#peter lorre lost movie

[peterlorrefanpage]

Peter Lorre in "Schuß im Morgengrauen" (A Shot at Dawn), 1932

Plot: A bullet-ridden crime drama centered around a jewel heist.

Peter Lorre played Klotz, a trigger-happy thug.

Klotz was a small and underwritten role, and Peter wasn't happy with it. So, naturally, he made his character a frustrated sex maniac. :D

"He followed every young female character from behind, with his hand and fingers outstretched to pinch her bottom. So when he started that gag, the audience knew what was coming and roared with laughter. In fact, he never got to “grips” with any unsuspecting bottom!" - The Lost One: A Life of Peter Lorre

More to the plot: The gang of jewel thieves makes the mistake of murdering a detective; a Berlin policeman tracks down the thieves by posing as a gang member.

Pictures include: Theodor Loos, Ery Bos, Fritz Odemar, Heinz Salfner, Guenter Grau, and director Alfred Zeisler.

So I felt like doing a round-up of pics again because this is a lost film. (There's a French language version, but Peter isn't in it.) And you never know when new eyeballs upon these pictures will yield treasure!

In the meantime, we could probably piece together the script + Lorre's part in it if we put the pics in proper order. :/

[faustiandevil]

There is no greater personal Hell of your own making then getting obsessed with some dead actor and not being able to watch their entire filmography.

[gnome-adjacent-vagabond]

Whoever wrote the ending to The Face Behind the Mask needs a smack in the teeth.

[rightdowntothedirtywork]

LONGLEGS (2024) Dir. Osgood Perkins ‘This is a cruel world, especially for the little things.’

LONGLEGS is a psychological thriller/horror film released earlier this year in 2024. Following in the footsteps of similar 90s FBI procedurals such as CURE (1997), Silence of the Lambs (1992) and SE7EN (1995), it follows a young FBI agent Lee Harker as she attempts to solve a string of familicides in 90s Oregon.

The film received a lot of publicity upon first being announced, being hailed as the ‘scariest film in the last 50 years’, which was only furthered by an incredible marketing campaign audience members could be involved in, such as calling the titular villain and cracking coded files to uncover crime scene photos, seemingly sent to you directly by the villain himself (which I managed to get from when I was involved with this before the movie came out);

The film was created by Osgood Perkins, the son of 60s horror darling, Anthony Perkins, who’s family life with Perkins’ mother informed the overarching 'meaning' behind the film.

Perkins' father died on September 12, 1992, from complications related to AIDS. He had been diagnosed with the disease a few years earlier but kept his illness private for most of his life. His mother, the talented Berry Berenson, also tragically lost her life in the September 11th attacks in 2001. In conversation with Vulture, Perkins reflects on his family life and the ways in which these experiences shaped his creative process in developing LONGLEGS:

““Mothers can craft stories,” he says as we loop along a lake and he looks toward the looming Cathedral Mausoleum, home to the remains of Peter Lorre and Rudolph Valentino. (For all his dry affect and working-director gear, with scruff and a baseball cap, Perkins still gives the occasional gleam of matinee-idol drama.) “They can tell their kids a version of what’s going on in their life or in the lives of their parents. And it’s done compassionately, protectively. And it’s not great.” In Longlegs, Agent Lee Harker (Monroe) gets assigned to investigate a series of murders with supernatural implications that are revealed to have a connection to details she never understood about her own childhood. In the character of Lee’s mother, Ruth (Alicia Witt), who raised her daughter alone and whose religiousness contains an off-key note, Perkins sees something personal about the domestic mythology his own mother wove. “My father was a homosexual man, or at least a bisexual man, who had a life that wasn’t reconcilable with his family life. For us, growing up, we just weren’t given that language. We weren’t given that access. Instead, there was a narrative put on things about what the family was like and how we were together and how my dad was. The challenge of rectifying what I felt I understood and what I was being told is the genesis for the mother that chooses to be complicit in a story.”

LONGLEGS quickly became one of my favorite films from the moment I first watched it. I remember leaving the cinema and immediately adding it to my (previously very stubbornly unchanging) Letterboxd top 4. I found its exploration of the themes surrounding the sheltering from the harsh truths of the world, particularly through the conversations between the secondary antagonist, Ruth Harker, and her sheltered, emotionally immature daughter, Lee, to be highly relatable.

Lee, who was raised in a Catholic environment with her mother working as a nurse, is suggested to have been sheltered as a direct result of this upbringing. Ruth's desire to protect Lee from the harsh realities of life culminates in the films final act, where it's revealed that she is collaborating with LONGLEGS - or Dale Cobble - to murder families after making a pact with the Devil to safeguard Lee from an eternity in Hell. Earnestly telling a panicked Harker that, “If they don't die, then we will burn … and twist, and burn … and twist, in hell. Forever and ever.”

Lee was incredibly relatable to me, but so was her mother, in a way. Having experienced a form of Religious mania as a child, I could easily see myself growing up like Ruth if not for the timely intervention of others around me.

Although it was probably unintentional, the film resonated with me as someone who was raised Catholic. In Catholic schools, particularly in Ireland, the teachings often leaned more towards fearmongering than actual 'this is why you should be comforted by the afterlife!' lessons.

