What Movie Did You Just Watch? - Shh! It's Starting!

[Escapay]

Frenzy (1972)

Hitchcock's last film

His last film was 1976's Family Plot.

albert

[VagueSimplicity]

The two blu rays I got in the mail yesterday: The Phantom of the Opera and Changeling. Thank God they came here before this miraculous blizzard (I live in Texas) or else I might have had to wait a couple of more days.

I've seen them both before only once. PotO I could watch and over and over again, much like Mrs. Doubtfire, but Changeling on the other hand is so sad, I feel I might regret my purchase in the future since it's not really a romantic or heartwarming classic you want to watch time after time. Don't get me wrong, it's great, but very dark and depressing.

I did, however, watch PotO a lot today on my snow day. The graveyard scene is definitely my favorite because of today. There's something very seductive about a Red rose lying on glistening, white snow. The cinematography was absolutely superb.

[jpanimation]

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
Anyway, I recommend this movie, it's public domain so you can see it anywhere on the internet (it clocks in at only 50 mins, so it's not even feature length).

The complete version lasts 71 minutes. If you saw the 51 minutes-version (which IMDb lists as 'USA version'), you missed 20 minutes.

Well, after you said that, I had to search and find the full 71 minutes version. Only to find out that its the exact same movie just played at a slower frame rate (I was hoping there was scenes I was missing). Oh well, I actually enjoyed it just a little bit more the second time through.

Frenzy (1972)

Hitchcock's last film

His last film was 1976's Family Plot.

albert

Both of those movies get a bad rap but I actually enjoy them somewhat (although, The Birds was the last truly great Hitchcock, with Marnie starting the trend of mediocre). My favorites are Strangers on a Train, Rear Window, North by Northwest and Psycho. I guess I'm a Hitch fan as I've seen all his work from Number Seventeen to Family Plot (not including the TV episodes he directed).

Anyways, now I'm on a Universal Monsters binge in preparation for the new Wolfman movie coming out.

The Phantom of the Opera (1925) 7.5/10 - repeat review - one of the first Universal monster movies, I really like it. Flowed really quick and the plot was so simple, it was very enjoyable. Lon Chaney was as fantastic as ever and it didn’t seem as corny as the later movies.

Dracula (1931) 7/10 - still the greatest Dracula movie ever made, although, thats not saying much. This is the classic one every one knows. I can't say the performances, or camerawork/direction are anything special but I like the set work and simplistic story (not overly complicated like Coppola's take). There's just some scenes that could've been handled better (as in, it's not clear exactly what is taking place).

Drácula (1931) 7/10 - the now infamous Spanish version that was filmed at night, simultaneously with the the English version, after they were done filming; reusing sets, costumes, and scripts (for the most part). Critics will have you believe this is the superior version of Dracula, as the Spanish crew could watch what the US crew did and improve it.

Technically, many shots were better with the new camera moves (adding some scope to Dracula's castle) but nothing has changed to make this movie superior. Many of the shots have been extended, lots of breathing room, and it increases the films length by 30mins (believe it or not, it actually features one less scene [the random girl on the street he attacks], so thats all scene extensions). This both helps the movie and hurts it. The whole beginning of the movie is far superior to the US version. Renfield now eats the food Dracula offers him (in a gluttonous manner) and cuts his finger with a knife while cutting bread (as opposed to getting a paper cut in the original and its FAR more effective). The only thing I didn't like was Dracula's brides attacking Renfield instead of Dracula himself (and the following boat scene was shortened). It's towards the middle of the movie that the scene extensions really start to drag on you, you start to feel that extra 30mins. There's a scene in the original where Van Helsing shows Dracula a mirror and he instantly slams it down, but in this version he takes forever to react (making him seem less threatening). In this version, its clear what they are doing in the graveyard (killing the lady in white) while in the US version I was never sure what the hell they were doing there (the lady in white was a loose end I never understood why never got wrapped up but now I understand they killed her, they just never made it clear that was what they did at the graveyard). Also, there's a nice establishing shot of Carfax Abbey, something I always wanted in the original. The ending is a mixed bad. It adds a sunrise scene to add to Dracula's urgency to get to his coffin but it also takes away Van Helsing tearing apart his coffin and using the wood as a steak (he now just finds the steak sitting right on the ground).

