- Welcome to Badmovies.org Forum.
Recent posts
#31
Bad Movies / Re: RECENT VIEWINGS (Bad Movie...
Last post by M.10rda - September 10, 2026, 03:00:30 PMTHE MAN WHO LAUGHS (1928):
First-time viewing, another in a parade of depressing silent flicks, and this one really smarted. I knew it wasn't a horror film but it isn't even the revenge melodrama that most reviews suggest. It ain't much of anything, unfortunately, and no one would ever speak of it at all if Bill Finger, Bob Kane, and Jerry Robinson hadn't seen it and appropriated the title character's exact appearance eleven years later for their little comic called "Batman #1"...
In a role that Lon Chaney understandably refused, the great Conrad Veidt is spectacular to look at, generally, because - well, he looks exactly like the original version of the Joker. But Veidt's performance is almost certainly the weakest I've seen him give, maybe because he's hobbled by make-up that apparently prevents him from opening his rictus-grin more than half an inch. Ashamed of this surgical deformity, his character spends much of the film covering his mouth w/ his hands or a cloth. Like w/ Chaney in HUNCHBACK (and less disastrously in PHANTOM), Veidt is deprived of approximately half his face - an actor's most vital tool when he's playing most of a role in close-up or medium shot. It's a silent film, so at least the make-up doesn't prevent Veidt from speaking - though of course hearing Veidt's voice would also contribute to a better performance! (I don't even want to imagine how his character eats - maybe he's on an all-liquid diet?)
When Veidt's character is a little kid, King James has Veidt's dad put in an iron maiden (an almost cool scene) and then has a crazy surgeon permanently deform Veidt, just for giggles. Years later Veidt is a jester (of course) in a traveling sideshow. His childhood friend is a pretty blind girl who is in love with him but he thinks he's unworthy of her because he's deformed. It isn't until his performance attracts the fancy of a Duchess that it occurs to him that maybe he is a happenin' guy! Personally I find this plot very relatable.
When you're a young ugly guy, you don't trust the first girl who ever gives you some attention - you think she's crazy or something. Then when a second girl is somehow into you, then finally you begin to accept that you might be able to be in a relationship.
But, what of the Revenge? Well - in this flick, there is none! There's a lot of romance, a lot of court drama that Veidt isn't even involved in, and a lot of... time frittered away, when Veidt could be, y'know, avengin'! Also like HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, THE MAN WHO LAUGHS is apparently based
on a Victor Hugo novel, and it reflects a lot of the same issues w/ confused adaptation that Chaney's HUNCHBACK suffered from. Five screenwriters apparently worked on this screenplay - how?! Adaptations of the sprawling Les Miserables have often suffered w/ similar confusion about what's important and what isn't (though the stage musical pretty much figures it all out): many films include Marius' family, who really aren't important; almost no versions include Azelma, the sister of Eponine and daughter of the Thenardiers, who is a minor character but would help us learn more about her family; and some version even exclude the Thenardiers, 
which (obviously!) I think is a fatal error. Hugo is tough on screenwriters, I guess.
Trivial trivia: Superstarlet Mary Philbin plays the blind girl, is billed above Veidt, and barely makes any impression. Olga Baclanova plays the Duchess and you'd know her better as "Cleopatra" in FREAKS. The mad surgeon who operates on young Veidt looks like Matt Berry, which is amusing.
The old guy who runs the sideshow looks like a cross between Zlatko Buric and Mel Brooks as "Yogurt". The main villain (not King James) is defeated at the end not by Veidt but by dog that everyone calls a wolf though he looks more like a hound, and that wolf's name is "Homo", and yes, it's kind of funny when the intertitles read "Homo, no!" and so on.
2/5 at best. Sad that Veidt couldn't join the ranks of Tim Curry and Tadanobu Asano as Best Joker Performances (by Actors Playing A Character Not Called The Joker) but the material just isn't there.
First-time viewing, another in a parade of depressing silent flicks, and this one really smarted. I knew it wasn't a horror film but it isn't even the revenge melodrama that most reviews suggest. It ain't much of anything, unfortunately, and no one would ever speak of it at all if Bill Finger, Bob Kane, and Jerry Robinson hadn't seen it and appropriated the title character's exact appearance eleven years later for their little comic called "Batman #1"...
In a role that Lon Chaney understandably refused, the great Conrad Veidt is spectacular to look at, generally, because - well, he looks exactly like the original version of the Joker. But Veidt's performance is almost certainly the weakest I've seen him give, maybe because he's hobbled by make-up that apparently prevents him from opening his rictus-grin more than half an inch. Ashamed of this surgical deformity, his character spends much of the film covering his mouth w/ his hands or a cloth. Like w/ Chaney in HUNCHBACK (and less disastrously in PHANTOM), Veidt is deprived of approximately half his face - an actor's most vital tool when he's playing most of a role in close-up or medium shot. It's a silent film, so at least the make-up doesn't prevent Veidt from speaking - though of course hearing Veidt's voice would also contribute to a better performance! (I don't even want to imagine how his character eats - maybe he's on an all-liquid diet?)