I vividly remember being terrified of burning in Hell for even the smallest mistakes—like not blessing myself when passing a church, failing to say my prayers, mispronouncing Irish during hymns, or living in sin (as a nine year old).

The imagery of genuine horror, unease and brainwashing that comes in this film is very familiar and haunting to me, and I really enjoyed it. Unlike the older women I saw on the way out the moment Cobble mentioned Satan by name, which I guess still isn't capable of a soft landing in Irish cinemas.

[sixty-silver-wishes]

Hmm gonna make a classic film ask game!

(for the purpose of this game, I'm defining "classic film" as films made up until the 1960s.)

1- Silents or talkies? 2- If you could see one lost classic film, which one would it be and why? 3- Who is your favorite classic film director?

4- What is your favorite decade of film? 5- Favorite actor/actress?

6- What's a popular classic film that you dislike? 7- What do people get wrong about your favorite film? 8- Give a fun fact about the production of a classic film! 9- Have you ever seen a classic film screened in a movie theater?

10- How would you adapt a classic film of your choice?

11- Does your favorite classic film have a sequel and/or remake? If so, do you like it? 12- If you were cast in a classic film, which one would you want to be cast in, and which character would you want to play?

13- Favorite instance of practical effects in a classic film?

14- Hot take!

15- What's the oldest film you've seen? 16- What's your least favorite role of your favorite actor's?

17- Which film do you want to see that you haven't seen yet?

18- Where do you go to watch classic films? (Physical media? Streaming services? Internet?)

19- Does your favorite classic film have source material, such as being based on a book or play? Have you read or seen the source material?

20- Thoughts on colorizing black and white films?

21- Which film do you prefer- Nosferatu (1922) or Dracula (1931)?

22- Do you own a physical copy of your favorite classic film?

23- Have you shown your favorite classic film to someone else? What did they think of it? 24- Is there a classic film you watch as a holiday tradition (ie, "It's a Wonderful Life" around Christmas, "Arsenic and Old Lace" around Halloween?)

25- Have you seen any classic films made outside western Europe or the US? If so, what are your top favorites?

26- How did you get into classic films?

27- Whose acting do you prefer- Charlie Chaplin's or Buster Keaton's?

28- What is "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" (1920) actually about?

29- Least favorite classic film?

30- They're making a Muppets adaptation of your favorite classic film. Who's who?

31- Peter Lorre or Dwight Frye?

32- Has a classic film ever genuinely scared you? Which one?

33- What's your comfort film?

34- Is there a classic film that makes you cry?

35- Favorite comedy?

36- Best Hitchcock film?

37- Best Fritz Lang film?

38- Favorite Universal monster?

39- What's your classic film character OTP? NoTP?

40- Thoughts on talking during a silent film?

41- Favorite Lon Chaney role?

42- Ingenues or femme fatales?

43- Favorite pre-Code film?

44- Without the Hays Code in the way, would you change anything about your favorite Code-era film?

45- Which actors do you think were snubbed with the roles they got?

46- Do you own any classic film memorabilia- ie., autographs, photos, etc.? If so, what's your favorite piece?

47- Which role do you wish your favorite classic film actor got to play, but didn't?

48- Favorite classic animated film?

49- Black and white or glorious technicolor?

50- Favorite classic movie musical?

[noirgasmweetheart]

Hotel Berlin (1945)

This might be the most underrated War Era movie I've seen yet.

Both the theatrical trailer and the DVD cover advertise it as a corny exploitation movie. It's nothing of the sort. It's as sincerely written and acted as "Casablanca," with far more direct references to the Jewish people, and specific concentration camps.

I legitimately ordered the DVD just to see Peter Lorre as a disheveled angst-ridden scruff-muffin; I had no idea the character was going to be so compelling, or the rest of the movie equally so. Several other characters also exploded beyond the old clichés I was expecting. The movie appears to be building towards a predictable, cheesy love story, but...doesn't. Another character who at first appears one of the most despicable opportunists in the movie...isn't. And the movie's nuanced look at an indoctrinated population being carpet-bombed while their tyrannical, antisemetic leaders flee to save their own skins is uh...timely, to say the least.

I'm sure it helped that I watched this movie during a rainstorm at night, which is the way to watch it. The timeliness of a story about

Spoilers Below!

Faye Emerson deserved that top billing.

According to IMDB, Andrea King was originally to be billed as the film's female lead, with Faye Emerson billed as a supporting character. When Emerson married the son of President Roosevelt, she was given top billing over King, to capitalize on her new fame. I find that ironic, given that by the end of the movie, Faye's character Tilly has, against all odds, proven to be the film's true heroine.

Introduced as a materialistic Nazi informer, dating SS officers and betraying a hiding resistance fighter just to get herself some new shoes, Tilly's reality turns upside-down when she learns that the lover she thought she'd lost is still alive. After an emotional breakdown over what her despair let her become, she defends her boyfriend's mother against a Nazi officer, and delivers the most powerful speech in the movie. It is her character who finally mentions the Jews out loud, after an entire movie and an entire genre dancing around the subject.