So as far a clarity in direction (I finally understand what's going on in certain scenes), camera work, and the whole extended beginning, this is far superior to the original. Unfortunately, none of the actors (except the guy who played Van Helsing) were as good as the English actors and the extended scenes towards the middle threw off the films pacing. Add in some scenes they messed up (mirror scene comes to mind) and it comes in as an equal to the original. Still worth checking out for fans (or those like me who want to know what's going on due to Tod Browning's lackluster direction).

Frankenstein (1931) 7.5/10 - directed by the great James Whale, this was one of the first times Hollywood tried to portray a monster as tragic. This movie is just classic all over with a story thats great (not to mention Boris Karloff's iconic makeup). For this one, I've actually read the book (required reading in school) and still prefer this movie take (although it bothers me that they call him Henry instead of Victor). The book is a tragedy in every way and is just a little too depressing. This movie streamlines almost all of that, simplifying it to something easier to watch while still remaining dark/tragic enough.

The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) 7.5/10 - here's where the real tragedy comes in, thanks again to James Whale. This is one of those rare sequels that actually compliments the first VERY well. This one picks up right where the first left off and is much more about the Monster then Frankenstein this time around. There are some very beautiful scenes with the Monster that actually lends to some sympathy (something the first one didn't do too well). Franz Waxman has created a score for it with all original material, since the first didn't have a score, and the themes are very memorable and worthy of the classic original. Just a couple things bothered me about this movie. I didn't like the whole Mary Shelly prologue they did (just distracted me from the story), I didn't like the miniature people scene (completely lame and killed all scientific credibility) and I didn't like the changed cast members (gone are Mae Clarke and Lionel Belmore) as continuation changes are just a pet peeve of mine. Other then that, this movie greatly improves the Monster's characters and lends to the final tragic events of the movie.

The Mummy (1932) 6/10 - I just don't understand what makes this a classic. Karloff is the Mummy for only a few seconds in this film (even though the promotion material all show him as the Mummy). The story just doesn't seem interesting to me and some of it just doesn't seem plausible (a princess loved Imhotep although he's an entirely dreary character, even in the flash backs, that no one could love). He's just so non-threatening that its ridiculous and the worst he can do is induce a heart attack by looking into his pool. There's nothing scary about him and this really shouldn't be considered a horror movie (I couldn't find any of those elements here). Its more of a romantic/drama/tragedy. Not to mention the main characters are boring and completely forgettable. Either way, it just didn't appeal to me.

The Mummy (1999) 7.5/10 - I know I'll get flamed for having this opining but I like this more then the original. I think the injection of the Indiana Jones action brought some life to the story (which was a dead as the mummy in it). The characters are all interesting (especially Brendan Fraser in his best role) and the movie is incredible entertaining (both things the original missed). Some of the effects are a little over done (cartoony) and the Mummy uses the face in sand thing a little too much. Imhotep's roaring is incredible cheesy, and the mummies he summons shouldn't sound like Gremlins (this isn't Scooby-Doo). Other then the cheesiness they added, its good fun. Not to mention it scores points for having a couple of scenes at least trying to be horror (thats more then the original). Oh, and Jerry Goldsmith's score is awesome, very memorable.

The Invisible Man (1933) 8/10 - James Whale is at it again. This one is soo underrated it's tragic. Not only is the Invisible Man the most clever of the Universal Monsters but also the most diabolical (his kill count is WAY above any of the other monsters). The story is that of a man slowly descending into insanity and becoming a monster. Less of a tragedy and more on human nature. Claud Rain's delivers a great performance and you don't even see his face until the very last scene. One thing I have to talk about in this are the special effects. They used what is now the equivalent of Blue-screen to remove parts of the actor and to an astonishing effect. Hard to believe it was made in the 30's as it just looks that good. The best villain you'll never see. I think the sequel with Vincent Price, has even cooler effects, but thats all it has going for it.

Topping it off tomorrow with the original Wolf Man and The Creature from the Black Lagoon (a personal favorite).

[blackcauldron85]

This morning, I watched Ice Castles (2010)- I wasn't familiar with the original movie- I first heard about it actually on Facebook when my friend wrote something about how they're remaking it. I saw the trailer on the Bright Star DVD a couple days ago, and it looked good. I liked it. It was sweet and pretty uplifting. A-

[jpanimation]

The Wolf Man (1941) 6.5/10 - I was never really a fan of this one and really don't understand why werewolf movies are so bad. Its a great concept and could be a really good character piece if someone would do it right but they always put more emphasis on the wolf (An American Werewolf in London was fun, but not the gothic classic I'm looking for). Lon Chaney Jr.'s acting is just stiff and unemotional. He doesn't hold a candle to his dad, even the creature stuff isn't as good as the stuff his dad did. Claude Rains is alright here, but not as good as usual. I don't understand why the gypsy that originally bit him was a full wolf, while Chaney turns into a hairy George Lucas. I'm even more baffled at the fact that a werewolf would go around strangling people instead of, you know, biting or clawing them (although, the gypsy wolf would maul people).