When Veidt's character is a little kid, King James has Veidt's dad put in an iron maiden (an almost cool scene) and then has a crazy surgeon permanently deform Veidt, just for giggles. Years later Veidt is a jester (of course) in a traveling sideshow. His childhood friend is a pretty blind girl who is in love with him but he thinks he's unworthy of her because he's deformed. It isn't until his performance attracts the fancy of a Duchess that it occurs to him that maybe he is a happenin' guy! Personally I find this plot very relatable.
When you're a young ugly guy, you don't trust the first girl who ever gives you some attention - you think she's crazy or something. Then when a second girl is somehow into you, then finally you begin to accept that you might be able to be in a relationship. But, what of the Revenge? Well - in this flick, there is none! There's a lot of romance, a lot of court drama that Veidt isn't even involved in, and a lot of... time frittered away, when Veidt could be, y'know, avengin'! Also like HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, THE MAN WHO LAUGHS is apparently based
on a Victor Hugo novel, and it reflects a lot of the same issues w/ confused adaptation that Chaney's HUNCHBACK suffered from. Five screenwriters apparently worked on this screenplay - how?! Adaptations of the sprawling Les Miserables have often suffered w/ similar confusion about what's important and what isn't (though the stage musical pretty much figures it all out): many films include Marius' family, who really aren't important; almost no versions include Azelma, the sister of Eponine and daughter of the Thenardiers, who is a minor character but would help us learn more about her family; and some version even exclude the Thenardiers, which (obviously!) I think is a fatal error. Hugo is tough on screenwriters, I guess.Trivial trivia: Superstarlet Mary Philbin plays the blind girl, is billed above Veidt, and barely makes any impression. Olga Baclanova plays the Duchess and you'd know her better as "Cleopatra" in FREAKS. The mad surgeon who operates on young Veidt looks like Matt Berry, which is amusing.
The old guy who runs the sideshow looks like a cross between Zlatko Buric and Mel Brooks as "Yogurt". The main villain (not King James) is defeated at the end not by Veidt but by dog that everyone calls a wolf though he looks more like a hound, and that wolf's name is "Homo", and yes, it's kind of funny when the intertitles read "Homo, no!" and so on.2/5 at best. Sad that Veidt couldn't join the ranks of Tim Curry and Tadanobu Asano as Best Joker Performances (by Actors Playing A Character Not Called The Joker) but the material just isn't there.
#32
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by FatFreddysCat - September 10, 2026, 02:55:15 PM"Frank Miller: American Genius" (2024)
Biography of Frank Miller, the artist/writer who revived Daredevil, re-imagined Batman, and created the "300" and "Sin City" franchises over the course of a nearly 50 year career in comics and movies. A cool trip down memory lane, lloaded with interviews with friends, colleagues and fans, and plenty of nerd trivia. Worth checking out.
Biography of Frank Miller, the artist/writer who revived Daredevil, re-imagined Batman, and created the "300" and "Sin City" franchises over the course of a nearly 50 year career in comics and movies. A cool trip down memory lane, lloaded with interviews with friends, colleagues and fans, and plenty of nerd trivia. Worth checking out.
#33
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by Trevor - September 10, 2026, 01:49:31 PMQuote from: M.10rda on September 10, 2026, 01:10:28 PMI've seen SPACE MUTINY. I assure you, SPACE MUTINY is an infinitely more valuable contribution to the international community of cinema than the films being pooped out in Buffalo, NY by Fred Olen Ray et cetera right now!
My friend and mentor Vincent Cox ASC photographed SPACE MUTINY. That and THE DEMON 😳😉
#34
Entertainment / Re: What have you been listeni...
Last post by Allhallowsday - September 10, 2026, 01:46:50 PMVLADO PERLEMUTER Plays RAVEL (1961 aka Piano Music, actually not complete).
#35
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by M.10rda - September 10, 2026, 01:10:28 PMI've seen SPACE MUTINY. I assure you, SPACE MUTINY is an infinitely more valuable contribution to the international community of cinema than the films being pooped out in Buffalo, NY by Fred Olen Ray et cetera right now!
#36
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by Trevor - September 10, 2026, 01:08:38 PMQuote from: M.10rda on September 10, 2026, 12:56:41 PMI don't think I knew it was shot in South Africa. Well - congratulations!
☺️☺️
It was one of the many cut rate films made in South Africa during the controversial subsidy film scandal era. That almost killed our industry as many fly by night filmmakers took advantage of a loophole ridden film production assistance program and films like SPACE MUTINY and RETURN OF THE FAMILY MAN came out of it 😳😳
#37
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by M.10rda - September 10, 2026, 12:56:41 PMI don't think I knew it was shot in South Africa. Well - congratulations!