I've recorded the scene from the DVD and uploaded it to YouTube:

"Go on shoot me, arrest me, have me killed, I don't care! Why should I. I loved Max Baruch and you sent him to a concentration camp! You hung a sign around my neck saying I loved a Jew! And you paraded me down the street. They'll hang something around your neck someday, and it won't be a sign!"

Corny Romance is Just a Red Herring

My stance that Emersen deserved that top billing in no way negates Andrea King's marvelous performance as the film's faux female lead. Though we are warned right from the start that her character, movie star Lisa Dorn, is a Nazi and a master manipulator, the film plays her as the straightforward love interest for much of the film: helping the hero partially out of the hope that he'll save her in return, seemingly building a genuine admiration for his heroism...then completely subverts expectations by revealing her to be exactly what she she was introduced as: a Nazi collaborator out to save her own skin.

I was genuinely afraid at the end that the hero would find himself unable to shoot her, and we'd see her tearfully declare her love for him, and end with him forgiving her. Not so. She argues pathetically, trying to excuse her betrayal and convince Richter that she loves him, and he doesn't fall for it. Richter sees Sam Spade's "I'll be waiting for you," and raises him two gunshots.

Peter Lorre like we've never seen him before

Okay, maybe we have seen Peter angsting around and wobbling drunkenly a few times before. But this was the first time I saw him directly address the issues that so closely affected him (and his costars of course) in real life.

Peter Lorre died before talk about the Holocaust really became mainstream. But the emotion behind the lines he delivers as the self-hating German professor speaks volumes. The gleeful smile he wears in his first scene, while saying that the bombing is only what the Germans deserve; his bitter sarcasm about the achievements of German science in the concentration camps, and wondering where all the "good Germans" are now; his breakdown when Richter tells him of a mutual friend's murder at Dachau. Much like his frantic escape attempt in "Casablanca," Peter likely didn't have to fish too hard to dig up the needed emotions for these scenes.

This is also the closest I've ever come to seeing Peter cry.

Other PL fans have lamented that his role was too small. I agree that I'd have loved to see a hell of a lot more of Koenig, but it's not like many of the other characters had much more screen time, which all the different storylines running at once. Aside from maybe Helmut Dantine and Andrea King, most of the important characters probably only have a handful of scenes tops.

Edit: That said, knowing he had scenes indicating how he joined the resistance that were cut is very frustrating.

But the fact that Peter's character not only lives to the end as one of the heroes, but gets to read President Roosevelt's uplifting speech to the German people, definitely counts for something.

That speech packed a powerful punch for me, at a time when I sometimes need reminding that indoctrinated civilians in war zones are still individuals, and can't be lumped with their dogmatic leaders. I don't doubt for a minute that President Biden took inspiration from Roosevelt for how to address the Palestinian people in regards to stopping Hamas.

The Fugitive

I suppose I should also mention the film's lead: Helmut Dantine as Martin Richter, the German anti-Nazi resistance fighter who escaped Dachau Concentration Camp. Helmut Dantine played Jan, the Bulgarian husband in "Casablanca." The controlled desperation with which he gambled at Rick's roulette wheel as Jan serves well for his fugitive resistance fighter in this movie. The fact that Dantine was actually imprisoned at Rosserlaende Concentration Camp for his anti-Nazi political activism at age 19 no doubt also helped him in the role.

My only complaint is the makeup and costuming department failing to help him look the part. While Paul Henreid got a scar and a white streak of hair for Victor Laszlo, Dantine is done up to look like a particularly slick, clean movie star, standing out in a cast of disheveled and weary looking people. One could interpret this as a symbolic way of singling him out as the hero, but I found it distracting. I am not throwing shade on Dantine's acting abilities or natural looks, just how the people in charge had him presented.

I'm unsure how to close this review.

It's getting late and I have some more clips to upload, and cake to eat. "Hotel Berlin" is up there with "Casablanca" on my personal list of unironically great old movies. Professor Koenig is on my list favorite Peter Lorre characters, and I have a handful of new favorite actors.

I'll just finish by saying that this guy in the barrette looks noticeably like Robert Picardo, if maybe a "stretched out" version thereof. Voyager's EMH hanging out with a holo-Peter Lorre in one of Tom Paris's noir programs is something I never knew I needed.

[texas-gothic]

I really can't express how stricken I am by the passing of Roger Corman. To say I would be a radically different person today without his films and influence would be an understatement.

I grew up on Corman's work. Old VHS tapes of the Poe movies and The Terror. Vincent Price, Peter Lorre, and Borris Karloff. Jack Nicholson, of all people. It's true, they were cheesy, and most of them were shit, but they were so passionately off the wall. Who else could take Edgard Allen Poe's morose, grieving poem The Raven, and turn it into a movie about Vincent Price and Borris Karloff's wizard beef? Was there devil worship in the original text of Masque of The Read Death? No? There is now!

Corman was an exceptional talent in the world of B-movies, a world that has become a thing of the past in our modern, hyper amalgamated film industry. There's no more room for the Cormans of the world when every movie has to break $800M just to keep the bloated studio afloat. It will be to my lasting sorrow that we lost him. RIP to truly one of the best there ever was.