Either way, considering I'm not a big fan of the original, it'd take a lot for me to be disappointed in the new Wolf Man movie out today.

Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954) 8/10 - I don't know why but I probably enjoy this one more then I should. Its more of an adventure flick then horror/tragedy and it doesn't take itself as seriously as the others but it has a monster in it. I just like the exploration and unknown of the Amazon, not to mention the characters are fun. It gets a little slow towards the end when The Gill Man dams the river but before that, the pacing is great. The music is a mixed bag (I can only assume its because of all the different composers involved). For the most part, its good, and at one point it sounds like the theme from Jaws (when they hunt The Gill Man for the first time) but the main theme for The Gill Man is overly dramatic and obnoxious/distracting.

I hope the upcoming remake for Creature from the Black Lagoon does the original justice, more then the dumb musical that Universal Studios Hollywood made, and has some nice Amazon location shooting. Oh, I also just found out that this was filmed in 3D and I'm hearing that Universal has Blu-ray 3D plans. Heck, if Blu-ray 3D can get movies like this and Dial M for Murder to finally be seen in it's true 3D, then call me a HUGE supporter.

On a side note, the 30's Universal logo is my favorite (the one the with plane flying around the globe) as it just represented exploration/adventure. The 40's logo sucked.

[Flanger-Hanger]

The Shadow (1994)

This is one of those movies that is close to being quite good, as most of it is, but it could have been better. Some points:

Alec Baldwin may not have been the greatest choice to play the title role because his demonic laugh just isn't that good (should have watched Dr. Syn for research ), but his "shadow talk" is good along with costume (which I must have for Halloween!) and he looks handsome enough in his Lamont form. The rest of the non-villain cast works too for the roles they are given with Penelope Ann Miller certainly good in the love interest role, both begin an appropriate beauty without begin dim witted or endlessly screaming like Vicky Vale.

The art direction and locations seem to be a mix of Batman (1989), Dick Tracy (1990) and The Rocketeer (1991), which isn't bad thing such as mixing chocolate, vanilla and strawberry ice cream together, but it does seem familiar to whomever has seen those before. At times it even feels inconsistent such as the opening bridge scene which as a result of the angle the city backdrop can be seen at times makes it look very stage bound, but then you have the outside, day lit and realistic studio shoots. It's still great for the most part though.

The special effects too are fantastic with sweeping shadows, shifting mist and even a scene where water parts where the title character's legs should be. When The Shadow emerges from a wall in person, it looks really cool.

Jerry Goldsmith's score is appropriate, but it seems familiar to along with begin very forgettable.

What this film is missing the most is a great villain. Shiwan Khan can't hold a candle to Jack Nicholson's Joker or Al Pachino's Big Boy Caprice. He's neither funny or scary which just makes him more of a plot device than a character to get excited about unfortunately. Tim Curry's just there to be Tim Curry which doesn't help either. I'd also say that the jokes involving the villains in this film aren't the best either, besides the final scene involving Shiwan.

Finally, I could have done without the scrolling text portion of the opening sequence. Show movie, don't tell.

I think people should give it a chance, but it's not the best comic book out there. However, I'd take it over the Schumacher Batmans or most superhero films of the past decade anyday.

[Flanger-Hanger]

The Mummy (1932) 6/10 - I just don't understand what makes this a classic. Karloff is the Mummy for only a few seconds in this film (even though the promotion material all show him as the Mummy). The story just doesn't seem interesting to me and some of it just doesn't seem plausible (a princess loved Imhotep although he's an entirely dreary character, even in the flash backs, that no one could love). He's just so non-threatening that its ridiculous and the worst he can do is induce a heart attack by looking into his pool. There's nothing scary about him and this really shouldn't be considered a horror movie (I couldn't find any of those elements here). Its more of a romantic/drama/tragedy. Not to mention the main characters are boring and completely forgettable. Either way, it just didn't appeal to me.

I'm surprised you didn't criticize the film for resembling Dracula (1931) so much. That's one thing I've read before and definitely agree with.

I think the sequel with Vincent Price, has even cooler effects, but thats all it has going for it.

