Re93animator's Review Thread

→ in
Tools    





Impostor (2001)


An opening monologue presents a rundown of a politically-propelled war against an unseen alien enemy called the Centauri (Space word!). We then get credits accompanied by a steamy PG-13 sex scene that leaves nothing to the viewer’s imagination of arms, backs, shoulders, and belly buttons.


On his commute to work, Spencer Olham (Gary Sinise) is suddenly seized by evil gubberment reps and restrained to an interrogation chair. While Sinise tries his best to keep his ab muscles tight, he is accused of being a Centauri surrogate with intent to assassinate a prominent political figure. Olham then quickly escapes the elite government soldiers by crawling through a vent (a movie fugitive’s best friend). Thus, the witch hunt and crux of the story commences.


“Inconspicuous.”


The lead couple don’t have much chemistry, Tony Shalhoub is kind of annoying as a token best friend, and Vincent D’Onofrio is an ultra-hammy villain in a performance that I seriously doubt he gave a f*ck about. Sinise is also a little boring. The character just calls for him to play an average Joe who happens to constantly outwit top state personnel. Cinematographically, the movie seems hazy and the sets tend to be very grey-ish. It may sound drab, but it actually delivers a pretty unique visual character that goes with the narrative.


This isn’t too representative of the film’s overall aesthetic, but it’s cool that the movie does dabble in expressionism.


It’s cheesy, generic Hollywood sci-fi (basically, everything that would infuriate Philip K. Dick) but I dunno... it’s really entertaining escapism and much better than most of its ilk. In this type of flick, that’s all that really matters. I think it’s underrated despite faults.


__________________




Stalker (1979)



Stalker opens with a super deadpan mood brought on by filthy, drab living conditions. A pervasive sepia tint accentuates a derelict town. The unwelcoming tint is only lifted once the main character’s escape their highly guarded city and enter a forbidden area known as The Zone (an area with glimpses of civilization that has long been engulfed by landscape). The damp and foggy environment of the Zone reeks of post-apocalyptic dread; with mangled tanks, sullen power lines, and scarce fragments of industry being reclaimed by nature. The main characters then tread carefully through the Zone, wary of unseen anomalies. For each character, the goal is to find some intangible, mystical element that benefits them. The characters end up challenging their own perceptions of spirituality, science, and philosophy. What happens thereafter isn’t totally clear, and may take multiple viewings and some extra thought to determine. The film takes its story from the novel Roadside Picnic by the Strugatsky brothers (famed Russian sci-fi writers), which has also served as an impetus for several other works. It’s also interesting to note that Stalker’s chemically contaminated shooting locations even notoriously led to the death of several crew members after filming (including Tarkovsky).

Given when and where the film was made, one might be inclined to link the downtrodden and oppressive nature of the city to a not-so-subtle commentary on the state of the Soviet Union at the time. As highly unlikely as that is (considering it was Soviet funded, and there are no direct references that indicate as much), the poor and vulnerable state of the Soviet Union at the time could’ve been an unconscious contributor to an exceptionally bleak environment. Of course, wherever films are made, there are going to be a few with uninviting atmospheres. But, no region does bleak quite like Eastern Europe. Maybe it has something to do with the state of Eastern Europe during the later stages of the cold war, or maybe it’s just because a long list of notable filmmakers (such as Bela Tarr, Elem Klimov, Aleksey Balabanov, Srdjan Dragojevic, Piotr Szulkin, Andrzej Zulawski, Kieslowski, or Konstantin Lopushanskiy) happen to feed off of each other’s work in addition to their cultural zeitgeist.

Stalker’s darkly artistic and sluggish atmosphere has proven to be influential beyond where it was produced though. The more renowned crop of modern art house filmmakers like Lars von Trier and Nicolas Refn seem to worship the style. Bela Tarr’s movies similarly make use of extremely long takes, often to an even greater extent than what is seen in Stalker. Ingmar Bergman also cited Tarkovsky as the greatest filmmaker of his time.

This isn’t an accessible movie by any means. It’s not entry level art house cinema. You have to have an iron-forged attention span to get through it in one sitting. For those unfamiliar with Tarkovsky, many of the shots may seem to go on for an ungodly amount of time (about 140 shots in 160 minutes, for perspective). Rather than using cuts every few seconds, each shot can be looked at and studied like a painting. Even taken out of context, there are so many frames that can be taken from the film and separately appreciated for their dejected beauty. Stalker isn’t only ‘different,’ it’s transcendental. The first time I saw it, it gave me a revitalized idea of what a movie can be, and led me down a rabbit hole of bleak cinema that I’ve never gotten over.