[peterlorres21stcentury]

Is there any truth to the story that Peter Lorre won his part in The Man Who Knew Too Much by pretending he understood English in an interview with Alfred Hitchcock? My reason for doubting it is that Hitchcock was a fairly good German speaker (enough that he directed a movie in German), so he and Peter could have conversed perfectly well in that language if necessary. Or maybe Lorre just wanted to convince Hitch he could speak English, since he was auditioning for an English-language movie?

Great question! You're not the only one who doubted that Lorre didn't know any English during The Man Who Knew Too Much. While he wasn't completely fluent, I suspect he knew just enough to get by, and like you said he probably didn't want Hitch thinking that he couldn't perform the role. But he had nothing to worry about--associate producer Ivor Montagu was thoroughly impressed by his work in M and was eager to give him the role of criminal mastermind, regardless of fluency. There are accounts of Peter learning English prior to filming (all quotes from Lorre's biography The Lost One):

“At that time Peter’s English wasn’t exactly great,” confirmed screenwriter Charles Bennett. “Hitch had recently employed a young female Oxford graduate named Joan Harrison. . . with high honors in French. With language difficulties existing, and since Peter was known to be a French linguist, Hitch asked Joan to discuss the next scene or such with Peter in French. Peter listened bewilderedly for a while, then said in his halting if hopeful grasp of the English tongue, ‘Please—please, speak English.’” Lorre claimed that he learned English in two to three months with the aid of a tutor. At night he sat up with a cup of black coffee and mentally translated his dialogue into German in order to firmly fix its meaning and inflection. After getting a handle on his characterization, he returned to his English lines, rehearsing and memorizing them word by word. However he managed it, by the time filming began on May 29, Lorre had more than a working knowledge of English. His acting is far too subtle and well-shaded to be dismissed as mere parroting.

He put a lot of work into the role and it shows!

[zippocreed501]

FROM THE B-MOVIE BADLANDS...

...images from the lost continent of cult films, b-movies and celluloid dreamscapes

Peter Lorre horror movies

Hey Peter, we would like to offer you the romantic lead in this movie...nah we're just joshin' with you...we want you to play the usual creepy kind of guy...You know, what you're best at...put the gun down Peter...

Mad Love (1935)The Boogie Man Will Get You (1942) The Beast With Five Fingers (1946) Tales Of Terror (1962) The Raven (1963) The Comedy Of Terrors (1963)

[technicolorfamiliar]

Technicolor Familiar Watches Too Many Conrad Veidt Movies Part 3 of ?

Part 1 // Part 2

Anders als die Andern (Different From the Others), 1919 Dir. Richard Oswald ⭐4/5 Watched Nov 15, Archive.org It really breaks my heart that so much of this film was lost and destroyed, and that the story is unfortunately still relevant 100+ years later. Maybe I don't have as much to say about this one because it's so chopped up, and because it's already been written and talked about so much. I am glad it seems to have found its proper place in literature/content about LGBTQ+ history, getting the acknowledgement it deserves. Despite already knowing so much about the movie from various books, podcasts, and documentaries, I was still very affected by the story and performances, especially towards the end. It really hit a nerve, surprisingly so. Connie's Paul is really lovely, tragic, and so sweet with Kurt.

Jew Süss, 1934 Dir. Lothar Mendes ⭐3.5/4 Watched Nov 26, Youtube There's something about the structure and the hazy, dreamy quality of the film itself that makes this seem like a fable. There are parts that are deeply upsetting and chilling despite the mediocre supporting cast. It's imperfect, but definitely did a lot more than other films to create complex and sympathetic Jewish characters in the 1930s (even if still playing on stereotypes). I'm a total sucker for 18th century opulence and fashion so I can’t complain much. And oh boy, does the 18th century suit Connie. He knows how to work the lace and silk to great affect. Some of the things he's doing as Josef are really fascinating and gut-wrenching. He's doing so much vocally, too. He's in an entirely other class compared to many actors of that era. P.S. The scenes with Josef and his mother and daughter were, uh, interesting. I have… mixed feelings.

Rome Express, 1932 Dir. Walter Forde ⭐3/5 Watched Nov 26, Youtube My expectations were pretty low for this one based on some things I'd read online, but it's a cute if slightly baffling train thriller with an ok-ish ensemble. I'm a little biased, my inner child fuckin loves trains so any train movie is at least going to be semi-enjoyable. I was so stressed the whole time about how everyone was handling that apparently very expensive painting. Connie is so extra, though. Why is Zurta eating a banana as soon as he jumps onto a moving train? Why does he hold a gun like ~that~? Why are his fingernails so long?? It's so funny seeing him next to all these tiny British actors. It may partly be how they dressed him for the role, but he makes everyone else look positively shrimpy.

