Hello, fellow Elvira fans, I bought the DVD October of last year, and I have to say I was disappointed in it. I prefer her 1988 film "Elvira, Mistress of the Dark" even though she herself seemingly dislikes that one.
On a 1 to 5 rating scale I would give it 2. I simply felt it was below Elvira's average when compared to her usual level of comedy.
Both this and Mistress of the Dark got an 8/10 from me. I wish she would do more films.
http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies
[deleted]
I adore Elvira and admire so much everything Cassandra Peterson has done and achieved with the character which is still as popular and successful to this day.
However, amongst all the glorious highs and hits of her/their career, this film is undoubtedly somewhat of a disappointment not just financially but in popularity terms (you have to take the lows if you want to appreciate the highs).
The first "Elvira: Mistress Of The Dark" film was a gloriously, campy, fun and enjoyable effort, but there's a lot lost between that and this follow-on. The laugh quotient is drastically lowered and while the first film feels positive, rebellious and joyous - this time proceedings are darker, drearier and less satisfying and pleasing.
I think they did well with what they had to work with (budget, circumstances etc), but feel taking modern-girl Elvira back to olden days (obviously a twist they hoped might pay off) just didn't work.
A more direct sequel to and carry-on from the first film set in present day would have proved more a "hit" and on-the-mark.
Cassandra couldn't get studio funding for this prequel and so she & her then-husband put up $1 million with an additional $500,000 from relatives. As such, this movie cost 6 times LESS than the previous one from 13 years earlier (factoring in inflation).
While there's a 13 year gap between these two films and Cassandra was 49 years-old during shooting, you would hardly know it by her fit form & animated beauty. Another plus is the authentic Transylvania locations with a real castle (although the indoor scenes were obviously shot on studio sets).
Despite the gross lack of funds compared to the prior movie, this one proves to be colorful and entertaining if you appreciate the eye-rolling goofy humor associated with Elvira. While the former flick is technically better due to having way more funds to work with, I like this one more as far as all-around entertainment goes. I suppose it's because I favor the setting, which parodies 60's horror flicks, like "The Pit and the Pendulum" (1961), "The Terror" (1963) and "Dracula, Prince of Darkness" (1966). It recalls horror send-ups "The Fearless Vampire Killers" (1967) and "Young Frankenstein" (1974), but I actually prefer this one despite the much lower budget and lack of 'stars.'
how does she look in this one? are her breasts the main focus? are they played down?
share