Halloween is fast approaching, I'll now have the opportunity to recommend it to friends looking for a really chilling film.

Musidora

This film was decent enough but really nothing exceptional. Folks, this isn't the first time a writer or artist has put himself into his work, so don't act like it is.

Ultimately, I think I'd prefer a story about really struggling people who don't have Hollywood mansions and accompanying trust funds to fall back on trying to write a screenplay or make a movie. Do these scenarios exist? Shallow, bitchy, self-absorbed people who suddenly have epiphanies really don't make for compelling film-making.

But, when I think about it, what else can one expect from a "director" who is heir to the Spiegel Catalogue fortune. Nepotism and cronyism at its most flaccid, but still enjoyable in parts. And, as usual, Streep is wonderful and Cooper certainly deserved his Oscar.

This film is one of my all time favorites; and I have to admit that I really question the smarts of anyone who can't see the very strong ties this film has to its predecessor.

In fact, the whole film centers around curses of various kinds; however, we're not talking about curses in the gypsy-mumbo-jumbo sense but in the sense of seeming to live under the kind of weight brought on by loneliness, anger, frustration, and, perhaps to a certain point, obsession.

There is so much loveliness in this film that to quibble over semantics really does it a disservice. Open your mind when you watch this one, and let its enchantment do its work.

I saw this film with my family, and we all came out of the theater saying, "Could anyone relate to the selfish pianist?" I guess if you like your main characters to be of the selfish, "Let everyone go to hell as long as I live" variety, then this film is for you.

Foppish, upper-class priss Dorian Gray as a super hero? Immortal or not, this is just idiocy.

And since when was Mina Harker a vampire? When did that happen? Last I heard, she was a very intelligent, forward thinking Victorian woman who had the intellectual mettle to collaborate with Dr. Van Helsing in destroying Dracula.

But now I'm told that such a talent doesn't measure up to Hollywood standards. For some reason probably only understood by money-teat sucking Hollywood gangsters noshing on deli, Harker is a vampire.

The Plague of Ordinary Neanderthals...now that would be a movie!

Sincerely,

Musidora

As a child in Detroit, Michigan, I had many favorite CBC television shows, and this was one of them--along with Mr. Dress-up, Chez Helene, etc.

There was just something so gently magical about it, even though Rusty the Rooster really scaried me at first. I always dreamt that he was hiding under my bed waiting to peck at my feet! Anyhow, a great show. I'd love to see some of it again.

Musidora

Compared to Browning's tedious version of DRACULA, I found Medford's much more engaging. Let's face it, in both films, Count Dracula is so ill-conceived and played so hammily that to debate whose performance is better, Lugosi's or Villarias', is pointless.

And David Manners and Helen Chandler act better than their counterparts in the Medford work? That I simply will not accept--both played their English language parts as if they had sticks up their bums.

As for continuity, I was thrown a few times by Medford's film, but, for me, it just added to the overall strangeness of an already strange story.

Ultimately, the richer tone of the film was established during its opening credit sequence which contained elements of gothicism--a melting candle, cobwebs, etc.--as opposed to Browning's silly art-deco bat silhouette.

Musidora

I've read the Poe source for this film more times than I can remember, and Epstein's film captures that story's sense of decay and degeneracy the best by far. Corman's version can't hold a candle to this film; in fact, I feel as if I'm doing a grave disservice to Epstein's work by mentioning Corman's film in the same sentence with it. Let it pass.

Although I'd read about Epstein's USHER for many years and pondered the stills, particularly of the Lady Madeline in her billowing, winding sheet, I was not at all prepared for the terrifying beauty and hypnotic delirium of this motion picture.

It's certainly not for all tastes, and, for those not particularly well-read in outre or occult literature, it will be inscrutable. But for those with an open mind and an appreciation of convulsive beauty, it's hard to find a more exquisite film.

This is one of the richest fantasy films I've ever seen. While watching it, I was definitely on the Ark and mesmerized I wasn't bored once; in fact, when the ending arrived, I wanted to reject it.