#38
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by Trevor - September 10, 2026, 12:50:21 PMQuote from: M.10rda on September 10, 2026, 12:43:53 PMI haven't watched the first HOWLING in 35 years or more. I thought Robert Picardo and the scene in the middle where he transforms were great and terrifying - but I was a little underwhelmed by the humorous bits. I should revisit it.
Same goes for all the sequels (adolescent watches). The VHS copy of PART II that I watched was so dark I couldn't make out heads or tails of it. It was a pre-record/rental from a store - is the film really that poorly lit and underexposed?
PART III is ridiculous, though seemingly intentionally.
I am glad to see Trevor offer guarded praise of PART 4, which... I liked as a kid! I was a very serious and unironic/insecure kid who thought I had a sense of humor yet hated humor in many places it turned up (such as in HOWLING 3) so in retrospect PART 4 might've benefitted from some humor, but - I enjoyed how straight and serious they played it. It's a more literal adaptation of the novel than Dante's original film, which I guess I also liked. The novel is, BTW, way r@piery than Dante's movie w/ no humor whatsoever. I don't recall any graphic sex abuse in PART 4 but the plot is closer to the novel.
PART 5... is kind of an unofficial remake of Amicus' awesome 70s werewolf mystery THE BEAST MUST DIE. I think PART 5 is terrific for about 25 minutes, then gradually makes every bad decision it can make to spiral into crappiness.
PART 6... never bothered.
No idea why all of the above is italicized.
Quote from: M.10rda on September 10, 2026, 12:43:53 PMI am glad to see Trevor offer guarded praise of PART 4, which... I liked as a kid! I was a very serious and unironic/insecure kid who thought I had a sense of humor yet hated humor in many places it turned up (such as in HOWLING 3) so in retrospect PART 4 might've benefitted from some humor, but - I enjoyed how straight and serious they played it. It's a more literal adaptation of the novel than Dante's original film, which I guess I also liked. The novel is, BTW, way r@piery than Dante's movie w/ no humor whatsoever. I don't recall any graphic sex abuse in PART 4 but the plot is closer to the novel.
I viewed it on YouTube again and was amazed to see the amount of people I know and knew personally who worked on the film, including the guy who directed AMERICAN NINJA 3 BLOOD HUNT and AMERICAN NINJA 4 THE ANNILHLATION. 😳😳🐢
#39
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by M.10rda - September 10, 2026, 12:43:53 PMI haven't watched the first HOWLING in 35 years or more. I thought Robert Picardo and the scene in the middle where he transforms were great and terrifying - but I was a little underwhelmed by the humorous bits. I should revisit it.
Same goes for all the sequels (adolescent watches). The VHS copy of PART II that I watched was so dark I couldn't make out heads or tails of it. It was a pre-record/rental from a store - is the film really that poorly lit and underexposed?
PART III is ridiculous, though seemingly intentionally.
I am glad to see Trevor offer guarded praise of PART 4, which... I liked as a kid! I was a very serious and unironic/insecure kid who thought I had a sense of humor yet hated humor in many places it turned up (such as in HOWLING 3) so in retrospect PART 4 might've benefitted from some humor, but - I enjoyed how straight and serious they played it. It's a more literal adaptation of the novel than Dante's original film, which I guess I also liked. The novel is, BTW, way r@piery than Dante's movie w/ no humor whatsoever. I don't recall any graphic sex abuse in PART 4 but the plot is closer to the novel.
PART 5... is kind of an unofficial remake of Amicus' awesome 70s werewolf mystery THE BEAST MUST DIE. I think PART 5 is terrific for about 25 minutes, then gradually makes every bad decision it can make to spiral into crappiness.
PART 6... never bothered.
No idea why all of the above is italicized.
Same goes for all the sequels (adolescent watches). The VHS copy of PART II that I watched was so dark I couldn't make out heads or tails of it. It was a pre-record/rental from a store - is the film really that poorly lit and underexposed?
PART III is ridiculous, though seemingly intentionally.
I am glad to see Trevor offer guarded praise of PART 4, which... I liked as a kid! I was a very serious and unironic/insecure kid who thought I had a sense of humor yet hated humor in many places it turned up (such as in HOWLING 3) so in retrospect PART 4 might've benefitted from some humor, but - I enjoyed how straight and serious they played it. It's a more literal adaptation of the novel than Dante's original film, which I guess I also liked. The novel is, BTW, way r@piery than Dante's movie w/ no humor whatsoever. I don't recall any graphic sex abuse in PART 4 but the plot is closer to the novel.
PART 5... is kind of an unofficial remake of Amicus' awesome 70s werewolf mystery THE BEAST MUST DIE. I think PART 5 is terrific for about 25 minutes, then gradually makes every bad decision it can make to spiral into crappiness.
PART 6... never bothered.
No idea why all of the above is italicized.
#40
Good Movies / Re: Creepy houses in movies?
Last post by Dr. Whom - September 10, 2026, 12:14:15 PMWell, there is the Ennis House, famously on Haunted Hill