All Through the Night, 1942 Dir. Vincent Sherman ⭐3/5 Watched Nov 27, Vudu Once I finally leaned into how silly this movie was, it was pretty entertaining. The dialogue alone is so stupid, but self aware of how stupid it is. And it features one of my favorite gags of all time: making up gibberish words for technical terms with complete confidence. There's a dog. (Question: Is the dog a nazi like the monkey in Raiders of the Lost Ark? Does the dog know it's complicit in war crimes??) Peter Lorre looks like he'd rather be anywhere else. Mrs. Danvers is there. Some of the visual comedy is actually pretty great -- the dog in the boat at the end when Connie is being totally deadpan serious? Hysterical. (DID THEY BLOW UP THAT DOG?) I think this was the first time I've heard Connie speak German, too.

The Spy in Black, 1939 Dir. Michael Powell ⭐3.5/5 Watched Nov 27, Youtube Interesting that the main character, the person carrying this British movie in the late 1930s, is a German U-boat captain. But wow. I'm obsessed. Hardt's entrance into the hotel? Baa-ing at the sheep? The delicious gluttony with food? Dragging the stupid motorbike up the stairs to his room? "It is evening. And I am grown up."?? We love a sexy, honor driven character like Captain Hardt. Therefore, Valerie Hobson going for the British officer seems totally unlikely and unbelievable. I think I like this movie marginally better than Dark Journey, as far as espionage films go. It's slightly more engaging (but that may be Connie and Valerie Hobson's chemistry) and the story is a little better.

[twistedtummies2]

The Price May Be Right - Number 19

Welcome to “The Price May Be Right!” I’m counting down My Top 31 Favorite Vincent Price Performances & Appearances! The countdown will cover movies, TV productions, and many more forms of media. Today’s choice might be a bit confusing. I give you two performances for the price of one, with Number 19: Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Raven.”

The names of Vincent Price and Edgar Allan Poe are practically synonymous, at least in cinematic circles. While Price made many, MANY movies in his long and storied career, arguably the ones for which he became best well-known were the special movies produced by AIP for what is now referred to colloquially as “The Corman-Poe Cycle.” This was a series of eight films, all directed by Roger Corman for the company, which were based – some more loosely than others – on the works of Edgar Allan Poe. Vincent was the nominal star for seven of the pictures within the octology. The only one which DIDN’T feature Price was the third film of the bunch, “The Premature Burial.”

Most of the movies in the series were treated as more or less straightforward horror films of the time. However, the one exception was the movie inspired by the great author’s most famous “Poe-m” (I am so sorry), “The Raven.” The original poem is easily one of Poe’s greatest pieces of work, telling in short verse the story of a lonely man, mourning the loss of his beloved wife, Lenore. He receives a visit from a mysterious raven, which turns out to be a supernatural harbinger of doom and despair. It’s a tragic, ambiguous, deeply perturbing poem, and still a classic to this day. Corman’s 1963 movie interpretation, however, eschews much of the pathos, as the film is actually a horror-comedy, with emphasis on the latter half of that equation. In essence, the picture is meant to be a tongue-in-cheek spoof of all the others in the eight-part series, which is sort of a clever idea. In the film, Price plays the main protagonist: Dr. Craven, a physician and ex-sorceror who, like the narrator in the poem, has seemingly lost his precious Lenore. Also like in the poem, he is visited by a talking raven…but this is about where all similarities cease, for the raven turns out to be a fellow dark wizard, by the name of Dr. Bedlo. He reveals to Craven that Lenore is apparently still alive, and in the grasp of their shared nemesis, the evil Dr. Scarabus. The two magicians thus set out on a quest to confront Scarabus, so Bedlo can get revenge on him for past humiliations, while Craven ascertains if his wife is, indeed, still breathing…and if so, what she is doing with the evil wizard. Much like “House of the Long Shadows” would do many years later, the film acts as something of a “Who’s Who?” of classic Gothic horror pictures. Not only does Price play the lead role, but the perpetually-drunk Bedlo is played by Peter Lorre, while the redoubtable Boris Karloff tackles the part of the slimy Scarabus. Future Joker and star of “The Shining,” Jack Nicholson, also appears in an early role, playing the part of the romantic interest for Craven’s daughter, who is played by the much-less-famous (but no less talented) Olive Sturgess. It’s more fun than frightening on the whole. Price’s Craven is an interesting protagonist for the story: despite being very gifted in magical arts, and coming from a long line of distinguished warlocks, he’s a very mild-mannered individual, most of the time. The film gives him a story arc of essentially growing more of a spine, as he learns to fight more fiercely against the injustices around him, and accepts his destined place in the world: an atypical hero’s journey.

All this is well and good, and the movie is definitely worth checking out, if only for the novelty of the adventure and its stellar cast. However, this was not the only time Price would tackle Poe’s Raven onscreen. Many years later, Price would get a chance to theatrically perform a reading of the original poem for a Halloween Special during the 1980s. Unfortunately, I cannot remember what the name of the special was, nor the exact year it came out: I actually tried to look it up, since I DID learn that information…but I can no longer find the source, and I sadly never wrote it down, dummy that I am. Whoops. Whatever else is in the special in question, however, it’s hard to believe much could top Price performing Poe’s greatest poem the way it was always meant to be performed.