At worst, as a puzzle I want to unlock, I couldn't rewind or select chapters to which to return, so I can't wait until this comes out on DVD.

Those who post here such vehement words against this film are truly "protesting too much," and they're words sound either like "sour grapes" or so much prattle of the spoiled and bovine. JMHO...

Musidora

I enjoy Polanski's work in general, and I do appreciate this film; but I'm tired of film director's becoming social/political commentators. Moreover it seems as if this tired concept of "not forgetting" about this gruesome episode in European history has an application only to the Jews--all the films made about the Holocaust since WWII haven't prevented genocide of other peoples in Eastern Europe, Africa, South America, etc., so what are these films accomplishing? Seems like all they do is make a lot of people very rich and line mantles with awards by trivializing the misery of some very brave people, via a medium that is popular at best, because they sure as hell don't stop humankind's atrocities. Good people don't need melodramatic claptrap to tell them that genocide is bad then, now, or ever; and those who are evil will never get the point anyway no matter how many movie screens it dominates or videos it sells.

I'm shocked that such a simple, straightforward film provokes such outrage in certain members of this forum. Is there anyway that IMDB can start recommending psychotherapy for some of the posters here? Anyway...

I'm not a Haynes fan; however, I very much enjoyed this film. All the 50s kitsch, pastels, over-wrought hair styles, etc., aside, I was never once tricked into believing that this film was a product of the 50s--not that Haynes intended that anyway.

Overall, I was very much moved by Moore's portrayal of a woman confronting the ugliest behavior of members of her class. Also, rarely have I felt that conventions or cliches were handled so well--the conclusion's train departure comes to mind. A fine and, for all of its nods to the past, refreshing film.

I just saw this film on DVD, and I wasn't particularly impressed. To a certain point, I did enjoy it, but, at the film's conclusion, all I could say was, "So what?"

Truly, I found the film lovely to look at, and I enjoyed spotting actors/actresses in various roles, but loveliness and conceit do not necessarily make for a good film in my book.

Considering that the film clocks in at almost three hours, I do think that Has could have provided more information and character development. As for being a filmic "Tree of Life," maybe so, but I generally don't consult with films to gather a larger picture of the cosmos. If SM is truly a cabbalistic device, then I'm compelled to think that Has's work is just pretentious.

For entertaining, lyrical, and ravishing films-within-films, I'll stick to VALERIE AND HER WEEK OF WONDERS and THE COMPANY OF WOLVES. When I'm looking for a prototype of a Peter Greenaway film that will help me sleep, I'll watch SM, again. JMHO...

Musidora

I've already posted negative comments regarding this film, but, after reading so many other negative comments, I'm just left feeling powerless. I mean, it is an awful film, it is not a classic, it should not be taught in any class except in a 101 film class called "How Not To Make A Film," but so what? The director will just keep on making films, good or bad, because he's been on that track ever since the day his rich parents provided him with the means to be filmmaker. Mel Gibson will go on being whatever kind of actor he's supposed to be and that's not very clear from what I saw in this film. The Hollywood "Club" defined by cronyism and nepotism will continue no matter how many negative reviews are written about countless films. I don't even know why we bother.

A lovely, haunting film reminiscent of the Czech film, THREE NUTS FOR CINDERELLA, RUSALOCHKA is a relatively faithful adaptation of Andersen's tale, "The Little Mermaid." In this film, the mermaid does not have to give up her voice to the sea hag, but she does exchange her blue hair for legs. There are other slight variations from the source story, but, for the most part, this is a very satisfying, touching retelling of the classic story for those of us who like our fairytales told properly without Calypso singing lobsters and valley-girl patter. As far as I know, this is only available in Russian.

I'm finding that I frequently read comments here at IMDB for the same reason that I watch moments of trash or extremist religious television: just to rile myself and feel dizzy as my blood pressure rises. That's just how I react to idiocy, and when I read idiotic, IMDB comments, I not only rile myself and feel dizzy, but I fear for the well being of the world.

