One and One and One Again

Well, look who's back....

I did say that I had found other films to watch - I just finally got around to it.

My apologies to all who are quite sick of this subject and all it entails - but you are quite welcome to leave.

For whatever reason, old films tend to be....quick. Short. Perhaps it's because they set up and end everything quickly without side plots and tangents, and stick to the main characters and story from the start. And, of course, they ARE shorter. But that's irrelevant at the moment.

They still make hour and a half films now (Sherlock...) that seem longer than these old films. It just...intrigues me.

It was as good as I expected. The scene of Kharis' burial of the princess was long and unnecessary, and quite violent - but only insomuch as typical royal Egyptian funerals. The reason I found it unnecessary is because I already knew it.

And Kharis was.... By the way, SPOILER ALERT if you plan to watch it and want to be completely unspoiled and you couldn't guess the ending.

Well, he was very proud. I doubt he's unintelligent, so I can only assume he's proud. Because trying to fight his way out of the only exit of a tomb through many guards would have been doomed to failure and also rather undignified. However, it was at LEAST a day until he was sentenced - no escape attempt?

It wasn't as if he didn't know what to expect... And then he just walks into his own tomb? That's it? ........unless they did more than just wrap him in bandages....

Alright, that would actually answer it. If they had mummified him completely alive and then buried him while he was 'alive' under the Scroll of Life... That would answer it.

But even before that! He knew what would happen to him!

He does play quite proud people.....

And then, of course, there's John Banning.

For whatever reason, He kept reminding me of Finch in this film.... He talks more than Van Helsing and so wasn't him it was just....

He had a twisted leg, had an energy about learning, and meddled in things he should have better left alone.

He was rather finch-like. Except that even Finch doesn't come THAT close to death.

......except that one episode that I'm evil and tell people about.

I really am going to be in trouble whenever they watch it.....  But then again, people shouldn't spoil ME.

I don't spoil people the right way....

And Isobel's hair-! It does have to be rather thin though.... Although, we never do see it actually come down - it's possible that, since the scene is cut up (like they do it in films), it's not her natural hair.

But it's so long and lovely! And dark - but that's a different subject.

Speaking of different subject, the film was incredibly familiar. It took me until the last few minutes to figure out why: it was much the same as Pyramids of Mars. Not quite in plot, of course - but rather in set and design.

Doctor Who

The Mummy

Both Egyptians in a rich house, both wearing red fezzes, both controlling mummies. The difference being, of course, that Kharis was human once and the ones of Pyramids of Mars were alien...things.

The Mummy

Doctor Who

And both got killed by the things they thought they controlled. Granted, in The Mummy, he did control him - but then he ordered Kharis to kill the 'Princess' and that went about as well as could be expected.

The Mummy

Doctor Who

And the women are even both wearing supposedly Victorian garments! Well, as close as they could be....  Sarah Jane's rather looks more like Edwardian than Victorian, and Isobel's day-clothes look more Georgian or even Tudorian rather than Victorian - but we'll allow that they are wearing old gowns. That's probably about all we can allow on that note....

But Sarah Jane at least isn't SUPPOSED to be a Victorian lady as Isobel is - and for whatever reason, Mrs. Banning meeting the inspector in her dressing gown and nightdress with her hair DOWN just....seems wrong on countless levels.Someone would have had to go fetch the Inspector, so surely she could have gone and put on some proper clothes? Please?

But that's beside the point - as I said, we'll allow....  One can't expect great historical accuracy in older films unless they're older films set in the time period they were produced in - and aren't those just so much fun?

It's amusing how many times before I said they were inaccurate, not realising that they were MADE in that time thus they MUST be right. I annoy myself....

Doctor Who

And both the Doctor and Banning are strangled by mummies to unconsciousness. Both are thought dead and left behind, and both come back to life - or at least don't actually die.

The Mummy

The Doctor is saved because he's an alien and it really wouldn't be fair to make him so much like humans because he'd have run out of regenerations long before he'd have been around so long. They had to at least put him on SOME sort of equal footing after giving him a death wish and fatal curiosity. Especially too much of the latter....