In my opinion, Price’s reading of The Raven is the definitive interpretation of the poem. He brings the right amount of melodrama and emotion to the work, giving the Narrator a sense of both decadence and dismalness befitting the story as it happens. From his tragic nostalgia to his wonder at the appearance of the talking bird and even to his moments of desperation and spooky loss, he runs the whole gamut of the poem’s emotional breadth with marvelous aplomb. Others, such as Christopher Lee and James Earl Jones, have done masterful interpretations and readings of the poem in their own rights…but for me, Price is the eternal voice of Edgar Allan Poe’s work, and no single take on the poem has ever matched his reading for me. Bottom line: whether it’s the movie or the poem, when I think of “The Raven,” I think of Vincent Price. End of story. Tomorrow, the countdown continues with Number 18!

[peterlorrefanpage]

Peter Lorre as the haunted, dangerous, brooding, and altogether compelling Dr. Rothe in his directorial debut, "Der Verlorene" (1951).

[thealmightyemprex]

Raiders of the Lost Ark is so damn good

Well my Spielbergqathon has entered the 80's ,with one of the most iconic action franchises of the 80's ,the Indiana Jones series ,starting with Raiders of the Lost Ark

In this 1981 film Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is an archeologist /adventurer who is out to find the Ark of the Covenant before the Nazis do

So Indiana Jones is a childhood favorite franchise for me.I actually dont know which Indiana Jones film is my favorite cause as a kid ,if I watched one,I HAD to watch all three (This is before Kingdom of the Chrystal Skull ) . So what makes this watch through unique ,Is I will be viewing the Indiana Jones films in the context of Spielbergs filmography instead of as a whole .So happy to report of the Spielberg films I have watched so far .....Its at the head of the pack

Raiders is just such a fun film ,it is a thrillride .The film is full of great action.Like if you love good action,this film is for you..Like the famous boulder scene,where our hero is outrunning a boulder......There is a shootout in a burning bar ,a fun chase through the streets (With an amazing bait and switch joke ),a fist fight with a burly mechanic and ana amazing car vs Horse chase .You also get great set pieces like a tomb full of snakes (I am not a snake person so that scene always creeped me out ),Indy being chased by a boulder and of course the finale

THe film also has elements of the supernatural and that was always an appeal to me of this series.Its funny there isnt anything too mystical till the end ,but it doesnt feel unearned ,because the way the Ark is talked about ,you know something is gonna happen.I wont spoil the finale,but it is awesome and frankly terrifying ,it feels like something out of a horror film

We have three main villains .The least interesting is Colonel Dietrich ,Wolf Kahler does a good job being the voice of authority but of the three villains I kind of forget he is in the movie .Belloq is really our main villain ,a rival archologist to Indy .A oppurtunistic man ,he is in it to observe the power of the Ark .Paul Freeman is perfect in the role ,he is a great contrast to Indy ,the refined villain in white suites who firmly believes in greater powera to our more scruffy skeptical hero .Also love his piercing eyes and the excitement in his voice when he describes the Ark as a "Radio to God ".The most memorable villain however is Ronald Laceys performance as Toht .He's actually not in the film alot and doesnt say much ,but good lord is he creepy . Toht is a sadistic Gestapo agent ,LAcey is able to capture this slimey quality ,that is almost Peter Lorre esque (REally brings to mind Lorre in All Through The Night ).

The supporting cast is all great ,with memorable appearences by Alfred Molina (In his first role )George Harris and William Hootkins .Denholm Elliot brings a warmth as Museum curator Brody . The best supporting character has to be Sallah ,Indys friend played by John Rhyse Davies , he brigngs a sense of levity and warmth to the film and to be frank.....Hes the character who I think has the best lines ,my favorite being "Aasps! Very dangerous.....You go first."Plus everytime he sings it just makes me smile

Karen Allen plays Indy's love interest Marion .Theres a toughnbess and sense of humor to her that makes her stand out .My favorite scene with her is where she is getting drunk with Belloq ,while she is hiding a knife so she can plan an escape

An now we get to Indy who I can best describe as James Bond but combined with a Humphrey Bogart character .He bit of a scruffier and scrappier action hero and Harrison Ford was kind of the perfect choice ,being tough but able to convincingly look like he is in danger ,which just makes us root for him even more

OVerall this is such a damn good action movie ,highly reccomended

@ariel-seagull-wings. @amalthea9 @angelixgutz @princesssarisa @goodanswerfoxmonster @themousefromfantasyland @filmcityworld1 @the-blue-fairie @theancientvaleofsoulmaking

[femmeleatherface]

Spooky Movie Marathon: Week 3

Day 13: Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962) - based on the novel of the same name by Henry Farrell

Day 14: XX (2017)

Day 15: Return to House on Haunted Hill (2007) - unrated version

Day 16: The Comedy of Terrors (1963) - followup to the film Tales of Terror (1962)

Day 17: Der Golem, wie er in die Welt kam (1920) - third and only extant film in Paul Wegener's Golem trilogy, which was itself based on the book Der Golem by Gustav Meyrink; Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau Foundation restoration

Day 18: Planet Terror (2007) - originally part of the Grindhouse double feature with Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof; extended international version