Stalker (1979)



Stalker opens with a super deadpan mood brought on by filthy, drab living conditions. A pervasive sepia tint accentuates a derelict town. The unwelcoming tint is only lifted once the main character’s escape their highly guarded city and enter a forbidden area known as The Zone (an area with glimpses of civilization that has long been engulfed by landscape). The damp and foggy environment of the Zone reeks of post-apocalyptic dread; with mangled tanks, sullen power lines, and scarce fragments of industry being reclaimed by nature. The main characters then tread carefully through the Zone, wary of unseen anomalies. For each character, the goal is to find some intangible, mystical element that benefits them. The characters end up challenging their own perceptions of spirituality, science, and philosophy. What happens thereafter isn’t totally clear, and may take multiple viewings and some extra thought to determine. The film takes its story from the novel Roadside Picnic by the Strugatsky brothers (famed Russian sci-fi writers), which has also served as an impetus for several other works. It’s also interesting to note that Stalker’s chemically contaminated shooting locations even notoriously led to the death of several crew members after filming (including Tarkovsky).

Given when and where the film was made, one might be inclined to link the downtrodden and oppressive nature of the city to a not-so-subtle commentary on the state of the Soviet Union at the time. As highly unlikely as that is (considering it was Soviet funded, and there are no direct references that indicate as much), the poor and vulnerable state of the Soviet Union at the time could’ve been an unconscious contributor to an exceptionally bleak environment. Of course, wherever films are made, there are going to be a few with uninviting atmospheres. But, no region does bleak quite like Eastern Europe. Maybe it has something to do with the state of Eastern Europe during the later stages of the cold war, or maybe it’s just because a long list of notable filmmakers (such as Bela Tarr, Elem Klimov, Aleksey Balabanov, Srdjan Dragojevic, Piotr Szulkin, Andrzej Zulawski, Kieslowski, or Konstantin Lopushanskiy) happen to feed off of each other’s work in addition to their cultural zeitgeist.

Stalker’s darkly artistic and sluggish atmosphere has proven to be influential beyond where it was produced though. The more renowned crop of modern art house filmmakers like Lars von Trier and Nicolas Refn seem to worship the style. Bela Tarr’s movies similarly make use of extremely long takes, often to an even greater extent than what is seen in Stalker. Ingmar Bergman also cited Tarkovsky as the greatest filmmaker of his time.

This isn’t an accessible movie by any means. It’s not entry level art house cinema. You have to have an iron-forged attention span to get through it in one sitting. For those unfamiliar with Tarkovsky, many of the shots may seem to go on for an ungodly amount of time (about 140 shots in 160 minutes, for perspective). Rather than using cuts every few seconds, each shot can be looked at and studied like a painting. Even taken out of context, there are so many frames that can be taken from the film and separately appreciated for their dejected beauty. Stalker isn’t only ‘different,’ it’s transcendental. The first time I saw it, it gave me a revitalized idea of what a movie can be, and led me down a rabbit hole of bleak cinema that I’ve never gotten over.


Excellent review. Stalker is one of my favorites. This movie was my introduction into the wonderful world of Eastern European sci-fi. Though, I'm glad I saw the movie before I read the book, because I actually found the book to be inferior.



Beauty and the Beast (1978)


The tale sees an old man traveling towards an eerie old manor to sell a painting. The manor belongs to a creature with access to a great supply of fortune. Once the old man is evasively paid by the creature, he ticks it off by plucking a rose from its garden. As a tradeoff, the creature demands one of the man’s daughters. The creature lucks out and seems to get the only character in the film not tainted by selfishness.

The creature is initially presented in horrific fashion. We’re only given glimpses of monstrous features and the mutilation of a woman. The creature is later revealed as a large bird monster. The monster then attempts to politely romance the old man’s daughter, all the while questioning whether the prospect of companionship and humanity is worth risking rejection for. This doesn’t harp on philosophical content too much, but the theater-esque melodrama makes the romance feel pretend. Still, having a princely bird guy roaming around a creepy old mansion provides more than enough narrative interest.


“Someone ordered an extra large pizza?”