And John Banning is saved because Isobel loves him and did he REALLY think she was going to stay up in her room after telling her that he was going to be attacked next by something that wants to kill him, alone? Hardly likely!

This also makes the....third and fourth times Lee strangles Cushing. At least Banning doesn't pass out so quickly - so either he got better at acting (Impossible - well, mostly.  Horror of Dracula came out in 1958 and The Mummy came out in 1959) or he still has no excuse for losing consciousness so quickly when strangled by vampyres.

Although, as Van Helsing, he also has the extra pressure of being fully aware of what happens if he slips up or loses - so perhaps the exertion before and hyperventilation contributes to lack of oxygen later? And Banning has a much cooler head and not the threat of condemned (the other word works better, but it sadly has rather....crude connotations any more. Why have people ruined the English language? Or any language? Why must they be crude anyway? Not fair..... I have to find other descriptive adjectives and there aren't many for that place...) immortality for all time, drinking the blood of others.

That would be a horrid thought really. I feel sorry for Harker - what he feared came upon him....

And why didn't they just blow the Mummy to pieces? It wasn't exactly....healing itself from the damage Banning inflicted on it - why not simply continue the damage until it was blown into such tiny pieces that even Abby and Ziva couldn't put it back together again OR all the King's Horses and all the King's men?


For that matter, they could have just turned the mummy into a mummified version of Ducky's Meat Puzzle - that would have worked too.

Instead, he's sunk to the bottom of the bog with the Scroll of life (that water was disgusting and Isobel's hair was covered in it that's just...ew. And how did Lee go UNDER the surface? It just....No.

Of course, I assume it wasn't really a bog - but nonetheless. The idea.

But who's to say he can't or won't come back? He could control himself now, could he not? And they only did how much Frankenstein films - it isn't that improbable....

Irrelevant!

I did enjoy the film though. On the subject of NCIS though, I wonder if Tony's watched any. He seems to have watched everything else, it wouldn't surprise me - In fact, I certainly expect him to have.

Which, of course, will mean that he hasn't and won't. Surprise, surprise....

It is fun to recognise his his quotes and references - and amusing to see how much we do know.

Now, what is immediately left....  Grimm, 1984, and Island of Terror. What I'll start and what I'll finish are two different things though, as ever.

By the way, on a side note, a 'Terance' (or Terrance?) directed both films.

Something in the Darkness Pulled Me Deeper

Some people just learn quicker....

This was supposed to go in the last post - but that one degenerated and....  Well, I forgot.

So it can go here.

Kermit is....hilarious. Especially when on the Muppet series - that was just...priceless. I'd love to watch whatever one that gif above is from - it looks hilarious.

Now, let's talk about vampyres.

Alright, not really.

The Tenth Doctor is just too much fun to watch and I need a distraction....  Voila!

I actually did think about bringing Morecambe and Wise into this with Cushing - but not today. Maybe another day.

Although speaking of vampyres, it really is the perfect situation for that discussion......

No, actually, let's do talk about creepy villains though. 

WHY DO SUCH GOOD ACTORS HAVE TO PLAY PEOPLE WE REALLY SHOULDN'T LIKE???

Jedikiah Price, Loki, Mr. Smith....Well, after that it generally becomes the actors. Pellegrino, Hiddleston, Cumberbatch (actually, why are MOST actors from the UK generally villains??), Cushing, Lee, Rickman, Carlyle....

Ah, and now the source of my annoyance today: Robert Carlyle.

Actually, Eragon. And Carlyle by default because he's in it and of COURSE he's the villain.

There are a few things I can't or won't watch. Eragon, Harry Potter.... Fun things like that. Well, I can't say how fun - just that they have an awful lot of excellent actors.

Irons, Carlyle, Oldman, Rickman - IT IRKS ME!!

The fact that they're villains TOO is....  Frustrating.

The sarcasm is overwhelming.....

I finally figured out where he's from by the way: House of the Long Shadows. Really, an amazing film - with a completely surprising ending.