Well that and having Vincent Price in it. Glad you love the first one so much, it's fantastic and my 2d favorite of the Universal Monster films.

[Goliath]

Enduring Love (2004)

All-right thriller/drama. Lots of suspense, but also a lot of 'filler' material. Great acting by Daniel Craig.

[jpanimation]

I'm surprised you didn't criticize the film for resembling Dracula (1931) so much. That's one thing I've read before and definitely agree with.

Well, sort of. The whole hypnotizing power and trying to kill the lead girl to make her his own. It was bound to happen with it being an original story. All Universal Monster stories up to that point were based on novels (The Phantom of the Opera, Dracula, and Frankenstein). To their defense, they started the whole Mummy horror genre but they just didn't want to stray from a formula. I felt it had bigger problems going against it then the recycled story.

Glad you love the first one so much, it's fantastic and my 2d favorite of the Universal Monster films.

Might I ask what your first favorite is (I hope I didn't bash it).

Two things I enjoy as a Universal Monsters lover are the Universal Studios' Classic Monsters Cafe at Universal Studios Florida and The Munsters TV show.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Well, sort of. The whole hypnotizing power and trying to kill the lead girl to make her his own. It was bound to happen with it being an original story. All Universal Monster stories up to that point were based on novels (The Phantom of the Opera, Dracula, and Frankenstein). To their defense, they started the whole Mummy horror genre but they just didn't want to stray from a formula. I felt it had bigger problems going against it then the recycled story.

I was thinking more of the Swan Lake music for the opening credits and having the Van Helsing actor from Dracula doing a similar role. But I agree with your other points.

Might I ask what your first favorite is (I hope I didn't bash it).

You did not, it's the 1925 Phantom. Have you seen the 1943 version also by Universal?

Two things I enjoy as a Universal Monsters lover are the Universal Studios' Classic Monsters Cafe at Universal Studios Florida...

Did not go there when I was last there, but I will for sure next time!

[jpanimation]

You did not, it's the 1925 Phantom.

Great, I was surprised at how much I liked Phantom. I went in not expecting much and it all went by soo fast. As for the 43 version, I haven't seen it.

Two things I enjoy as a Universal Monsters lover are the Universal Studios' Classic Monsters Cafe at Universal Studios Florida...

Did not go there when I was last there, but I will for sure next time!

I forced myself to go in for the first time the last time I was there and I was surprised at just how cool it was inside. I was afraid for the longest time to see Hitchcock and when I finally saw one of his movies (becoming a HUGE fan), I then really wanted to see the exhibit. Unfortunately I waited too long and it was replaced with Shrek and I forever missed out on such a great opportunity. So I didn't want to miss out on Monsters Cafe as you never know how long it'll be there.

[PeterPanfan]

The Wolfman (2010) - Horrible. I usually like Emily Blunt, but she was so emotionless in this movie. The blood was weird-looking, and it was very hard to differentiate from the werewolves. I didn't think any of the acting was good, not even Anthony Hopkins. Not recommended.

[slave2moonlight]

Just watched three of my newest blu-ray purchases:

Inglorious Basterds
The Mist
and Zombieland

Gotta say, these are instantly on my favorite movie list, and all those people who complain that they don't make good movies these days should see them and shut up, ha. As for Wolf Man, I intend to see that one tomorrow. I am expecting to love it, so here's hoping I'm not disappointed (after the previous post). I'm a huge fan of the original film and love the subject matter, obviously. The trailers have just looked incredible.

[2099net]

Well, I disagree so much with your assessments of both Universal's Dracula and The Mummy jpanimation I feel we couldn't be any more opposite.

Firstly, Dracula is a terrible movie for most of its duration. I does have a couple of effective scenes, but they're rare. The problem with Dracula really isn't that its based on a book - but that its basically the stage play. It's too talky, action often happens off screen and as a result the film seems dull and static. I think its also clear that the director Browning had little interest in the movie - I'm not 100% sure, but I think there were issues between Universal and Browning at this time which eventually led to him going to MGM to make Freaks (a film he did have a passion for, because it touched upon events and characters from his own life). I said earlier that that Dracula does have some effective scenes, but I personally think these are more down to cinematographer Karl Freund - who was one of the initial pioneers of German Expressionist Cinema.

As for The Mummy, it does resemble Dracula. But I can easily forgive it, because it does everything Dracula did wrong, right. I constantly flip-flop between this and The Invisible Man as my favourite Universal Monster movie and I still haven't made up my mind even now as I type this.

