The Bride of Frankenstein may be the best of the classic horror movie era of the 1930s and 1940s. Directed by James Whale and featuring Boris Karloff reprising his role as the Monster, it is a continuation of the classic Frankenstein story, with the creation of a bride for the Monster. Although only on screen for five minutes at the end, Elsa Lanchester is wonderful in the role of the Bride. It has scenes that are touching, frightful, and humorous. A highly entertaining classic. It's one of the most wonderfully crafted films in cinema history and is easily lauded as Whale's best work.

For some reason Whale decided to have the Monster learn a few words and phrases since the original film. I don't know if this was to demonstrate that the Monster was a living, evolving being, but it only brief moments of comic relief and didn't deter from the overall them of the film.

The memorable sequence of bringing the Bride to life is unequalled - even the original scene in Frankenstein pales in comparison. The presentation of the birth of the Bride is stunningly iconic, as is her unforgettable shock hairstyle which stood up and hinted that the electricity had shocked her to life. Her darting movements and childlike expressions were hilarious.

The Bride of Frankenstein is just another proof that they really don't make movies like they used to. In the 1930s there was no high tech anything, so directors had to rely on story telling and pure movie craftsmanship. Lighting techniques that have been studied by film makers for years, fine sound editing, sets that have been copied by countless modern day set directors, exceptional makeup and of course over the top acting. Who else could make you feel sorry for a monster longing for companionship but Boris Karloff? To quote Jerry Seinfeld: "There's something about a monster in a blazer."

Comic or gothic horror drama; music; white face; culture shock jokes; campy oneliners; Depp overacting;

It begins with decent gloominess but the rest is scattered with groovy soundtrack and colorful images. But that may not be the problem. It's actually pretty good at recapturing the 70's. The main problem is the plot development. It's fun but also disappointing.

It looks promising in the beginning. Tim Burton uses his campy directing style which made the intro intriguing. It get silly when Barnabas returns from his grave. Exploring the changes of his town. It's quite funny and delightful. There's a good character development in this that made it entertaining. Johnny Depp gives a delightful performance as Barnabas Collins. Eva Green is quite menacing as Angelique. Jackie Earle Haley and Helena Bonham Carter are the extra comic relief. Chloë Moretz is always good at bad girl roles.

There's a lot of fun going on, but in the end, the experience feels like something's missing. It could have been an interesting story but it ends pretty lazy. There are couple of senseless twists that aren't consistent. At least there is something good in the filmmaking. The production design is quite decent and sometimes unlikely colorful. Postmodern music are played often which made Danny Elfman's music score hard to notice. But these merits can't fix the film's storytelling.

Dark Shadows is undeniably entertaining and nothing else. There are things that could have been better. I don't think the colorful groovy look is the problem. It just needs a better ending that gives consistency to the story. People can still give it a try for its camp. There's a true vampire here that is nothing like our modern vampires. Dark Shadows is not bad. It's just unsatisfying. It has the color, life, and all but what's missing is a proper plot development.

Dick Powell gives one of his best dramatic performances as the classic private investigator Philip Marlowe in this adaptation of Raymond Chandler's classic novel, Farewell, My Lovely. The story is told in flashbacks and revolves around Marlowe's investigation of a missing jade necklace. The plot is typically convoluted for a Chandler novel. Marlowe, a somewhat down-on-his-luck private detective, is approached by Moose Malloy, a giant of a man who recently released from prison and is searching for his ex-girlfriend. Marlowe reluctantly accepts the case, but before he can make headway, he gets a second client, who wants Marlowe to accompany him on a late night pay-off. These two cases, although not apparent at the time, quickly become enmeshed and lead to numerous complications and murders.

It contains all the characteristics of the genre: shadowy and starkly contrasted black & white cinematography, treacherous and morally ambiguous characters, voiceover narration and snappy dialogue. All of these elements work fine in the film, but what makes it most remembered is the surreal dream sequence and its drug-hazed aftermath when Marlowe is held captive in what appears to be an insane asylum. The scene powerfully captures the sense of confusion and weakness Marlowe is confronted with. The striking imagery of the sequence is so effective because it contrasts with the rest of the film that is mostly dialogue-driven. Director Edward Dmytryk and cinematographer Harry Wild employ a lot of low key lighting and low angles, so this is a nice example of noir expressionist lighting. The confusing plot is full of plot twists and turns that further underscore the unpredictable nature of the world the film is set in. The mood is equally important to the plot; in fine film noir style.

An excellent cast supports Dick Powell. Claire Trevor, as the "femme fatale" Helen Grayle strikes the right balance of greed, tawdriness, sex appeal & cattiness, to match up with Marlowe. Anne Shirley, as the good girl Ann Grayle (Helen's step daughter) provides a fresh faced softness to counteract against her stepmother's hardness. Her character brings out the humanity in Marlowe. Powell's chemistry with both ladies is evident. Otto Kruger is at his slimy best as Jules Amthor, the con artist bad guy. Esther Howard, in a small role as boozy widow Jessie Florian, in a scene where Powell's gives one his best voice overs: "She was a charming middle-aged lady with a face like a bucket of mud. I gave her a drink. She was a gal that would take a drink, if she had to knock you down to get the bottle". Of the supporting actors, the most memorable one is former pro wrestler Mike Mazurki as the easily angered lovestruck punch drunk brute Moose Malloy who literally steals every scene he's in.

This is noir the way its supposed to be. This is a must have for noir and forties fans, and one of those you can actually put on for people who hate this sort of thing. This is as classic film noir as they get. I would recommend this to those who are looking for the genre at it was meant to be - "like lighting a stick of dynamite, and telling it not to go off"!

