The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923) Review

Director: Wallace Worsley
Stars: Lon Chaney, Sr., Patsy Ruth Miller, Norman Kerry
Genre: Drama, Horror

The Hunchback of Notre Dame, the first film in the Universal Monster series. Though not quite a horror film, Quasimodo most definitely has monster characteristics, and set the mold for many monster films to follow, such as mobs of torch-toting people, damsels in distress, monsters loving women, etc. If not for this film's great success at the time, Universal would have probably never pursued the Horror genre and we never would have gotten classics like Dracula, Frankenstein, or The Wolf Man. So thank you Hunchback of Notre Dame...thank you.

As a film itself though, The Hunchback of Notre Dame is still pretty good. The sets in particular are extraordinary and really nail the look they were going for. Lon Chaney, Sr. does a great job as Quasimodo and Quasimodo has, what I would think was, pretty impressive make-up for the time. Also I liked the Esmeralda character in here much better than the one from the Disney film.

The film as horror is pretty bad, but then again it's not really a horror film. It's a drama, and as a drama it works pretty well. The story is great, adapted from Victor Hugo's novel of the same name. It stays pretty close to the source material, as much as a film can anyway, except for the ending, which I won't ruin, but I thought the novel did much better. This was far from the first adaptation of Victor Hugo's novel though, this was actually quite a popular adaptation in early cinema, the earliest dating back to 1905.

It's about an ugly disfigured servant, Quasimodo, and his love for a gypsy girl, Esmeralda, who, like him, is also often treated badly due to who she is. It just so happens that Quasimodo's master, Frollo (who always covers his face with his cape, Dracula much? Batman?) is also in love with Esmeralda, and will do sinister things to try and obtain her. Then we have Phoebus (who looks like Captain Hook) who loves Esmeralda as well, and who she loves back. So the entire story is essentially about the quarrels brought forth around this Gypsy girl, but the presence of Quasimodo makes this a bit more unique than your typical love triangle romance drama, and adds a bit more philosophical value to it.

I noticed some plot-holes in the film, or at least I think I did, that I'm sure couldn't of been present in the novel. For example it was never really so much as implied that Frollo was obsessed or in love with Esmeralda, the film makes it seem like he's just a straight up asshole who does terrible things to people without reason. Or, another example, when Esmeralda was being framed for Phoebus' assassination attempt, why couldn't Phoebus just say it wasn't her? I don't know, it hardly matters.

The film can be quite boring and slow at times. After all it is a pretty pure drama, not much action going on. Time didn't really work in this film's favor, because not only is it a slightly boring film, it's also a silent film, and that combination tends to be fairly disastrous, for me at least.

Don't get me wrong, The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a very watchable film and a film you should watch, but definitely not as good as the Universal Monster films that followed. A good film, but mostly worth watching due only to its historical significance and contribution to later horror films. 

Purchase the Hunchback of Notre Dame on Amazon: DVD - Stream

Frankenweenie (1984) Review

Director: Tim Burton
Stars: Barret Oliver, Shelley Duvall, Daniel Stern
Genre: Fantasy, Science fiction

Tim Burton's second film which he directed, the first being Vincent. This is another short film (30 mins.) and is a retelling of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, both parodying and paying homage to.

You can see a lot of traces of Burton's later film, Edward Scissorhands, in here. Of course Edward Scissorhands itself is a retelling of Frankenstein, but the similarities don't end there. They both have a very 70s(?) small-town feel to them, with a sense of community within the film. Something I love about both.

If you know the plot of Frankenstein you essentially know the plot to Frankenweenie. Just replace a scientist with a boy trying to bring back to life his dog.

It's a nice little family film that will also please horror fans. It's shot completely in black and white which alone gives it a sort of gothic, Universal Monster feel to it. Everything from Frankenstein (1931) is present, from the campy laboratory to the windmill, all in a much more childish version mind you. Even the Bride of Frankenstein is here.

The actors do a great job and the characters, though a bit typical, are charming. Shelly Duvall is in this, who many will recognize as Wendy from The Shining.

Though not Tim Burton's best work it is a cute re-telling that is worth watching. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't enjoy it. It doesn't really do anything unique, but it will make you feel good watching it.

A stop-motion animated feature length remake to Frankenweenie, with the same name, was directed by Tim Burton in 2012.