Day 19: Death Proof (2007) - originally part of the Grindhouse double feature with Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror; extended international version

i swear i did not intentionally choose to watch a bunch of films from 2007. return to house on haunted hill was already preplanned for the week, and then the weekend came and i wanted to take advantage of it chip through some longer movies and planet terror/death proof were the first films on my watchlist to meet the criteria of "horror-related" and "over an hour and thirty minutes."

individual thoughts:

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962) - i decided on this for an already-seen safe pick palette cleanser for Mary Reilly last week and it was SUCH a good decision. this movie gets better every time i see it. i'm still mad that i missed it in theaters when it got re-released for its sixtieth anniversary a couple years ago, because UGH this movie is so fucking gorgeous lighting-wise. but hopefully there will be other opportunities. in the meantime, i will freely oo and ahh and scream over the pretty, narrative-driven cinematography in the comfort of my own home.

XX (2017) - this movie left no impact on me. i neither liked it nor disliked it, it simply was. the stop motion segments were cool, though.

Return to House on Haunted HIll (2007) - definitely the weakest of the haunted hill movies, i don't know what they were thinking making it an indiana jones-style artefact hunting movie. very baffling decision there. also, somehow this movie gave jeffrey combs even less to do than the 1999 film did, which is impressive but has also got to be a crime somewhere or other. he looked so sad and malnourished without scenery to chew on! but all that said, it was fine for what it was. definitely could have been MUCH worse. when they used practical effects, those looked good, and while the setting got boring from repetitiveness the death scenes themselves had enough variety to be serviceable as a fun waste of time. definitely worth the $1 i spent on it at goodwill back in may, at any rate.

The Comedy of Terrors (1963): i was really in the mood for a peter lorre movie and this one had a bonus vincent price thrown in, plus the bisexual millionaire from some like it hot as a surprise bonus. it was good! maybe this is a hot take but this is what the raven (1963 should have been in terms of being both funny and also dark and blending it together into a screwball black comedy. i definitely enjoyed this one more between the two.

Der Golem, wie er in die Welt kam (1920) - i had a whole rambly mini essary typed up about this and ran out of text characters so the abriged version: i initially tried finding the original 1915 film der golem, but it's partially lost and if there's a publicly-available reconstruction, i couldn't find it in the five minutes i looked before getting impatient and skipping ahead to the 1920 film, which from my understanding is a prequel to that and a... sequelish/followup to Der Golem und die Tänzerin (1917), which is the earliest known horror spoof and completely lost :( anyway, after watching the 1920 film i am now mad we didn't watch this in my german cinema class because there's a lot to unpack here, particularly in how it portrays the jewish characters and the golem (read: pre-nazi germany antisemitism). german expressionism is fascinating both for its innovation but also as a very clear product of its time and place and i think this film is the best example of this that i've seen so far. but anyway. i'm rambling but what can i say, this was just such an interesting film, for all that "product of its time and place" stuff and also the usual expressionist reasons (funky sets, dramatic boob-clutching acting, excellent karl freund cinematography, spooky imagery, etc). it was also kind of ridiculous? an entire act is dedicated to watching the golem go grocery shopping and do other banal chores, and this is after a really neat special effects scene where he's brought to life. i just... amazing. peak cinema. exactly what i want to see from the creation brought epicly to life to valiantly defend the ghetto: him picking up bread at the store. but it was also neat to see a precursor of tropes like the manmade monter and the "big scary monster guy bridal carries damsel," and it's absolutely amazing to tentatively pinpoint it back (cinematically, at least) to a little german film from 104 years ago! definitely a monster movie where the monster is an uncomfortable metaphor though, which is unfortunately also par the course for those tropes.

Planet Terror (2007): THIS MOVIE HAS A COOL BISEXUAL LADY FIGHTING ZOMBIES. her name is dr. dakota block and she is my everthing. i was destined to like the movie anyway because it's sleazy good fun and also meta and a love letter to 1960s-1970s exploitation movies, but throwing in a bisexual lady who battles zombies is just icing on the cake. she's not even the main charater, she's a side character but the best thing about the movie to me, which is already pretty amazing. because of her amazingness i am a little mad about the "missing reel" segement, though. i understand why it was there, but i feel like we missed out on some quality bonding time between her and her estranged father who it was implied disowned her due to the bisexuality thing. BOOO LET ME SEE THE CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. anyway, i need an entire spinoff movie about this lady where the zombies are a metaphor for her escaping her abusive husband and coming into her bisexy own. bonus points if her girlfriend doesn't die OR comes back as a zombie girlfriend and it becomes a sapphic version of fido, or this song. the son already came back to life at the end, CLEARLY the zombie virus makes dead people who are immune be alive again and also cured of what killed them. We Can Make This Work!