The monster’s timeworn mansion is filled with dust, debris, invasive smog, and a series of surreal machinations allowing his minion to snoop on guests. Many shots within the estate are beautifully lit by glowing flames. Beyond the mansion is a densely fog drenched forest. Moody organ music complements the thick scenery without distracting too much. It adds yet another layer of foreboding beauty. The scenery occasionally brings The Hourglass Sanatorium to mind.

The histrionic acting may be somewhat of a hindrance, though it’s meant to accentuate the tragedy and appeal to fans of theater. Seeing the monster trying to deftly move about in his ragged cape and bird suit is a little silly too, though his evil little minion (which we see very little of) is pretty creepy.


Czechoslovakia couldn’t quite afford Bruce Wayne.

This is one of the more gorgeous elaborate productions I’ve seen, and I think it carries more visual appeal than Cocteau’s version (no small feat), though it may feel a tad thin and phoned in when it comes to the melodrama.










Excellent review, but this bit was absolute gold.

I never heard of this movie but I'm tempted to watch it now.
themovie is directed by martin campbell ( goldeneye, casino royale) and i enjoyed it actually



The Dead Pit (1989)


Some spoilers below, but they shouldn’t hinder the movie for anyone.

The Dead Pit follows a supermodel-looking lady committed to an institution for… memory loss. There she hooks up with a charming, handsome mental patient sporting a refined British accent. Later, an undead surgeon starts hacking up the orderlies, and it’s up to our consummate committed duo to stop him.

8 mins in: “You can’t kill me.” - Guy who gets shot in head.

15 mins in: “I don’t have amnesia.” 15 seconds later: “I don’t remember my past.”

30 mins in:

Standard wandering around a mental institution at night garb.

40 mins in:

“I’m the head surgeon here.” This is what cinema is about.


The killer is Agent 47’s sensei, apparently.

55 mins in:


1 hour in: Here come the zombies.


So, if the pictures are any indication, there’s some pretty cool nighttime cinematography, though the daytime scenes are surprisingly bland for a b-horror flick set in an asylum. Still, if you’re a fan of colorful and hazy 80s b-movie lighting, this should appease. The synth score is pretty apt as well if you can withstand the migraine-inducing booming noises that warrant volume adjustments for anyone with a subwoofer.

This is no cheesier than some of the other schlocky movies I’ve reviewed, and it’s somewhat entertaining for the first hour or so. Once the zeds are introduced, it devolves into an action flick and overstays it welcome by about fifteen minutes. Still, it’s essentially fan service, so if you like schlocky zombie movies, you could do plenty worse.

I also feel like mentioning that this shares a few too many similarities with Re-Animator and comes across as a borderline rip-off, but I doubt anyone cares.






It appeals to me just by the pictures. I don't know how to read.



Hardware (1990)


My first review doesn’t do this movie justice, so here is a re-review.

Here is Hardware, an oft-panned b-sci-fi horror flick that feels slightly older than it is. It’s about a scavenged industrial Wall-E gouging people’s eyes out and stuff. Richard Stanley is at the helm. Unfortunately, he didn’t do much more beyond this. Writing may not be his strength, and maybe he lacks a bit of self-awareness, but he’s an absolute visionary with a fun and unique style. This is a b-movie at face value, but it has abnormally artistic camera work and cinematography coupled with a truly nihilistic philosophy.

I think the two leads are a little too pretty for the setting, despite often being made up to look like chimney sweeps having a bad day. The rest of the characters seem to get considerable flak, but I love them (even though they’re mainly just slimy robo-fodder waiting to be gloriously dispatched). The oddball cast just makes me want to explore the film’s eccentric universe even more. Within such an attractively ramshackle locale, being confined to an apartment for most of the movie may be a turnoff for many, but the heavily detailed scenery is still milked to the fullest. The rust bucket post-apocalyptic sets are accentuated by some of the most beautiful darkly lit cinematography I’ve ever seen.

Based on other commonly held opinions of this, I’m not going to earnestly recommend it to everyone or promise its quality. Try not to expect a seriously effective horror film or anything. Just have fun with it if the style suits you. And how f*ckin awesome is the soundtrack? If you’re answer is ‘not at all:’ avoid. Though, if anyone else finds joy in Hardware after reading this, it’ll warm my heart more than a radioactive desert.

This movie is: tasteless, nihilistic, dirty, sweaty, campy, stupid, bizarre, visionary, and gorgeous. I usually like to make stupid comments and whatnot, and this should logically be an easier target than Stephen Hawking in a dodgeball game, but… it’s so hard for me to contain my enthusiasm! Guys! This movie is so f*cking awesome! Screw my own criticisms; 5 popcorns…


Samuel L. Jackson came prepared for the raptors this time.