The similarities between the two (probably) come down to the fact the movie was written by John L. Balderston (who wrote the play/screenplay for Dracula) and the fact it was directed by Freund. This could explain the similarities in theme and casting. What is known is that the original story was going to be way different, with Inhotep being a petty, vengeful being based on the immoral Italian sorcerer Cagliostro, who being immortal would once a generation punish and kill the reincarnation of a love who betrayed him in the ancient past. Thematically this original story still has some connection to the finished film, but to all intents and purposes what we ended up with was a total rewrite.

But what we ended up with was a masterpiece. I'm genuinely confused by your assertion that Karloff isn't scary in the movie. I find he has a quiet, understated menace throughout his time on screen - much more effective than the normal ranting and raving we often see in similar characters in other movies. The fact he can give you a heart attack without even being near you is scary. Comparing the two films as we are, I cannot fathom how anyone would prefer Lugosi's Dracula to Karloff's Inhotep/Bey.

As I stated before, The Mummy does everything right Dracula did wrong. Everything is just better. Better direction, better writing, better acting, better character and motivation. The ending may be a cop out (I agree) and Inhotep may be a bit "wet" when alive (while I agree with that statement, I think is a little off to criticise him for having little energy when dead!) but I find them minor flaws when taking the whole film into account.

I do however agree that its not really a horror movie, but then again, I don't see The Invisible Man as a horror movie - nor Bride of Frankenstien. They and The Mummy are all films with attempt to do more than just tell a simple story - they are films which want to engage more of your emotions. Whale used humour and satire (which help to keep his films unnaturally fresh and relevant even today) along with emotion, while The Mummy (like Phantom of the Opera) simply opts to use more emotion to enhance the story.

The Mummy did of course start the horror mummy movie trend, and its interesting to compare how when the Mummy was just reduced to a "monster" we ended up with nothing more than a Zombie knock-off, traipsing around and terrorising women clad head to toe in bandages. It's clear from the start the original Mummy movie didn't want to be just a horror film. And it succeeded wonderfully in my mind.

[dvdjunkie]

Flanger Hanger wrote:

Have you seen the 1943 version also by Universal?

There is also a great version of "The Phantom of the Opera" from 1962 Universal Pictures starring Herbert Lom as The Phantom/Professor Petry, and Michael Gough as the more than evil Lord Ambrose d'Arcy.

This is a totally different version of the story that most of us are used to, but after one viewing it has become one of my favorites. Terrence Fisher directed this version and it was released by Hammer Films through Universal.

Heather Sears has the featured role of Christine Charles and the music in this film takes a step to the background for the story.

Unfortunately this film is only available on VHS (remember that format??) and has yet to see the light of day on DVD. I have read that Universal is going to release some of their Hammer titles later this year, and I truly hope that this is one of them.

[PeterPanfan]

Imagine Me and You - I really, really loved this movie. I normally do like Piper Perabo, so of course she was my favorite character. I think she pulled the British accent off very well for an American, and Lena Hadley was great as well. It was funny, touching, sad, guilty -- It's hard to think of it as just a romantic comedy. Highly recommended.

[Lazario]

Well... I said I wanted bad. And bad is what I got. Unfortunately... it's not the good kind of bad. Nor is it any real fun. This Z-rate wannabe Troma spoof / sex-comedy / "slasher" thing is truly one of the worst direct-to-video 80's horror flicks I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through. Why is it, with a movie that is supposed to be about female cheerleaders, we have to suffer through "boys will be boys" antics? I'm sorry, on the cover of this disc and on the back as well, I see pictures of girls. Why am I forced to watch scenes of Googy Gress wannabes mooning people in windows with their impossibly-fat asses naked onscreen for 3 minutes straight? And of course, that's not even half as low brow as this thing gets. Said Token-Fat-Guy also cross dresses and films himself peeing on a portable video camera (he doesn't pee on the camera, he pees in the woods). And as if that weren't enough, this movie throws in yet 2 more horny guys. Only in this case- they're old horny guys. These "filmmakers" want to make sure they can narrow your opinions of as many stereotypes they're able to fit in one movie (and I'd say they did they're job admirably- try to not be repulsed by the men in this movie). Leif Garrett is the only semi-attractive guy here and even he can't be bothered to be a decent human being. Wait... you may be thinking to yourself: why are their men at a cheerleading camp? Well, we all know there are male cheerleaders. But these guys don't dance. Dancing's too gay or something. These guys rap. You can just see where this is going. And, yes, it makes Sleepaway Camp 2: Unhappy Campers look artful. Forgive me for expecting this would have a lot more bitch antics and... well, something for female viewers. Or...for any viewer with a brain. The only thing this has going for it is a truly inspired twist ending. But, wow- 2 minutes out of 88? If any of you have this in your Netflix Queue, do yourselves a huge favor and drop it like it's something that belongs in the toilet. It does.