Death Proof (2007): okay full disclosure i have not seen grindhouse (2007). i want to, i just haven't been able to track down a copy through legal means. but from my understanding of cursory research i did this morning out of boredom, this and planet terror were extended for their separate international releases, and those releases were the ones i watched on tubi tv (my beloved). from this, i am just BETTING death proof is so much less awful in the original grindhouse version, because the main problem was that the film was just too goddamn long. other tarantino films are like this, but the character banter is usually engaging enough to keep things afloat, but not here. all the women in this talk like they were written by a cishetero white man--which. they were. but i shouldn't be able to tell, because That Is How Good Writing Works. they are so vapid and annoying and i do not care about what happens to them and their sexy feet. i don't know if it's any better in the shorter version, but at least it would feel less like a waste of time. spitballing a rework of this, but the intro kills should be 10, 15 minutes tops, just to set up kurt russell's character and that's IT, these girls are not interesting enough to try pulling a psycho with. (or you know. make them interesting so i care what happens to them.) then spend the rest of the first half of the film setting up the real main characters, and at the midway point have kurt russell show up again and try to kill them. or make it later. i think doing it around the middle would be more interesting, though, because then they could make the second half a revenge film à la i spit on your grave. though that might be difficult to pull off with only one guy to get revenge on. but also if tarantino could spend nearly two hours doing basically nothing, i think he could figure out a way to spend 45 minutes doing SOMETHING. ARGHGH! to close with some positivity, though, i liked the way this film looked, especially compared to planet terror. planet terror was clearly shot digitally and all the film grain and whatnot was added in the editing room, and it's fine but it really doesn't look authentic. the way the film captures light just isn't right (except during explosions. every explosion in that film looked amazing). death proof was clearly shot on film and looks a lot more natural because of it, the lighting is softer and brighter and the grain looks more real because it IS real. but overall. oh my god tarantino shut up and please let me just have a movie.

phew finally. onward to productive writing now. no plans for next week of film, but before the month ends i want to try and hit at least one film per decade of narrative-based filmmaking up to the present. based on what i've seen so far, i still need to hit:

1910s

1940s

1980s

2020s

also i want to watch at least one film with christopher lee and peter cushing, if i get the chance. but we shall see...

rankings, ratings, and lists thus far:

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) (duh)

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962)

Planet Terror (2007)

The VelociPastor (2018)

The House on Haunted Hill (1959)

The House on Haunted Hill (1999)

The Black Cat (1934)

Witchcraft (1964)

Der Golem, wie er in die Welt kam (1920)

The Comedy of Terrors (1963)

Lyle (2015)

Return to House on Haunted Hill (2007)

White Settlers (2014)

Bijo to Ekitai-ningen (1958)

Prometheus (2012)

XX (2017)

Death Proof (2007)

Mary Reilly (1996)

Encounter with the Unknown (1972)

[alliswyattonthewesternfront]

watching a trilogy of 4hr documentaries on horror, and my love of 70-80s horror makes a lot of sense now. i mean beyond the fact that i've always loved sfx make-up and practical effects, that's a given.

across the board, all the directors, writers, actors, etc. that expressed passion for the genre cited horror films of the 40-60s, and that was pretty much all i was allowed to watch growing up. i was a weird kid who just naturally gravitated to dark subject matter, and rather than fight that losing battle, my mother compromised by letting me watch whatever i wanted if it was black and white. her reasoning was apparently an "old movie" wouldn't be that scary because it would look fake to a young viewer.

she somehow overlooked the fact that i was never exposed to the modern film making techniques that result in older films being read as cheesy. weird since she carefully monitored my media consumption, but my mother has never been accused of being a genius. but anyway i grew up on a steady diet of B&W creature films, Vinny P and Peter Lorre, etc, and also any old time radio plays i could find through the library or our dial-up connection. i think my first modern horror movie was The Evil Dead? and i did not see that until my senior year of high school.

there's no point to this. it's just cool to realize the things that got you into horror were also the inspiration for the artists you look up to, in spite of the considerable age gap. also, y'all have no idea how much seeing The Thing for the first time will freak your bean when stuff like Creature from the Black Lagoon is your only frame of reference for creature effects. i lost my mind!!! still do tbh!!

[nitrateglow]

For fun, I watched the two versions of The Man Who Knew Too Much back to back on Friday. It was really interesting to see the differences between the two, not just in terms of plot details and characterization, but in terms of tone.

The original is much lighter. The couple are a playful duo, constantly kidding one another and engaging in banter. The criminals have a playful edge to them as well, particularly Peter Lorre’s head mastermind (in her Criterion essay for the bluray release, Farran Smith Nehme describes the character as a sort of psychopathic overgrown child and that’s very apt). The serious moments are rather fleeting, though they are effective (I love the moment when Leslie Banks comforts his frightened daughter by trying to kid around with her as usual, but you can see the jovial facade cracking as he holds her).

The remake is more polished on a technical level and the climactic scene in the concert hall is drawn out far longer, milking the situation for all the suspense it can. Actually, in terms of suspense and keeping me on the edge of my seat, the remake was more effective overall. I forgot just how wonderful it was. I also forgot about the underlying tension between the married couple played by Doris Day and Jimmy Stewart.

The element I like most in both is how the couple works as a team to find their lost child. The original even has the mother take out one of the villains!

Both are fantastic movies, though everyone will have their preference. I prefer the original, largely because of Peter Lorre, who’s such a great villain. He steals every scene he’s in.