I'm glad I stopped reading that at work and saved it for home. Such a great article.

Disney certainly does not come off well. Not that they deserve to.

Esquire has an utterly heartbreaking and beautiful article about Roger Ebert: [link]

That was a beautiful and heartbreaking piece.

Disney certainly does not come off well. Not that they deserve to.

I'm typing through tears. Disney can go fuck themselves!

They've cast the young Conan. I guess if you squint. He'll need tanning spray, though.

Hey! Hammer's excellent Brides of Dracula is up on YouTube. This one gets overlooked because no Christopher Lee, but it's got Peter Cushing and Terence Fisher directs and it's pretty spiff.

I'm reading up some blog reviews of old Hammer movies and Teleport City (one of my favorites) has this to say about Christopher Lee's Dracula (mind, this was written well before Stephanie Meyers vampires):

Christopher Lee’s interpretation of the count, based as fast and loose on the book as every other cinematic adaptation, has an air of sophistication about him, but it is quick to dissolve as Dracula acts more on his animalistic impulses. Here he is a monster, through and through, ferocious and terrifying. He does not woo the women; he simply takes them. He does not dazzle salon audiences with his wit and intelligence. He is a beast, a stalker, a predator without remorse or pity. In short, he’s the Dracula you thoroughly believe will kick your ass. My number one complaint about vampires, besides the fact that modern tales of vampires so often give them silly names, is that they’re generally played up as lonely, tortured souls given to self-indulgent whining about the sad state of their damnation. They’re not as likely to overpower and kill you as they are likely to bore you to tears with their moping and reading of bad teen angst poetry....

But here is a vampire who, for my tastes, does everything right. Christopher Lee isn’t a man or a monster so much as he is a barely contained forced that overpowers anything with which it comes into contact. He is strong, towering, and above all, menacing. When Christopher Lee as Dracula shows up, you believe with every inch of your soul that’s he going to put the serious hurt on you, not ask you to waltz or listen while he reads some verse to you. When this Dracula looks at you, he sees nothing but food. That Lee’s performance is so mesmerizing, so memorable, is testament to how good it truly is – he is on screen a total of less than ten minutes, and only has a handful of lines at the very beginning.

I just re-watched a Lee Hammer Dracula...I think it was Horror of Dracula. (The names all blue together). Anyway, it's the one where Peter Cushing, as Van Helsing, holds Dracula at bay with two candlesticks from the large table, then, standing on the table, opens the curtains.

Lee has his arm held to him, as Van Helsing has already injured Dracula, and when he reacts to the makeshift cross and the sun, he falls - and hits his head against the table. And utters a very non-SAS non-vampire whimper.

It's a testament to the budget of Hammer Films that they left that in. And it's a testament to Lee's performance that I've seen the movie several times and never noticed it; he just keeps going.

so Ghost Story was ...weird. I'm assuming it was very scary for 1981. Now it's just confusing.

so Ghost Story was ...weird. I'm assuming it was very scary for 1981. Now it's just confusing.

It was weak tea compared to the book, which is brilliant. They basically took an epic story and boiled it down to men being stupid.

And yet it appears on many "scariest movies" lists. Ah well, scary != good.