If you have any idea in the slightest what the story of this movie is, then reading a review of it will be pointless. It's entirely effective in what it seeks to accomplish. It's shockingly original, stylish, entertaining. And, a little shockingly sleazy (William Hootkins is completely unrecognizable as a nasty, sicko pervert neighbor). It's pure art come to life. And one of those great almost Argento-like affairs which only makes sense to the guy who wrote it. I believe the long and short of it are the same: a man, his girlfriend, and his best friend are living in a hellish future where the government / military have now created a robot called the M.A.R.K. 13 (a reference to some chapter or passage of the bible) which is designed to kill every single living thing it comes across. Why? Population elimination. The story takes place within one day and almost everything you see takes place within less than 4 hours. The first 30 minutes of the movie deal with the morning and afternoon, the last hour, plus, are the main characters being terrorized by said killer robot over that crucial 3-4 hours.

[Margos]

Saludos Amigos - Cute. Really cute. "Aquarela do Brasil" is lovely, and Jose Carioca is simply wonderful! (Of course, it's just a taste of what we see later in The Three Caballeros). And that bridge sequence in Lake Titicaca is very funny... although a little hard to watch sometimes. Not good for right after eating. A nice little film, not too remarkable, but definitely enjoyable.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - OK, so Adriana's annoying, the rotoscoping looks odd to today's eyes, and a lot of it seems like fluff. But it's a classic for a reason. It's an amazing transition directly from the Silly Symphonies, and a great first attempt at a feature film. This film made history, and it isn't hard to see why. The backgrounds, especially, are beautiful. And all of the animals are just so adorable! A good movie on its own but a wonderful piece of animation history.

[slave2moonlight]

The Wolf Man 2010: I LOVED it. I only have two complaints. One is kinda superficial. I mean, not all that important. I just felt that since it was mostly very different from the original Lon Chaney, Jr. version, which is one of my fave flicks, they might as well have not used the same names and titles and just called it an original werewolf film. I always feel that way about remakes that are so very different, and I felt this was one. Remakes should be somewhat different in significant ways, but I felt this one was waaay different.

The only really serious thing I would gripe about is that they should have made Lawrence more endearing from the beginning. In the old film, he's a very likeable, jovial fellow, while everyone in this film was very somber from the get go. The film had a great mood to it and I don't mean that we don't get to feel for Lawrence, but it could have been much stronger, as I believe it was in the old film, when we were allowed to relate to him better. I know the backstory in this one didn't really allow for a happy-go-lucky Lawrence, but they still should have explored his endearing traits a bit more than they did and helped us connect with him moreso. Still, it was not a major problem since everything else in the film was so good, in my opinion. There are some really unforgettable scenes, and kudos for making such a scary pants-wearing werewolf!

[jpanimation]

Well, I disagree so much with your assessments of both Universal's Dracula and The Mummy jpanimation I feel we couldn't be any more opposite.

Great, I loved reading your differing opinion. I can't say I disagree with anything said, but I just don't enjoy The Mummy as much as any of the other Universal Monsters. As for Dracula, I said its the best Dracula movie but thats only because I didn't enjoy Coppola or Murnau's takes at all. It's really hard to argue for it, because it was so terribly directed by Tod Browning.

Zombieland (2009) 8/10 - wow, I was completely caught off guard by this film. After seeing the trailers, I wasn't expecting much but I ended up loving this movie just as much as The Hangover (two great comedies in 2009). All four main characters are likable and interesting. It had the look and feel of a serious zombie movie but its really damn funny at the same time. Not to mention it has Bill "F*ing" Murray in it (I know its not his middle name). Anyway, even though its a comedy, it's probably the most enjoyable zombie flick I've ever seen.

slave2moonlight, your the first person I read compare The Wolfman to The Wolf Man. Seriously, every review I read just has to compare it to An American Werewolf in London. They're completely different movies, so it was nice to hear someone make a fair comparison. Either way, I've heard nothing but negative stuff and I hope it's not a complete waste of my money. We'll see...