I personally thought it was interesting to see what the film may have been like. It definitely wasn't nearly as entertaining as a genuine silent film, but interesting nonetheless.
What was everybody else's thoughts?
I appreciate the effort of those that tried to recreate this lost silent film. Of course I would have rather seen the real film but sometimes you have to take what you can get. The images itself looked pretty cool but still images are just not enough to scare of even thrill an audience. Some very beautiful young ladies kept my attention though. Not bad, probably a good film?
Dad, I don't think I'm gonna do hampster style anymore
I just saw the reconstruction today, and posted my thoughts here:
http://cinemaslave.com/reviews.php?topic_id=512
-Joe Barlow
Host, Cinemaslave podcast ( http://www.cinemaslave.com )
"I just saw the reconstruction today, and posted my thoughts here:
http://cinemaslave.com/reviews.php?topic_id=512";
I agree with most of your points, I can't really argue with any of them either. I so wish this movie still existed. Maybe one day a copy will turn up...there is always hope!
i ran into a fellow chaney fan at a comic and magazine shop today
he and i started talking about london after midnight and he told me about this slide show thing and now i want to see it im gonna buy the chaney collection just for this
[deleted]
I thought it was very watchable the way they did it. I did not like the ending though so will never watch it again. I did get suckered into watching the remake today made in 1935, sometimes it pays to read spoilers! LOL.
share I thought it was well put together and I love the sound version of the music they played. I bought Lon Chaney The Unknown and very much enjoyed the whole DVD. I bought it specifically to watch this representation of London After Midnight though.
I grew up near Chicago and as a kid back in the 70s, they had a television program on every Friday or Saturday night called Creature Feature and it's theme song was from the 1962 movie "Experiment in Terror" by Henry Mancini and the Creature that introduced the show was in B&W animation of the vampyre in London After Midnight. I absolutely loved that creature. I only recently found out that it was taken by Chaney's character in this movie.
I do hope they find another copy of this film, I would love to watch it. Out of all the Tod Browning movies that Lon Chaney made with Browning this one was the far most highest ranking in sales and people from all over went to see this wonderful silent film. Makes me almost wish I had been born 50 years before I was.
I thought Lon Chaney was a remarkable actor and have always admired his ability to change into his characters so well. One of the true Hollywood Classic Actors of all time!
Io sono un bella estraneo.
It was cool, but does get tiresome after a while. Chaney was cool, but I'm a huge Tod Browning fan and would love to see the actual film.
Besides this the cloesest we will get is Mark of the Vampire
FULCI LIVES!
i am a huge chaney fan. but i could not stay awake to watch the whole thing. seeing the same pictures over and over again, my mind could not stand it. but they tried, so i guess they get an e for effort. as good of an actor as chaney was im sure it was incredible.
I wasn't able to finish it either. It was nice that they gave it a shot, but I couldn't stick with it.
shareIt held my interest only because I was desperate to see something resembling the original film. The music was a bit repetitive although it captured the essence of time and place. The editing was sometimes murky; a viewer unfamiliar with the story might find it difficult to follow. All in all, for Chaney fans it's worth viewing and kudos to those who put it together. I would say it was a labour of love more than a money grab. Kudos to those involved for putting it all together.
shareI included it in my film collection. Any horror film enthusiast/collector who didn't include it in theirs is nuts, because it's all we'll ever have of it. At least, we have to assume so.
The actual film being unattainable makes any undesirable points of TCM's 'Photo Re-visioning' alright with me, as long as they did the best they could. I don't see how they could have done any better short of throwing in stills from other films that look like they would fit in with this one to counter the repetitiveness of recurring still photos. But if they did that, it wouldn't be all the same film and thus it might take away from the quality of the presentation as well as the experience of viewing the presentation. It may also make some not want to include it in their collections.
TCM has truly been a godsend, even aside from the film preservation stuff. I've seen many films I've never seen before and have films in my collection that I never would have had. That includes this presentation. They really didn't have to do it, but they did!
It certainly is better than nothing.
shareIt was retarded. All the hype over this movie is b.s. just because nobody's seen it in 84 years. If Lon Chaney had been a REAL vampire and this a REAL horror film i might give a crap.
Yeah he looks cool,but it's just Chaney in makeup....
For any Chaney and/or Browning fan, seeing it is a necessity, since we'll probably never see the actual film.
But I nevertheless really, really hated it. I found it completely depressing.
A slide show is not a motion picture.
And this slide show just drove home the fact that this film is lost to us.
Matthew
I agree with everybody else. I HATED it! Boring and slow. I'll stick with "Mark of the Vampire" from now on.
shareHi preppy-3,
I watched the reconstruction last night and I have to agree with the poster who said that watching a slide show is not watching a movie. The interest in this lost film fascinates me, much like the interest in Greed. I have read comments from those who saw a print before the film was lost in a nitrate fire. Many thought it was a weak film.
Hi digitaldiva,
These "reconstructions" never work. I was going to watch "Greed" but I heard some of it was just like "London..." so I passed. Also there was a documentary on Tod Browning (the director of "London...") and they talked to an elderly woman who saw it as a little girl. She said when you first saw Chaney with the fangs and all the audience actually laughed! She also remembers finding it boring and hated the ending. Maybe it's a good thing that it's lost:)
Hi preppy-3,
Agreed on all points. Years ago I took a film class with one of the last people to see the silent print. He hated the film and said that even though it made money, it was a dud.
Funny--I'm pretty sure Robert Osborne said that it was the highest-grossing Chaney movie at the time.
Incidentally I was left with a lot of questions about the plot after viewing the "stills movie," which I didn't mind watching to the end. Luckily the synopsis on Imdb had the whole story. I'm still not sure why the whole vampire ruse was necessary--just to lure Hamlin into the house?? Why was the murdered guy's body stolen? It was somebody in disguise playing him, after all. And why at the time of the original murder did Hamlin insist the guy (forgot his name) would not have committed suicide?--this was counterproductive to his scheme since he was indeed murdered and Hamlin was of course the murderer.
Hi richrol,
I did note that the film made money. The only person I've met who saw the film before the last print was destroyed, the late David Bradley. He said that the film was weak.
To be honest, though I like Browning's work, his stories always have illogical plot twists. I can't explain the plot other than the fact that the Scotland Yard detective thought up the totally unnecessary vampire ruse. Still seeing Chaney acct in that vampire make-up seems to be the main reason people want to see the movie. The remake, Mark of the Vampire, suffers from the same issues.
Interesting, but since I haven't seen the original, I reserve not to vote rating. I watched Lost Horizon(1937) with a missing scene reconstruction using 'slide show' with only sound (and voted).
"Eye of the Beholder"