A cautionary tale of what happens when society surrenders its rights and responsibilities to an overarching authority, Logan's Run is a fairly mediocre science fiction film - offering a prism of the past's vision of the future, like most futuristic sci-fi films - and a bit of a chore to sit through at thime. In the future, overpopulation is controlled by killing everyone when they turn 30 years old with the promise that they will be "renewed". Michael York plays Logan 5, a Sandman who is charged with killing "Runners" who refuse to submit to this law. When Logan is instructed by the computer that runs the society to find the Sanctuary, a place where runners can live freely in defiance of society's law, his lifeclock is advanced four years to thirty and is forced to become a runner himself.

The film borrows heavily from several classic science fiction films. The theme of a hedonistic society, authoritarian society that controls birth and death was done better in Brave New World. Soylent Green was the basis for using people as a food source. Contrasting modern and uncivilized societies in a campy way was borrowed from Planet of the Apes.

This film is very loosely based upon the novel of the same name by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson and suffers in the translation. It only uses the novel's basic premise: everyone must die at a specific age, Logan and his companion Jessica run while being chased by Francis. However, the notable differences are not an improvement:
1. The world is post apocalyptic in the film and people now live inside a huge domed city and are unaware of the world outside, believing it to be a barren, poisonous environment.
2. The age of death is 30, not 21, and instead of reporting to a "Sleepshop", citizens must take part in a ritual called "Carrousel" in which they are vaporized with the chance of being "renewed".
3. The motivations of the characters are also quite different in the film. The novel has Logan as 30 years old and he becomes a runner himself in order to avoid being killed.. Logan is a 26-year-old Sandman in the film, sent by the computer to find and destroy Sanctuary. The computer alters his palm flower (here called a "life clock") to show him as approaching Lastday, and he becomes a runner and escapes from the city.
4. Sanctuary turns out not to exist in the film. The only other person that Logan and Jessica encounter outside the city is an old man, played by Peter Ustinov, who lives with a large number of cats in the Senate Chamber in the largely intact ruins of Washington, DC. In the novel, Sanctuary turns out to be Argos, an abandoned space colony near Mars. Logan and Jessica escape to the colony on a rocket.
5. Logan kills Francis, who is simply a Sandman in the movie and not a rebel leader, and leads the old man back to just outside the domed city, returning to try to lead a revolt against the computer.
6. No one believes or Logan and instead he is captured by Sandmen. In his interrogation by the computer, his honest information that there is no Sanctuary causes the computer to malfunction and self-destruct. As the young population leave the confines of the burning and exploding Domed City, they meet the Old Man outside - the first time they have seen anybody of that age.

The dialogue is often inane, unrealistic, and cliché-ridden. This creates an unfortunate challenge for the actors, who often appear to be visibly struggling to make a scene work.
Michael York and Jenny Agutter were good in the lead roles, despite this, and Robert Jordan and Peter Ustinov made for a fine supporting cast. Farrah Fawcett appears in a small role, pre-Charlie's Angels, and is little more than very attractive eye candy.

The set design and special effects were cutting edge for the time, but look cheesy today. Wide angle shots of the domed city look like a village in an electric train set and the interiors resemble the inside of a suburban shopping mall - which it is, it was filmed in the Dallas/Ft Worth Metroplex.

Overall, this was a wasted effort to make a significant contribution to science fiction film history. The screenwriters would have done better by hewing more to the story presented in the novel. Science Fiction fans and film buffs will find this movie entertaining, but the general population will probably find it confusing and a waste of time.

Interesting film filled with great scenes--both the small town settings and the wild KKK meeting in the woods. The opening ten minutes is so shocking for its time it will really make you perk up.

This film began with a noir edge. While visiting her sister in a small town, a woman witnesses the murder of an expose reporter by members of the Ku Klux Klan. Ginger Rogers and Doris Day were odd choices for these dramatic roles, but they manage to pull off a more than credible effort. When she meets her brother-in-law, Rogers realizes he is the murderer. The first 30 minutes of this film are riveting, owing primarily to Ginger Rogers' subtle and restrained performance as the witness. She doesn't have much dialog but emotes with body and expression beautifully. Notable is the five minute scene where Rogers meets her brother-in-law and, realizing her sister has married a murderer, freezes in horror unable to speak. The level of tension is palpable. This tension dissipates for awhile until the ending where Ginger is in real danger.

Steve Cochran was excellent as the loud mouth lout murderer. The interaction between he and Ginger Rogers was what keeps viewer's attention and interest, as they flashed anger combined with an undercurrent of lust at each other. Things really sparked when Steve and Ginger were on the screen. The crux of the movie is whether she will testify at the inquest as to what she witnessed; with the knowledge what that would mean to her pregnant sister.

Ronald Reagan, in one of his best performances, cast as the crusading District Attorney who pressures Ginger Rogers to testify to what she witnessed. His strait laced qualities made him a better choice for the lead than more liberal leaning actors because he fits so well into the small town setting. Doris Day, in a non singing role was fine as the younger sister and wife.

There is a shocking and violent scene at the end where Reagan saves Ginger from a flogging, denouncing the Klan members and pointing out that he knew who they were even with the robes and hoods, and denounces them for "desecrating the cross". Alas, he could not save Doris Day from being accidently shot.

Many people criticized this film because it did not portray the Ku Klux Klan in a harsh enough light, but this did not deter from the crux of the film: whether Rogers will testify, will the guilty be convicted and what will be the consequences.