Mayonnaise is the real villain.










Gregoire Moulin vs. Humanity (2001)



In the vein of After Hours, Gregoire Moulin imparts the quintessential story of man vs. bizarre sh*t. Our protagonist is presented as a hapless introvert with worse luck than George Costanza. His profound misfortune has led to paranoid delusions about being defenestrated (a good word; look it up). He’s a dreamer that the rest of the world fails to empathize with. He lives an endlessly stressful existence, cursed with surreal familial associations from childhood. It takes a spark of true passion to awaken a relentless persistence in this man. What follows is a series of events that seem generated by the Infinite Improbability Drive.

I feel that as an introverted person myself, this movie probably resonates with me much more than it would for some others (like the football fans it unflatteringly satirizes). It’s not so much about developing bravery and brawn as much as it is about finding something worth all the motivation. That’s something that might also resonate with anyone who's battled the hopelessness of depression. I feel like in most films, Gregoire’s supposed ‘undesirable’ nature would’ve been overcome as the story progressed. But in this, even when discovering a renewed vitality and happiness, Moulin never forgoes his uniquely idiosyncratic nature. Beyond the guise of slapstick, I find the movie oddly motivational.

... I’m probably taking this way too seriously though. Most seem to merely view this as a passably fun, 80-mile-an-hour popcorn flick.

Again, it’s comparable to After Hours. I think After Hours makes a better use of its plot, and Gregoire Moulin unfortunately lacks the stylistic pizazz, but Gregoire has a much more likable protagonist. This is borderline slapstick, directed in a manner akin to Terry Gilliam or Jeunet & Caro, without the accompanying art direction. Maybe throw in a little Mr. Bean too. Somehow, it approaches somber subjects such as suicide, anxiety, depression, Nazis, police brutality, and male rape with a frivolous panache. I love this. It wasn’t easy to find, but it’s so worth tracking down. If it’s fluff, it’s beautifully funny fluff.





I was sold at After Hours (that doesn't read right, but I'm sticking to it).

On a more serious note, we all have those films that might not be the greatest, but we love them solely because something about it resonated with us in some way. I know I have a good amount of them, so I can relate. Going by your review, this should be right up there in my book. Added to the watchlist.



Johnny Mnemonic (1995)



Our opening text scroll, paraphrased: We’re in the second decade of the 2000s. There are corporations, they are opposed by the subversive Loteks, and there’s a random cyber-drug epidemic going around effecting hackers and data warriors, and the Yakuza is involved somehow (they unleash viruses and stuff to help the corps I think?), and there are Mnemonics who carry sensitive data for a living. If this weren’t a cyberpunk plot, I might be apprehensive. We’ve also got some b-movie caliber synths and a magnificently dated CG cyberspace. I must stress that if I don’t get a blocky, pixelated 90’s cyberspace, I am disappoint.



Minor spoilers below:

5 mins in: We’ve got Dracula levels of Keanu enthusiasm.


10 mins in: Oh boy…


20 mins in: Hey! The Japanese people are actually speaking Japanese to each other.

21 mins in: Nevermind.

40 mins in: Only the most elaborate and aesthetically innovative neon light designs.


45 mins in: YES! JESUS TIME!

1 hr 5 mins in: Now Keanu will grace us with a stellar dramatic monologue.


“I WANT A $10,000 A NIGHT HOOKER” – Actual quote from above image.

1 hr 6 mins in: The hooker wasn't up to par.


1 hr 15 mins in: Our protagonists keep a wired-up dolphin in a 4 foot wide filthy green water tank. Ummmmm…

1 hr 20 mins in: We’ve entered movie suspension wire heaven.

I thought this was crap when I saw it years ago, but it’s still kinda fun. I could’ve done with less lackluster action, but it’s still true to form cyberpunk, with a screenplay penned by W. Gibson himself. That can be lovely when done with even a modicum of decency. I also think that the movie has some pretty awesome facets (namely the cyber-time continuum bits). It carries the same sort of immature appeal as an overblown video game, and it has plenty of bad movie charm. There’s a lot of better like-minded entertainment, but I think this is at least worth seeing for genre aficionados. Although, if you’re expecting a serious adaption of Gibson’s literature, you’ve come to the wrong place.