Alright, forget it - we'll talk about vampyres.

Really, this time.

In a round about way. What's new....

Grand Moff Tarkin

It started with him. Obviously, known from Star Wars, but I actually came to know him and his works through Sherlock Holmes - always my interest.

Sherlock Holmes

I had seen Downey's Holmes and  BBC's Sherlock series and - while waiting out the interminable hiatus - decided to look up some other adaptations of Holmes. I've seen most of Basil Rathebone's films in the character, didn't particularly care for him, and wondered how others were. For some reason, it had simply never occured to me that Dracula has been remade countless times - why in the world would Sherlock Holmes not have been?

I found quite a bit of worthwhile adaptations. I found a new Russian series first that was interesting for the language and the viewpoint - but not excellent as an adaptation. the Young Sherlock Holmes is something I plan to never see again and never finished in the first place - I fear it ranks with Elementary. I heard of and finally managed to find the first Russian adaptive series that was completely superbe and well-worth watching, even if one must put up with subtitles. It was a brilliant adaptation.

Ah, and of course, there was Jeremy Brett. I should do a posting series concerning the different adaptations of Holmes that I enjoyed. Brett was brilliant and excellent and a joy to watch. The first series or two were the absolute best as then he began to fall ill - but Granada! Not only was he an excellent Holmes, they adapted the cases almost literally word for word. It was a pleasure to watch. So much better than even BBC's modernisation - and that was actually quite good, until I saw older adaptations.

And then, there was Peter Cushing.

His first performance as Holmes was in Hammer's production of The Hound of Baskervilles. Being made by Hammer, with all of their connections to the Horror genre, it's far from a perfect adaptation. Far from a purely scientific, natural explanation for a family legend, Hammer introduced things like a special dagger and makes the girl evil. 

That being said, Cushing? Watching him play Holmes was completely worth the errors in the adaptation - likely what makes it one of the best versions of Hound of Baskervilles in people's opinions.

And! Christopher Lee is in it as well! Not really surprising, given he also often worked with Hammer Films.

Also the first to be filmed in colour.

I went on to watch all available of his tenure as Holmes in the television series. I completely enjoyed it, but he reportedly hated it.

That aside: I hate BBC.

Alright, it makes perfect sense. BBC isn't notorious for having an extensive budget, and film was likley expensive - hard to justify when it was easy enough to simply tape over preexisting film. Television episodes and serials. Especially when 're-runs' were completely unheard of as television was a newly emerging medium. Theatre was still predominating.

So, BBC, in an effor to be thrifty or efficiant or in an event of rare forshadowing to completely annoy and irk hundreds of fans to come, reused or disposed of countless films.

And among those were many of Cushing's episodes as Sherlock Holmes. Not all - thankfully - but any at all was too much when he barely played any to begin with.

Especially! Especially! When one of those lost episodes was "Black Peter". I'd love to see that adapted, but unless it's in one of the much older series or radio series, it's not been done and kept. Cushing's tenure was almost the only one to adapt that case.

And of course it was lost.

At least people had taken copies of the Doctor Who film reels as actors, or just as souveniers or for whatever reason. Apparently. that was not possible with Cushing's Holmes. Annoyingly so.

And while Peter Cushing might have thought he didn't do nearly as good of a job as he could have, it's still excellent. I wonder if he could have gotten better then, and what the series would have been like if he'd the opportunity.

Besides Sherlock Holmes and Grand Moff Tarkin (now it really is bothering me: what is a 'Grand Moff'....), he - as previously stated - played in many of Hammer Films' productions. 

Dr. Frankenstein

He really just does not seem the person that would act in horror films - let alone be a recognisable and major figure in the genre. He designed scarves for goodness sakes - not exactly the type of person that would be a mad scientist. 

Two of the main characters he played as were the notorious Dr. Frankenstein, and the vampyre hunter Abraham Van Helsing.

I've not gotten around to watching his Frankenstein films yet, but I fully intend to if just to watch his acting. But, given it is Frankensteing and I've not seen it - do not blame me if there is aught in them to offend. Van Helsing on the other hand....

