Your Most OVERRATED and UNDERRATED 1930s Horrors in Golden Age Horror Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

Your Most OVERRATED and UNDERRATED 1930s Horrors

Author	Comment
Cool Ghoul		#181	[-]
Nov 4 09 11:08 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Overrated: Dr. X or The Black Room Underrated: Murders In The Rue Morgue
	Remove this ad
Dr Stinson		#182	[-]
Nov 4 09 4:06 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I would have to agree with a lot of people on this board in thinking that VAMPYR (1932) is overrated. despite some very nice visuals I have always found to crude and rather incoherent. THE RAVEN (1935) on the other hand is very underrated. It is not as good as the previous Karloff Lugosi film THE BLACK CAT (1934) but it is a very enjoyable and high quality horror film.
paleoguy		#183	[-]
Nov 4 09 6:33 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Overrated? For me that would be DRACULA (the Spanish language version.) I much prefer the Browning film over the two. Underrated? Be a tie with THE MUMMY and MARK OF THE VAMPIRE. The former is, to me at least, a masterpiece of mood, containing the single most terrifying scene from the whole Universal saga (Bramwell Fletcher's insane cackle), and features one of Karloff's finest and most haunting performances. The latter is the most brilliant-looking vampire film ever made, even though there aren't any real vampires--or...are there? Again merely my opinion. Actually I find almost all the horror films of the 1930s a very entertaining package. Martin
aboo43078		#184	[-]
Nov 4 09 7:07 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	How many great German sound horrors of the 1930s are there? M is a monumental Horror film.Very under raterd!!!!! A LEGEND IN MY OWN MIND.... ..AND ONE IN YOURS SOON ENOUGH!!!! Last Edited By: aboo43078 Dec 26 09 11:29 AM. Edited 1 times.
Joe Karlosi		#185	[-]
Nov 4 09 7:57 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	tonyrivers wrote: Most over-rated 1930's film for me is BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. I like the original FRANKENSTEIN better. Most under-rated: GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN. You need to pick another, Tony; GHOST is a '40s flick.
tonyrivers		#186	[-]
Nov 4 09 8:05 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	OK Joe: In stead of GHOST I'll pick SON OF KONG. OK so it's no KING KONG but I still find it an enjoyable, fun movie and Robert Armstrong gives his usual steady performance.
paleoguy		#187	[-]
Nov 4 09 8:28 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I've always really liked SON OF KONG. True, it's definitely not KING KONG, but I don't think it pretends to be either. The movie is always fun every time I watch it, and it never fails to break my heart before the end credits. To be so emotionally affected by a steel puppet covered in rubber and rabbit fur is...amazing. Martin
japfeif		#188	[-]
Nov 15 09 1:12 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Overrated: for me, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (I'll duck now!). I just don't really get the fuss over it & I've TRIED to like it. To me it tries too hard to be artsy-fartsy, and has that quasi-Disney-type music scuttling thru it, and it just seems a bit too whimsical for a horror film. Don't get me wrong, it is a great film, but yes I do think it's entirely overrated as the pinnacle of the horror cycle. Underrated: There are several. KONGO I wish got more attention that is seems to...I love this film & it's really pretty depraved, sleazy, and creepy for as early as it came in the horror cycle (but then, it's Pre-Code so...). MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE has a charm I can't really describe but I really like nevertheless, especially in it's self-done re-arranged form (remember all this Gary?? ). I also think WEREWOLF OF LONDON has gotten more than it's share of bad reviews....it's not worse than Chaney's WOLF MAN at all...just a different type of movie & I think it tends to get judged by comparison & not on it's own merits or shortcomings.
luisj40		#189	[-]
Nov 15 09 6:20 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	japfeif wrote: Overrated: for me, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (I'll duck now!). I just don't really get the fuss over it & I've TRIED to like it. To me it tries too hard to be artsy-fartsy, and has that quasi-Disney-type music scuttling thru it, and it just seems a bit too whimsical for a horror film. Don't get me wrong, it is a great film, but yes I do think it's entirely overrated as the pinnacle of the horror cycle. I'll agree that BRIDE is overrated especially when many think it's better than the film that preceded it however it's not close to my most overrated as I do like BRIDE despite several annoying comedic touches from James Whale that essentially makes a mockery of the FRANKENSTEIN series. I enjoyed the humor in Whale's INVISBLE MAN where the film manages to remain serious thus the humor comes off dark but in BRIDE it becomes too goofy and absurd. Luis
Uncle Bingo		#190	[-]
Dec 13 09 10:46 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Overrated: Dracula (but not LUGOSI - he is great and without him this board probably wouldn't exist.) However, the film's editing is horrible and aside of Dwight Frye, Edward Van Sloan, and Lugosi, it doesn't seem like the other leads give a hoot (ahem, Manners and Chandler). Don't get me wrong, I totally appreciate Dracula for what it is, which is a masterpiece, but one with quite a few flaws and some hedging around the edges. It's like a paint job that has a few holidays here and there along with a little splatter on the frame - and the more you look at it, the more obvious the imperfections become. Underrated: The Raven. Probably one of Lugosi's best performances and certainly one of the more vicious of the Universal films (along with the Black Cat - but that isn't underrated - it gets plenty of credit). Aside from the lousy make up on poor Boris, it is a great film. Many complain that Lugosi goes over the top on this one, but folks, the guy is supposed to be completely unhinged....and he does that. I certainly wouldn't want to be in the clutches of Dr. Vollin! On a separate note: Langella? Disco Dracula? OMG. So unfair. He is easily the best guy to wear the cloak since Lugosi and added his own unique touches to the role. Aside from the hairstyle, I think the 1979 Dracula is great (OK the laser show vampire wedding is odd too). As for the Gary Oldman interpretation...I think he would have made a much better Dr. Van Helsing than he did Dracula. I thought Bram Stoker's Dracula was awful besides the great costumes and the drinking of absinthe! Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves (Whoa....) were horrid in that. My two cents and that ain't worth much!
