Thread: Overrated/Underrated Part 1: The 1930's

Tweet

yeah, I cross wired OLD DARK HOUSE and CAT AND CANARY...which was (is?) another flick everyone waited and waited for, and made the pirates mountains of money...
and you're right...they only could have made it in the 30's...I always wonder what made Bill Castle do the remake...
but it's also kind of neat that the second tier Universals...(RAVEN, RUE MORGUE, THE BLACK CAT) were all based on Poe titles...they are, of course, second tier only in terms of the fame that the big five have, in a lot of cases they are superior to the more famous flicks.

The Mummy by Karl Freund is underrated. Boris Karloff gave a fine performance as Im-ho-tep in this dreamlike-film, and Zita Johann was the hottest of the Universal Horror leading ladies.

I was going to say The Freaks by Todd Browning, but this film just didn't get the exposure it deserved because it was too controversial and disturbing at the time.

If you think about it, THE MUMMY is really a remake of DRACULA, but they DO IT SO WELL that you have to be told about it before you realize it. Yes, THE MUMMY IS very under rated. The make up and sets are nearly perfect and Zita is wonderful with her gazes into the dry ice and her outfit at the end...

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi

Overrated: My choice here may be somewhat controversial, but I'm going to vote for the original Tod Browning version of Dracula(1931). Ok, so this was the film that created the horror genre... and the performances by Lugosi and Dwight Frye are excellent. However, when compared to Frankenstein (1931) and The Mummy (1932) I believe it to be an inferior film. It's flaws are accented when compared to George Melfords Spanish Language version which was filmed at the same time, using the same sets but emerged as a more aesthetically pleasing film.

I completely agree!! I've felt the exact same way ever since I saw the Spanish version back in my vid store clerkin' days in the 90s. The Spanish version is much sexier too which helps a LOT. In fact for a long time I only owned the Spanish version of Dracula (back in the good old days of VHS) & not the Lugosi version.

Underrated:
Freaks, especially in its initial release. Really a stunning movie.

I’ve been hearing the Spanish Dracula thing for years now and I just don’t get it. It tells the same story in a longer running time without really adding anything of interest.

Much of it plays out the same. The big difference here is the players. Carlos Villarias as Conde Dracula, Pablo Alvarez Rubio as Renfield, and Eduardo Arozamena as Professor Van Helsing are laughably over the top at times.

A good example is the scene where Van Helsing shows Dracula the mirror, one of the best parts of the U.S. version plays out kind of silly and over blown.

I also think the shots of Dracula rising from his coffin looks kind of hokey, reminds me of stuff we would seen the latter 40’s Universal Monster rallies.

It may not be hip but I'll take Browning's version any day of the week.

I agree that the Spanish version is a little melodramatic. On the other hand, the original is almost UNDERdramatic ... it has a terrifically gloomy mood, but it is slow going for awhile. I'll say Dracula might be overrated, while the Invisible Man is decidedly underrated. Those effects for 1933? Incredible. And the voice of Claude Rains is perfect.

Both movies even use Swan Lake as it's theme song.

Im-ho-tep's sacrilege, like Gary Oldman's Dracula's blasphemy was done out of love and tragedy, and was responsible for their fate, but you felt sorry for Gary Oldman's Dracula, not for Im-ho-tep.