The 1932 version of the film is nothing but plot. Boris Karloff definitely established the visual look and feel of the legendary monster, the sets are ominous enough, and the effects solid for 1931, but the script just had a plot and ran through it with no attempt to create any kind of characters or their relationships with one another.
Again, I am surprised at comments about these classics when they are purported to be the "greatest of all time" in respect to their genres. I suppose in that aspect that is true. Most monster movies have no characterization, and this one is no different.
Showing posts with label 1931. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1931. Show all posts
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde -- 1931 -- NR
This early screen adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's perenially adapted novel of good vs evil plays out very, very well in this early incarnation. The initial change was well setup, the character relationships were well defined, the actual change played out realistically rather than cheesy, and the Jekyll/Hyde struggle was very well done.
Some complaints: the silly complaint is that because this is an early talkie version of the story, the pronunciation of the name was not as standardized as it is today. In this version, Jekyll's name is pronounced "Jeekle". Made me nuts.
On a more relevant note, I felt that Hyde was occasionally too rational. He is supposed to be Jekyll's dark side, and it makes perfect sense for his dark side to have some rationale, just as his rational side has some darkness, but Hyde gave a very rationale speech and was very much Jekyll in Hyde's clothing on a scene near the end when he had to convince a friend to get the antidote for him. I can see a little rationale, but that was really too far. I had trouble believing that Hyde would be THAT rational, regardless of the situation.
That aside on a first watching, I really enjoyed it, and felt it was a worthwhile film. The version I watched on DVD also has the 1941 version, and the qualty of the recording is quite good and clear.
Finally, as a bit of trivia, this is not the first screen version of this story. There have been over 50 screen versions of the story dating back to 1908. Before this version in 1931, there were 9 different silent versions of the story, three of them in 1920.
Some complaints: the silly complaint is that because this is an early talkie version of the story, the pronunciation of the name was not as standardized as it is today. In this version, Jekyll's name is pronounced "Jeekle". Made me nuts.
On a more relevant note, I felt that Hyde was occasionally too rational. He is supposed to be Jekyll's dark side, and it makes perfect sense for his dark side to have some rationale, just as his rational side has some darkness, but Hyde gave a very rationale speech and was very much Jekyll in Hyde's clothing on a scene near the end when he had to convince a friend to get the antidote for him. I can see a little rationale, but that was really too far. I had trouble believing that Hyde would be THAT rational, regardless of the situation.
That aside on a first watching, I really enjoyed it, and felt it was a worthwhile film. The version I watched on DVD also has the 1941 version, and the qualty of the recording is quite good and clear.
Finally, as a bit of trivia, this is not the first screen version of this story. There have been over 50 screen versions of the story dating back to 1908. Before this version in 1931, there were 9 different silent versions of the story, three of them in 1920.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
M -- 1931 -- NR
Germany's first talkie from 1931 stars Peter Lorre as a serial child killer with Fritz Lang (one of the top German film directors of the time) at the helm. Naturally, I was watching it with subtitles which didn't help the experience, but overall, the film is paced well and told a solid serial killer thriller.
It has a lot of good points. The relation between the police and the crime underworld, for example was wonderfully done with simultaneous, intercut meeting between the two organizations. The police ar becoming a laughingstock having not cuaght the killer for 8 months, but the crime syndicates are getting walled in by the police raids looking for the killer which hurts their "business." Both groups set out to catch the killer at the same time. The police take the more cerebral route of looking for psychological profiles, while the underground just hires beggars to watch every child in town. Both group find him at about the same time, but while the cops wait at his house, the underground captures him and holds him on "trial."
It is this trial that makes a statement about justice and the criminal justice system. It says that a criminal is safer in the system than with regular people, a fact that is all too often painfully clear. No matter what the crime or how unfair or how brutal that crime was, the system always endeavors to treat the criminal with respect and dignity.
The biggest weakness, in my opinion, was an attempt to bring sympathy for the killer during this trial. This attempt was completely in vain since a guy who kills children will rarely gain sympathy of any kind, no matter how fictional the story. Another problem this script had was a lack of familiarity with the characters. A lot of characters were introduced throughout the film and only a handful managed to get names. We got some knowledge of some of them, but most of the characters remained 2 dimensional cutouts of cops or crimelords.
The only confusion was some sort of cerebral tag on the ending that made no sense in context with the rest of the film. I don't know what that was.
It has a lot of good points. The relation between the police and the crime underworld, for example was wonderfully done with simultaneous, intercut meeting between the two organizations. The police ar becoming a laughingstock having not cuaght the killer for 8 months, but the crime syndicates are getting walled in by the police raids looking for the killer which hurts their "business." Both groups set out to catch the killer at the same time. The police take the more cerebral route of looking for psychological profiles, while the underground just hires beggars to watch every child in town. Both group find him at about the same time, but while the cops wait at his house, the underground captures him and holds him on "trial."
It is this trial that makes a statement about justice and the criminal justice system. It says that a criminal is safer in the system than with regular people, a fact that is all too often painfully clear. No matter what the crime or how unfair or how brutal that crime was, the system always endeavors to treat the criminal with respect and dignity.
The biggest weakness, in my opinion, was an attempt to bring sympathy for the killer during this trial. This attempt was completely in vain since a guy who kills children will rarely gain sympathy of any kind, no matter how fictional the story. Another problem this script had was a lack of familiarity with the characters. A lot of characters were introduced throughout the film and only a handful managed to get names. We got some knowledge of some of them, but most of the characters remained 2 dimensional cutouts of cops or crimelords.
The only confusion was some sort of cerebral tag on the ending that made no sense in context with the rest of the film. I don't know what that was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