A pretty generous






The War of the Worlds: Next Century (1981)

In sunny Florida, Piotr Szulkin’s movies are harder to find than a yeti riding a moose, so whenever I find one, I feel like a kid on a very warm Christmas. BTW, if anyone has a way of getting me Ga, Ga – Chwala bohaterom, I will post my entire collection of bear pictures.

The movie gives a surprising (considering what it turns out to be) nod to Wells and Welles before starting. It’s about a TV host that does the state’s propaganda bidding; lively when on air, po-faced when off. His wife is unexpectedly abducted by Martians and used as collateral. This event compels the TV host to go from guilt-ridden propagandist to a man teetering on the edge of subversion.

Obviously, this has little to do with the original story. It shares more parallels with 1984. Same as Golem, Szulkin extracted a bleak commentary from a classic tale. It gives off occasional surreal and comedic vibes as well. The Martians are little face-painted wobbling midgets in poofy silver coats, which is nice. Their arrival strategically befalls a heavily state-controlled area, and they take advantage of their newly formed state ties to extort blood from gullible citizens.

Golem and O-Bi, O-Ba (the other two I’ve seen from Szulkin) are primo eye candy. They’re emphatically visual movies accompanied by some commentary. In WOTW, there are still glimpses of Szulkin’s visual pizazz with occasional neon trimmings and glowy cinematography, but given the oppressive theme, it’s set in a more grey and pedestrian environment. The drabness brings the later condition of the Soviet Union and its satellite states to mind. The narrative is a fervent rebuke of propaganda, wherein the only citizens bravely voicing dissent are those already punished by the state’s destitution. It’s surprising that a view like this one slipped through the cracks. “How many brains did you devour today?” Out of what I’ve seen, this is Szulkin’s most overt and considerate commentary.

It does tend to get a little boring, but it looks nice, it’s contemplative, and it’s surprisingly hilarious. There’s a wonderful dry wit (exemplified by the Martians), or maybe I just lost something in translation. It picks up greatly in the end as well, flipping expectations and adding some bulk to an otherwise straightforward (and perhaps trite) commentary. Like it or not, I seriously doubt there’s a more original version of WOTW out there.







The War of the Worlds: Next Century (1981)

In sunny Florida, Piotr Szulkin’s movies are harder to find than a yeti riding a moose, so whenever I find one, I feel like a kid on a very warm Christmas. BTW, if anyone has a way of getting me Ga, Ga – Chwala bohaterom, I will post my entire collection of bear pictures.

The movie gives a surprising (considering what it turns out to be) nod to Wells and Welles before starting. It’s about a TV host that does the state’s propaganda bidding; lively when on air, po-faced when off. His wife is unexpectedly abducted by Martians and used as collateral. This event compels the TV host to go from guilt-ridden propagandist to a man teetering on the edge of subversion.

Obviously, this has little to do with the original story. It shares more parallels with 1984. Same as Golem, Szulkin extracted a bleak commentary from a classic tale. It gives off occasional surreal and comedic vibes as well. The Martians are little face-painted wobbling midgets in poofy silver coats, which is nice. Their arrival strategically befalls a heavily state-controlled area, and they take advantage of their newly formed state ties to extort blood from gullible citizens.

Golem and O-Bi, O-Ba (the other two I’ve seen from Szulkin) are primo eye candy. They’re emphatically visual movies accompanied by some commentary. In WOTW, there are still glimpses of Szulkin’s visual pizazz with occasional neon trimmings and glowy cinematography, but given the oppressive theme, it’s set in a more grey and pedestrian environment. The drabness brings the later condition of the Soviet Union and its satellite states to mind. The narrative is a fervent rebuke of propaganda, wherein the only citizens bravely voicing dissent are those already punished by the state’s destitution. It’s surprising that a view like this one slipped through the cracks. “How many brains did you devour today?” Out of what I’ve seen, this is Szulkin’s most overt and considerate commentary.

It does tend to get a little boring, but it looks nice, it’s contemplative, and it’s surprisingly hilarious. There’s a wonderful dry wit (exemplified by the Martians), or maybe I just lost something in translation. It picks up greatly in the end as well, flipping expectations and adding some bulk to an otherwise straightforward (and perhaps trite) commentary. Like it or not, I seriously doubt there’s a more original version of WOTW out there.




I've been looking for this for the longest time. I'm not reading the review until I watch it (so that might be never), but looking at your rating is letting me know that it's worth all this effort. Man, color me envious.

If you see Ga Ga before I do, we have a serious problem.