Granted, SNOW WHITE is not perfect; however, it is simultaneously faithful to the original Grimm story and a true original in terms of films that take a revisionist approach to conveying fairy tale narratives and motifs. I'd venture to guess that the people behind this film wouldn't bat an eyelash at the mention of Angela Carter's name, and are familiar with her short story collection, THE BLOODY CHAMBER. Also, by the way motifs and semiotics function in the mise-en-scene--the serpent in the trees and the moon over the forest--I'd bet that they studied Neil Jordan's THE COMPANY OF WOLVES, the film adaptation of Carter's Red Riding Hood revisions.

Let's get the three cardinal sins of the film out of the way first and swiftly: Sam Neil and a few other minor actors are not compelling; for all the attention to period (14th century?) and fairy-tale, Gothic detail, no attention seems to have been given to diction and dialects--in fact, one of the "dwarves" actually sounds like he is from the Bronx; and the direction is erratic with frequently obvious and cliché juxtapositions of images teaming with a certain awkwardness that creates a sometimes slow and slightly confusing first half.

Now, on to the three cardinal virtues of the film: Sigourney Weaver's interpretation of Claudia Hoffmann, the "evil queen" of the film, is grand, like an exceptional red wine breathing and progressing from a certain reserve to a full-blown expression of its true, deeper flavor. The final third of the film is delirious in its terrors and perversions with Weaver at the center of it all as a veritable and displaced Erzsebet Batori, the famous "Blood Countess" of 16th/17th c. Hungary.

The second virtue regards the producers' and director's respect for the source material. Certainly, the film is by no means slavish to the Grimms; but enough elements have been retained from the original tale to make this a thinking person's film and a relief for those who remember all too well the bit of poison apple left on Snow White's tongue and the wicked queen dancing in red hot, iron shoes (she doesn't exactly dance in iron shoes but, boy, does she do a hot dance!).

The third virtue is something of the inverse of one of the film's cardinal sins: the direction is erratic, though, in the second half of the film, all Hell, fury, pathology, and sex-death breaks loose in a torrent of fantastic, poetic, and ravishing images. Think of a blood drenched VALERIE AND HER WEEK OF WONDERS meeting THE COMPANY OF WOLVES with a dash of Dreyer's VAMPYRE and the old Melusine legend thrown in and you'll be on the right track...sort of.

The images I most appreciate and will remember are those depicting Lilianne's ominous birth; the cabinet of fairies with its dreadful mirror; the little bird in the hour glass and the mine disaster; the horned goddess crone and her apples; the toppled statues and falling trees; the homunculus hand at a weird mother's breast; the dream in the coma; the stained-glass coffin; the "sleeping" castle of enchanted retainers referencing the charmed demesne of THE SLEEPING BEAUTY; the Janus-headed crucifix; the knive in the bleeding glass; and the evil's last, shard studded, harrowing death dance.

So pay no attention to those comments that read something like, "I was so bored...you call this a horror film?...like, uh, yeah, there's no plot...Like, oh-my-God! She meets this prince and falls happily in love. How stupid do you think I am? Like, oh-my-God!...Cheesy special effects, I mean, couldn't they afford computers?" You know which ones I'm talking about. Instead, let me get riled and rant for you. My blood pressure's used to it by now.

After reading some of the negative comments here regarding DITD, I've come to a few conclusions...

1. The freedom to express ones opinion is an extraordinary one and not to be taken lightly. 2. The Internet gives voice to far too many people of dubious intelligence. 3. To pan DITD for anything related to its emotional nature is to reveal, potentially, how completely and irredeemably shallow one is.

Okay, so much for my humble opinion. Now that I've gotten that out of the way, let me say that, at one point during my first viewing of DITD--it might be my last viewing, too--I said to my companion that Bjork's performance reminded me of Falconetti's in Dreyer's PASSION OF JOAN ARC. After viewing the film, I read that, indeed, von Trier counts among his heros Carl Dreyer. I'm not a fan of von Trier nor have I seen his other films, so finding this out began to give me something of a place to start in dealing with the way it touched me.

