[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement:
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 16:52:04 05/31/13 Fri
Author: Rick
Subject: 10 Things I Hate About The Universal Monster Movies
http://www.moviefanfare.com/10-things-i-hate-about-the-universal-monster-movies/
R-
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[>
Re: 10 Things I Hate About The Universal Monster Movies -- Tim, 10:48:15 06/05/13 Wed [1]
A nice article by Gary Cahall, one that I had not seen before. He is clearly a fan, but does a good job collecting many of the well-known (and lesser-known) errors from the Universal monster movies.
The footprints in the snow (made by shoes, while Griffin was barefooted) at the end of The Invisible Man is one that I didn't notice for many years. I never picked up on it until I read about it in a magazine or book.
I have read a few disdainful reviews of The Invisible Man, some complaining that there is too much comedy relief in it. I disagree, and consider it one of the top-tier Universal horror classics.
Tim
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Re: 10 Things I Hate About The Universal Monster Movies -- Officer Torch, 21:16:19 06/11/13 Tue [1]
An interesting take by Gary Cahill on the Universal Monster movies. We are of course entitled to our opinions. For me, I grew up with these movies on TV earlier, in the Fifties. They were often hosted by ghoulish types often depending on the area one resided. We always hoped for a weekend show so it wouldn't interfere with school.
Of course, previous generations saw these films on a large screen in theaters. We saw 'em on small screen TV. The present generation (if interested in such fare) buys 'em on DVDs, uses PC type gadgets/devices, or may catch a showing on a classic TV channel. Who knows what future generations will be able to see them on if interested. These are 70+year old films! Future generations may have some interest in such fare, but likely current or newer movies will be their thing.
Gary mentioned on-screen goofs, plot holes, oddities and such peeves, but one can see that he is still a fan. Ok, I saw the various films and noted faults also. Let's face it though, the stuff was entertainment...fiction basically, maybe based on legend, or possibly a tad sinister.
Essentially though, the films were a fun thing, entertaining...and frankly, I never knew one kid while growing up that was scared.
Ok, what will our offspring and theirs think of todays films? Heck..I now see on-screen goofs galore, plot holes, oddities, near X rated material, CG galore, noisey, short often violent fast moving scenes, explosions aplenty, weak/confusing story, poor endings, etc, etc in many films. But, there's good "stuff" also, and entertaining. And admittedly, despite some films with goofs, etc, they too can still be of interest.
And so it goes...but, I imagine it falls under the category of entertainment, and I guess there will always be peeves of some sort....but hey, there's no business like show business. I happen to be an avid Flash Gordon fan; others here also. The serials we admire have goofs, plot holes, but entertaining big time. NASA mentioned Flash Gordon, and in spite of "goofs"...so, if good enough for some at NASA, and later movies have been based upon FG, it's good enough for me, including the old Universal horror films, goofs and all.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: 10 Things I Hate About The Universal Monster Movies -- DAN, 08:34:19 06/12/13 Wed [1]
Like Torch, I grew up with all the Universal horror films, starting with Shock Theater back in Oct 1957.
And I've never stopped watching them.
I love them despite the flaws.
Anyway, I've seen many of the flaws Gary mentioned,
but some of them never bothered me.
I never questioned the armadillo in "Dracula."
The footprints in "The Invisible Man" or the shirt change in "The Wolf Man" was never a big deal to me either.
Nor was many of the other stuff Gary mentioned in the other horror films.
Yes,I have wondered about that lever in BoF that blew everything to atoms. Now what purpose was that for?
If Dr Frankenstein ever wanted wanted to blow the
place up for some reason, that lever wasn't too
practical.
Unless he had a time delay on the explosives where he could escape before the place blew.
Back to "The Invisible Man" and "The Wolf Man."
There are a couple of things in The Invisble Man that
I've thought about.
Why didn't Griffin stay at his home instead of going to that Inn?
He could have worked privately and not expose himself
to any of the problems the Inn gave him.
All he had to do was lock his house up, and cover the windows so no one would see any lights and then he
could continue working in peace.
The other thing was when Griffin threw that train switch and the train went right off the mountain.
Ok, where was that switch track suppose to take the train to?
In The Wolf Man the werewolf is supposed to see the pentagram in his next victims hand.
Yet he never saw it in that gravediggers hand.
I guess perhaps the first victim doesn't count because
you have to have a first victim before you can have
a next victim.
Then there's the Church scene in The Wolf Man where everyone stares at Larry.
It begins with Sir John sitting in the front row
and Larry standing in the back of the church.
Ok, the people in the last row turn and stare at Larry,
then the people in the next row in front of the last row turn and stare.
And then the people in the next row turns and so on down to the front row.
Now that scene would be ok if the turned heads started with Sir John in the front with him being first person looking back to see what was holding up his son, rather that that back to front way they filmed the scene.
I mean if I was sitting in church and some people behind me began looking at the back of the church at someone, I wouldn't know it.
But if they were in front of me and turned and stared at something in the back, then I might turn to see what they were looking at.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