Purchase Frankenweenie on Amazon: VHS - Stream

Vincent (1982) Review

Director: Tim Burton
Narrated by: Vincent Price
Genre: Short film, Stop-motion, Horror

Tim Burton's first directed work, a short titled Vincent. At just under six minutes long, this short stop-motion film is what sparked Burton's directing career, and perhaps even defined it.

What do you get when you combine Vincent Price, Tim Burton, Edgar Allan Poe, and Gothic German expressionism? Well, you get Vincent of course.

The short is about a boy who is obsessed with Vincent Price and Edgar Allan Poe, and is essentially a big horror fan. He often imagines being Vincent Price (who also narrates) and performs experiments and what have you.

Vincent Price does a great job narrating the short, which is really just a visual poem. Though this can be enjoyed by anyone, Price fans will be especially pleased, with not only getting to here the man himself but also with numerous references to Price films.

The stop-motion animation is beautiful and is done in that distinct Burton-style that was later repeated in his later films such as The Nightmare Before Christmas and Frankenweenie. It has a very dark, gothic style, and the sets here are very beautifully inspired by early German expressionist films. The chilling soundtrack compliments the theme wonderfully. 

One of Burton's best even till this day, and a story that resonates with any Horror fan.

Smiley (2012) Review

Director: Michael Gallagher
Stars: Caitlin Gerard, Shane Dawson, Toby Turner
Genre: Horror

I might as well get straight to the point and say that I was pretty disappointed by Smiley. Disappointed because it was a bit...better than I expected. No, that's not the right wording. I should say it was more serious than I expected. It's a pretty awful film, and I did kind of expect it to be, but I thought it'd be cheesy and over-the-top in classic slasher fashion. I thought it'd be fun.

But it wasn't, which I suppose is somewhat admirable since Smiley tried to be a bit different rather than taking the easy route and just making the antagonist go around and kill a bunch of people. But the film never really comes together to be a satisfying experience.

The film is about an internet urban legend where if you're webcam chatting with someone and you type in "i did it for the lulz" into the chat box three times a guy named Smiley will come up behind that person and kill them. Yes, that's right, you have to type in "i did it for the lulz." It's essentially a modernized Bloody Mary. Anyway, these two girls want to see if it's true so they try it and get a guy killed, but then the one girl fears that Smiley is coming to kill her and so on and so forth.

The film tried to be very modern, name-dropping particular imageboards and hacker groups (which quite upset the imageboards and hacker groups mentioned; rules 1 & 2). I'm not a huge fan of films doing this, it tends to feel trendy and forced, which it does in Smiley. Even the main antagonist is named after an emoticon. People unfamiliar with the internet probably won't even understand what they're talking about and those who are familiar will realize how fake they sound, and probably get pretty pissed off at them.

The scares are cheap as ever. Just about nearly every scare is one of those fake kind of scares where it's really just their friend coming up behind them or them bumping into a stranger. I hate those kind of scares. A film can get away with doing that once or twice but this film probably holds the record for most pseudo-scares in a single film. It gets annoying and after the first few times it stops being shocking and it becomes expected and unscary. Shock scares are just so easy to do and when they're not even an actual threat it's even easier.

But I suppose that's the theme of the film: nothing is as it seems. The main character thinks she may be crazy at some points, is sometimes unsure what is real and not. The film kind of even convinces you that she's actually just crazy and imagining it all. (Spoiler: Which is kind of true, but this technique made the ending a bit more satisfying.)

I will admit from now on I'll probably think of this film every time I talk to someone over webcam, so I suppose it deserves some credit for that.

But is Smiley the horror villain for the internet generation as Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees and Freddy Kreuger were to the kids of the 80s. I hope not. Let's try to do a bit better.

A lot of the camera angles compliment the scares pretty well, but there's nothing really too outstanding here. I liked how what was going on in the main character's life was reflected in her college class discussions. That was cool, slightly cliche, but cool.

[The following paragraph will contain spoilers] In the end we find out it was all a prank by the hardcore internet users of the film. They drive the main girl to suicide and then they all laugh about it. It's pretty sick. They all chant "For the lulz" at the end in unison. It's an obvious commentary on how much is too much, and how anonymity can lead people to do things they wouldn't normally.  Basically a statement on the internet generation.