I grew up on darker films; and, albeit I am startled easily, do enjoy a good suspenseful story. I also love mythology and history, and vampyres are....there's just something elegant about them.

Let me rephrase myself: there is something elegant about OLD vampyres. Twilight, or whatever other version of vampyres there are don't count.

Abraham Van Helsing

Side note: SPARKLING??? I'm sorry. That's just...wrong. These are creatures that survive on blood. That must sleep on the dirt of their homeland. That are burnt by touching crosses or holy object. That cower from crosses. NO WHERE IN HERE DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT SPARKLING!!

Alright, it doesn't help that the only thing I've really seen of Twilight has been gifs, and the picture was likely touched up - BUT I DON'T CARE. Vampyres are dark creatures - soulless, literally.

Faeries sparkle. Pixies sparkle. Pegaii sparkle - unicorns sparkle! Vampyres? Do. Not. Sparkle.

I did say we were going to be talking about vampyres.... My apologies to all who believe that the topic is a matter of dark beings and should never be mentioned in polite company.

In that case - don't let excellent, marvellous actors play characters that will evoke such conversations.

See? Even Giles agrees with me. I feel sorry for everyone that thinks those vampyres are the best.....  How are they even interesting??

.....even more amusing is that those are actually two different images - yet, they fit together and form a conversation....

I had a point.....  I was making a point or working towards one and then I got distracted......

It would be interesting to see how long these posts go without the aid of images. Would they be longer as I no longer limit myself to try to spare the Reader's attention? Or would they be shorter as I no longer amuse and distract myself?

An intriguing experiment - one perhaps I should try.

Ach! That's what I was talking about. I had mused a bit on my lack of familiarity with Cushing's Frankenstein, and then I was making to move on to his portrayal of Van Helsing.

Well, Van Helsing is actually more compatible to Cushing than what I imagine Frankenstein could be. He is a consummate gentlemen - most of his characters are actually..... - and I actually think he's a horrid vampyre hunter.

Although, in the first two - and only two - films I saw, he seemed simply more like a doctor that got wrapped up into something he wasn't really prepared for rather than someone familiar with that supernatural battlefield.

For instance: he faints. At the most inopportune moments. Usually right when the vampyre villain is about to sink its teeth into his throat. He faints.

What sort of vampyre hunter faints?? That's just...terrible for one's continued existence! Extremely bad for one's health.

In the later films, I think they changed him a bit - but I also think it's supposed to be a descendant of the original Abraham Van Helsing, although still played by Cushing. But I didn't watch those, and have no intention of doing so. The first two were fine. Monsters and killing and suspense - nothing horrid. And then....then they had to include things such as satanic rites and what not. That was a bit too much.

Sadly, because watching Christopher Lee and Cushing together is quite enjoyable.

The Grisbanes

And then there's House of Long Shadows.

It's really....quite good. Surprisingly so. I'd only watched it for Cushing and Lee, and I absolutely regret it not in the slightest. It's rather...macabre and dark, and definitely suspenseful - but the ending!!  Oh, the ending is just.... C'est formidable. Parfait. And I think the other two old men are also well known actors, but sadly not to me.....

That being said, I find it incredibly interesting that I could even watch any of these films. When I first  heard that he played in many horror films, I gave up watching any of his parts because I can't stand that genre. And then I saw Hound of Baskervilles and thought it worthwhile to watch Horror of Dracula.

And....It never ceases to amaze me how times have change. A horror film now I can't stand and they usually make me quite nauseous with fear or adrenaline - I don't know and don't care which. Those Hammer Horror films? Doctor Who has episodes just as scare!!  Sometimes, just as - if not more - bloodier too! And the episodes with serial killers in shows such as Castle or NCIS were worse than any of the horror films I saw with Cushing.

I don't understand what happened - and can barely understand how those were counted 'horror' films.....

Besides, who wouldn't want to watch a gentleman in a film or series? I think I miss that most about old films: there are hardly ever any gentlemen anymore.....