Not being a Bjork fan and not having any of her recordings, I have to say, too, that I have a new found respect for this artist. She's extraordinary in this film, and I will give her music a thorough listening very soon.

The only fault that I can find with the film is that Deneuve doesn't have a larger role. Kathy's, Deneuve's character, interactions with Bjork's Selma, for me, highlighted the film; additionally, Kathy's last interaction with Selma is, in my opinion, is among the greats of cinema.

As for viewing the film, again, and as much as I would like to watch it with my mother, I don't know if I can. Its insight into human nature might just be too much for me.

I remember when Rice's book, INTERVIEW..., was released the FIRST time in the 70s. I was in junior high school at the time, read half of it, and tossed it in the bin to take its place with the rest of the trash. For the life of me, I never dreamed the book, one of the most poorly written I'd ever picked up, would be resurrected years later AND find an audience. So, all that said and bitchy as I am, I thought the film version of INTERVIEW... was abominable.

I was particularly disappointed in this film because it was directed by Neil Jordan who, having worked with Angela Carter on THE COMPANY OF WOLVES, should have known better how to convey the eroticism and arcana of vampirism. Sadly, none of Carter's insight into vampire lore seemed to have rubbed off on him or Rice. As I mentioned, I never finished reading INTERVIEW; but, judging the film version on its own merits, it was as bad as the book; ultimately, a film of wasted opportunities and too much posturing; an exercise in pretentious presentation of a subject as if it is new and undiscovered; an assumption that its audience is too dumb to know more or better.

But QUEEN...is another story altogether. When I first saw the film's trailer, I groaned audibly, but, a few days later, I began to rethink it. Why was I taking it so seriously? Why didn't I just go see the film for fun, for fantasy, for Friday night and leave it at that? So I went to see it this evening, and I enjoyed it!

I must admit, I'm not entirely sure why I enjoyed it. The opening credits sequence with its homage to DAS KABINETT... is, at this point, cliched. Townsend's accent is dodgy and his posing and sneering tiresome. Frankly, posturing, by a number of the film's actors, is a major flaw of this film. And there was just too much MAC and talcum powder all around and not particularly well applied, I might add. And was so much money spent on make-up that there was none left to pay a script editor or language coach with even a basic knowledge of French? Between all the different pronounciations of the name Lestat and such glaring mistakes as "Je suis Lestat..." I have to wonder.

But, on the plus side, there is a real heady dose of artful, decadent, old, and older, world arcana on display particularly when the narrative shifted, early on, to the vampirizing of Lestat and his first encounter with the gorgonized Akasha. Also, Akasha's later presentation is splendid, bizarre, beautiful, and grotesque all at once, and, as far as I'm concerned, worth the price of admission. Also, it was interesting to see a heroine who is hairier than the hero--adds a certain earthy frisson to the proceedings.

Having seen so many horror films and vampire films, in particular, I have to say that QUEEN's plot holds its own. Frankly, in terms of plot, I've never seen a thoroughly satisfying vampire motion picture; and, to make it easier on my willing suspension of disbelief, I find it best to approach them completely on their own terms. Sometimes it works--the enchanting vampire film VALERIE AND HER WEEK OF WONDERS comes to mind--sometimes it doesn't (see INTERVIEW...). QUEEN falls squarely in between, and it's just right for a Friday night.

No better than a sitcom. A film about people in love with themselves, you know, the kind in which he can't believe she's not responsive to his charms because he has so much going for himself, blah, blah. Just another film made by people who take themselves and their "special" lives very seriously. Are these the only kind of people who live in New York?

Wow! What a film! I saw it recently with three friends at Chicago's Facets Cinematheque, and we were collectively stunned by this film. On at least three occasions, it took my breath away--the ghost on the ramparts sequence, the play within the play sequence, and Ophelia's mad sequence were just incredibly wrought. I can't say enough about this film.