ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Aug 28 08 2:56 PM
R Pond wrote: Once again I'll reitterate that though I loved Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein, I don't in any way consider it as a part of the Frankenstein series anymore than A&C Meet The Invisible Mans was a pert of that series, or A&C Meet The Mummy was a part of the Mummy series, or A&C Meet J&H has any connection to anything else on the planet. They are in not even alternate universe stories, they are just there to poke fun at the characters or ideas. The closest modern equavilant being SCARY MOVIE, or if Penn and Teller met Jason and Freddy. That said, I still don't think Uni did any of the series any favors, with the general public anyway, by making the monsters bufoonish dupes of a comedy team.
Aug 28 08 3:23 PM
Aug 28 08 3:39 PM
Aug 28 08 9:43 PM
Rakshasa wrote: I did not find the monsters in A&CMF "bufoonish dupes". They were played straight and were as scary as ever. That's not what I take away from that film at all. I also don't think A&CMF is anywhere near the silly Scary Movie in tone. That's an insult to A&CMF.
Aug 29 08 12:39 AM
Sure, we might as well let those limeys make Frankenstein and Dracula movies...
Aug 29 08 7:28 AM
Aug 29 08 10:04 AM
R Pond wrote: Rakshasa wrote: My post said "The closest modern equivalent being SCARY MOVIE". It didn't say it was as gawdaful stupid as Scary Movie. Those two comments are two distinctly different things. But if you can't find a more accurate "The closest modern equivalent being SCARY MOVIE" then by all means state it. That is the thing I love about this board, one person misconstrues something and the next page of posts takes the bad assumption as gospel.
Rakshasa wrote:
Aug 29 08 11:39 AM
Aug 29 08 12:39 PM
Aug 29 08 12:55 PM
Aug 29 08 1:07 PM
Aug 29 08 1:38 PM
Aug 29 08 1:46 PM
I've always thought that Boyle's monster was the most non-comedic character in the movie
Aug 29 08 2:00 PM
Aug 29 08 2:05 PM
Aug 29 08 2:18 PM
telegonus wrote: Roger Corman followed on the heels of Hammer in using color and good actors, seemed often to be aiming for the same audience as Castle, to the extent of appearing to dumb down his movies so as to play to the lowest common denominator. A bit harsh on Corman perhaps, but true in my opinion.
telegonus wrote: Hammer's films...Their pictures are at their best good enough to play as stand alone movies without having to be sold as horrors...
Aug 29 08 2:20 PM
Aug 29 08 3:31 PM
I think that The Black Sleep had some "exploitation" success, as it was heavily promoted at the time. We're not talkin' The Ten Commandments or Ben-Hur here but respectable box-office, good bang for the buck for the producers. Also, its release more or less coincided with the Shock Theater package of old horrors being syndicated to local TV stations, and so it probably hung around in the theaters longer than usual for a black and white programmer.
Not having even glanced at Castle's autobiography in ages I can't recall what inspired him to turn to horrors in the 50's. Macabre, I believe, predates even the Hammer horrors, so Castle was off and running before those bigger films hit, and Macabre made money.
Hammer's films are a different kettle of flesh, and I wonder if their success in the States was Shock Theater-related or was just gonna happen.
Aug 30 08 12:02 AM
Aug 30 08 12:36 AM
Share This