I like films that make a statement and have something to say. And a lot of what Smiley tries to point out I find to be agreeable. But, alas, the film is still pretty shitty and the ending really isn't satisfying. Incredibly grim, yes, which I like, but still not very good.

The film's cast is filmed with mostly generally unknown actors. Well-known YouTubers Shane Dawson and Toby Turner are in here. I'm not much fans of their work, but none of the actors in here are very talented. They do a suffice enough job but it's all very mediocre. Caitlin Gerard has such a beautiful smile though.

You may think going into this, as I did, that it will be a regular slasher film. Which makes sense if you've read the synopsis or watched the trailer. I mean the monster looks like he belongs in a slasher film. You'll find something a bit different, it's to an extent a slasher, it's more psychological horror, but it really doesn't do justice to any subgenre.

So even though the film tries to, it really doesn't do anything new and it plays out like a very typical horror film. There are some interesting things, and the film's ultimate goal seemed to present a message, which I suppose it achieved. But, I can't really recommend it.

Pros:

+Tries to be a bit different than other slashers

+Has something to say

Cons:

-Ends up being pretty typical

-Scares are cheap and dull

-Acting is sub-par

-Tries too hard to appeal to internet audiences, ultimately fails

-Nothing here is outstanding

The Night of the Hunter (1955) Review

Director: Charles Laughton
Stars: Robert Mitchum, Shelley Winters, Lillian Gish
Genre: Thriller

The Night of the Hunter is a film about a man who robs $10,000 from a bank and hides the money, telling only his two children where it is and entrusting them to never tell anyone, not even their mother. The man is then arrested and sentenced to death for the murders of two people in the bank.

While in prison he meets a preacher named Harry Powell (Mitchum) who, after being released, goes to the now dead man's home to try and find out where the money is stashed. The entire film is about this preacher trying to get the children to tell him where the money is.

The plot, which is based on the novel of the same name, is actually pretty good. It's simple and easy to follow but leads to many events and varied scenes. 

This is the only film that actor Charles Laughton ever directed. The film was mostly ignored at the time of its release but has since found the recognition that it no doubt deserves.

The cinematography and visuals here are stunning. Though not quite a film noir, it has very many noir qualities and themes. At times it even has a Gothic feel, and the German expressionist influences are quite present. The sets and scenes are all beautiful, whether it be children floating down river at night on a boat, or an angry preacher riding his horse in the distance; it's all beautifully done and very memorable. Let me not forget the perfect use of light and shadows, creating and incredibly sinister atmosphere. 

It's a pretty film to say the least. Charles Laughton should be applauded on his cinematography choices. Take for example the scene where Harry Powell has his tattooed hand parched on the fence post. Or the haunting scene with the dead woman's body at the bottom of the river, hair waving in the water with the seaweed.

The preacher, Harry Powell, is perhaps one of the most terrifying and memorable antagonists ever. Portrayed excellently by Robert Mitchum, he gives off a creepy and terror-filled vibe that is very similar to many horror films. His hands are tattooed with the word "LOVE" on his right knuckles and "HATE" on his right. A chilling trademark for a chilling character.

The latter part of the film follows the two children trying to escape from the preacher, and this was one of the few films of the time to give such a large role to children. And I must say the child actors did not disappoint. 

I'd call The Night of the Hunter a borderline horror film, just because of its deliciously evil and memorable antagonist and its creepy atmosphere. Plus it always seems to be night time in this film. There's even an angry mob towards the end, which I'm still not sure what purpose they served.

I can't remember the film having any music besides the songs that were sung by characters in the film. From little girls singing lullabies, to an old woman singing in unison with a serial killer. It's all wonderfully chilling and unsettling, which fits the theme perfectly.

The film has its flaws. The ending was....really weird. It just didn't fit the feel of the rest of the film, and it almost felt like propaganda the way the lady just looked at the camera. It is a happy ending, but it was just...I really can't describe it, it was just so unsubtle in its delivery. There were also some questionable directorial decisions, but for a directorial debut this film is superb.

It's a classic film that was ahead of its time and one of those films that everyone should watch.

Pros:

+Great visuals, cinematography, and atmosphere

+Feared and memorable antagonist

+Memorable scenes

+Chilling soundtrack

Cons:

-Questionable ending

Purchase The Night of the Hunter on Amazon: Blu-Ray - DVD - Stream