	Remove this ad
Monstroso Sabroso		#191	[-]
Dec 17 09 7:44 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Freaks, most overrated. (Impression of it based on stills and reputation much stronger than film itself.) The Invisible Ray. most underrated. (Sure there are some awkward effects to scare the superficialists away. But at core, in the performances by Karloff and Lugosi, which is what you came for, there is purest gold. Karloff arouses tremendous empathy, this time sans the neckbolts. And if you wonder how GOOD -- reasonably modulated -- an actor Lugosi could be, this is the one to check out.) And about the ongoing Bride of Frankenstein controversy: I think it has to be taken in the same spirit as The Invisible Man and The Thirty-Nine Steps. It's more about choice Brit drollery than real scares.
Dr Acula		#192	[-]
Dec 17 09 8:56 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Overrated:Dracula's Daughter... it's not nearly as good as: Underrated: Son of Dracula. The Lonster gives a good performance, the atmosphere is excellent... an all around enjoyable romp that I think gets pilloried because people think Lon is too fat & unsophisticated to be a Universal vampire... I think it's great!
Grant		#193	[-]
Dec 17 09 11:18 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Obviously under- and over- are relative words, and The Mummy is AT LEAST very underrated when it's compared to the Hammer film. (I prefer the Hammer film too, but I still think the Universal one is great.)
Monsterpal		#194	[-]
Dec 20 09 11:46 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Dr Acula wrote: Overrated:Dracula's Daughter... it's not nearly as good as: Underrated: Son of Dracula. The Lonster gives a good performance, the atmosphere is excellent... an all around enjoyable romp that I think gets pilloried because people think Lon is too fat & unsophisticated to be a Universal vampire... I think it's great! I concur, Dr. A.
Koukol 5		#195	[-]
Dec 21 09 4:08 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	VAMPYR isn't overrated, it IS a masterpiece. It's just too challenging for some people.
luisj40		#196	[-]
Dec 22 09 1:57 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Monstroso Sabroso wrote: The Invisible Ray. most underrated. (Sure there are some awkward effects to scare the superficialists away. But at core, in the performances by Karloff and Lugosi, which is what you came for, there is purest gold. Karloff arouses tremendous empathy, this time sans the neckbolts. And if you wonder how GOOD -- reasonably modulated -- an actor Lugosi could be, this is the one to check out.) Yes THE INVISIBLE RAY is great film and Lugosi upstages Karloff in most scenes they appear together. Luis
Monsterpal		#197	[-]
Dec 23 09 3:41 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I think THE WALKING DEAD is somewhat underrated. To me it's one of the best horror film of the thirties and Karloff gives perhaps his finest performance in any horror film. It works as horror, science fiction, crime, and mysticism, and it's all wrapped up in an economical 66 minutes.
Joe Karlosi		#198	[-]
Apr 1 10 6:14 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Imhoteps Ashes wrote: Overrated: FREAKS. Talky, stagy, drab and dull - more so than DRACULA, with Browning lacking Karl Freund. Age has rendered the scenes of deformity quaint little curiosity pieces, and the acting of the freaks seriously damages the picture's (limited) credibility. There are only two standout sequences - the monstrous wedding banquet, and the all-too-short (severely edited) vengenance of the freaks as they crawl after Cleopatra in the storm. A certain bilious cloud hangs over the film, as Browning subjects you to distortion and forced horror. I just saw FREAKS yet again, and I have to agree with you. I'm now considering it my #1 choice for Most Overrated '30s Horror. For all the reasons you point out, and also that you can't even understand what the characters are saying most of the time.
Wich2		#199	[-]
Apr 1 10 11:00 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The thing is, guys, the wrong criteria is being applied - FREAKS isn't really a Horror Film.
Buzz Dixon		#200	[-]
Apr 1 10 11:22 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Wich2 wrote: The thing is, guys, the wrong criteria is being applied - FREAKS isn't really a Horror Film. Todd Browning? Check Deformed/mutant human beings? Check Wall-to-wall sadism? Check Gruesome murder? Check Sounds like a horror film to me www.SnokieStories.com www.BuzzDixon.com http://twitter.com/snokiestories
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Your Most OVERRATED and UNDERRATED 1930s Horrors