For many years I have ignored black and white films. Not because I thought they were extremely bad or uninteresting. Maybe it was because they seem so dated and mostly terribly slow compared to movies of our time. But thanks to a “Horror Challenge” and the encouragement of a like-minded person, I started watching movies from the old days. And to be honest, after a while I started to appreciate them. Admittedly they are dated and some of them are terribly slow. Yet they radiate a certain charm and you can consider many films from that time as the foundation for later films.

As promised, another selection of watched movies
The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

I am not much of a fan of silent movies, but I found this one very entertaining. A classic among monster movies. Now I know where “The Bollock Brothers” got the front-picture used on their LP “The Slow Removal Of Vincent Van Gogh’s Left Ear”. The sets are impressive. The ghost does look very creepy. Obviously, the expressions and movements are hugely exaggerated at times. But how else could one convey drama these days? All in all, I thought it was a pleasant experience.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941)

Not exactly the first “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” movie that was made. I’ll probably watch the 10 years older version with Fredric March and Miriam Hopkins as well. This version does have a more famous cast. I thought Spencer Tracy was suitable for this role as the split personality. The man has a naturally calm facial expression that emphasizes the contrast with the psychopathic looking Jekyll. By the way, I thought the transformation (although it looks old-fashioned) was quite successful. And then you have Ingrid Berman and Lana Turner. Two ravishing beautiful women. I wonder if other versions of “Jekyll & Hyde” reach the same level.
The Wolf Man (1941)

Yet another monster movie from Universal. Filmed in an atmospheric way, but not really exciting. But isn’t it characteristic of most horrors of that period? The most positive thing I can say about films from that period is the length of time. Perfect as a quick inbetweener.
Cat People (1942)

I found this one quite disappointing. A lot of blabbering and little action. I have to admit, I liked the 1982 remake a bit better. But that must be due to the fact that I could marvel at the sensual body of Nastassja Kinski and that this film version did indeed portray the transformation. Admittedly, in 1942 the techniques were not yet so advanced that this could be achieved. For me, it was more about love affairs and their problems, than horror.
Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943)

This was also disappointing. Bela Lugosi is certainly not the very best Frankenstein. I fear the sole reason for this movie’s existence was the success of the other two movies. The original films “Frankenstein” and “The Wolf Man” were so successful that some smart marketing employee came up with the bright idea to put both creatures in one and the same film. Success guaranteed. However, there was certainly no quality guarantee!
House of Frankenstein (1944)

I thought it would be a nice idea to unite all the key characters from the monster movies. Only Dracula missed that mysterious quality you experience with Lugosi and Lee. Frankenstein looked quite comical. Too bad they gave Boris Karloff the role of Doctor Niemann. Only Lon Chaney was allowed to reprise the role of Wolf Man. All in all, I thought it was a poor continuation of the Frankenstein franchise.
Dead of Night (1945)

Another golden oldie. Who knows. Maybe one of the first anthology horror-thrillers. Some good stories (The Mirror & Dummy). One bad one (The Golf Players).
Bud Abbott Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)

Well, given the age of this film, it’s not surprising that it feels quite dated. The humor is a bit lackluster. They reminded me of Laurel & Hardy and it got a little annoying at times. Still had to chuckle a few times (the union joke and the expression on Costello’s face when he pulled a tablecloth, for example). But I don’t think I’ll immediately watch the films about the encounters of this duo with other lurid characters.
The Thing from Another World (1951)

Really a movie that fascinated me. There are certainly points of contact with Carpenter’s “The Thing“. Only that this 1951 film looks a bit dated (but still stood the test of time). Obviously, the budget was limited at the time because the conversations flash by at a very fast pace. No time to waste. Also fun to see how they kept laughing till the end during conversations, even though the world is about to be conquered by intellectual creatures.
The Man from Planet X (1951)

One word describes it best: boring. Ok I admit, it’s a very old movie. But it seems as if the alien just fled from a puppet theater. The spacecraft resembled a tin dart. “The Invisible Man” from 1933 looked much better, even though it was made about 20 years earlier.
To be continued …