I've been looking for this for the longest time. I'm not reading the review until I watch it (so that might be never), but looking at your rating is letting me know that it's worth all this effort. Man, color me envious.

If you see Ga Ga before I do, we have a serious problem.
There aren't any significant spoilers in the review, if that's what you're worried about.

Let the hunt for Ga Ga commence.



World on a Wire (1973)



So, scientists have developed a virtual reality simulation apparatus. The gubberment wants to use it to conduct population experiments and whatnot. One of the minds behind the program is on the cusp of releasing crucial info, but is knocked off before he’s able to share it with the appropriate minds. Another figurehead of the program takes it upon himself to dig deeper into a slowly unraveling conspiracy. The base novel was also the impetus for The Thirteenth Floor, which is a decent commercialized version, but the two movies are far from complementary.

After the climactic finale of the 1st part, the story slightly shifts away from its investigatory precedent. Despite losing some air of unpredictability in the 2nd part, the intrigue doesn’t lose too much steam. Our lead also doesn’t express emotion too well, but he’s good(-ish) when he slips on his poker face. Then again, that kind of applies to everyone. The lead happens to be the only one who’s histrionics are habitually called for.

The sets are uniquely elegant and hold up well for their eccentricity. The movie apparently takes place when it was released (according to my in-depth Wikipedia studies), but the tech-savvy plot and myriad unusual set pieces suggest the near future. By contrast, the outside world is grey and industrial. It gives off a sort of Kubrick vibe, especially bringing the mock-sci-fi Clockwork Orange world to mind. Also, the movie doesn’t share any aesthetic traits with film-noir, but I think the dialogue-heavy investigatory nature of the first part does bring a vague noir sense to mind.

Fassbinder doesn’t seem as adept at thriller parts as he is at deadpan drama. Those cheesy zoom-ins are straight out of a 50s b-movie, but the movie doesn’t call for them often. Obviously, Fassbinder is considered an auteur with a seriously revered output, so the histrionics make me think that he might’ve wanted to vaguely satirize thrillers as well as effectively make his own. When the excitements do show up, they are actually startling. Especially when accompanied by an almost grating synth score. It’s flawed, but great.


Watching too much Monday Night Raw.








Doctor X (1932)

The antagonistic letter X needs to make a comeback. This is a fast-gabbing mad science-y comic horror murder mystery. A serial killer using distinctively scientific instruments is knocking off nightly riff-raff in the streets, and the police round up all the local mad scientists. Apparently they were pretty common back then. They end up confining themselves in a creepy old manor brimming with old sci-fi paraphernalia. Therein they attempt to deduce who the killer is amongst them. The paranoid mystery and sci-fi approach to solving it brought my mind to a flamethrower, and a dish, and a Kurt Russell. The comic relief protagonist is a tad annoying and out of place, but the whodunit plot is nice and campy when the movie stays focused on it.

…and oooooh man are the mad scientists fun characters. A blast I say!

It’s also in color (sepia and green only). The grungy old picture and waterlogged colors give it a 20’s horror touch with a superior atmosphere. With its beautiful two-tone hue, it’s the type of radical style that filmmakers like Guy Maddin like to draw from. One of the coolest looking movies of the 30s no doubt.

The movie’s biggest fault might be apprehension to scare too much. The formidable atmosphere is effective even now. The old makeup effects coupled with timeworn film have aged like wine. The shady cinematography and creepy old castle is an impressively dark setting. The movie fully exploits all of this in spurts, but is afraid to lay it on for too long without giving the viewer a reprieve with its token comic lead. Cool as it is, it’d be fair to expect more brazen morbidity from pre-code horror. Some of the supporting characters are actually funny though, in addition to the hilarious absurdity of the whole thing.

It’s difficult for me to recommend it, because this is definitely a ‘me’ movie. My rating is ridiculously high (and ridiculously subjective), but I’m not sure how much a casual classic movie viewer would like it. Despite my bias, I still realize that the movie is very imperfect. I don’t care though; I love it.










Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Have you seen director Curtiz's follow-up The Mystery of the Wax Museum, also in two-strip Technicolor and remade as House of Wax with Vincent Price?
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



Have you seen director Curtiz's follow-up The Mystery of the Wax Museum, also in two-strip Technicolor and remade as House of Wax with Vincent Price?
Yep. I much preferred the Price version, but after Dr. X I'm tempted to give MOTWM another go. I was pretty bored with it the first time though. I guess I'll post renewed thoughts in the Movie Tab eventually. Thanks for reminding me!