"Alone: Bad. Friend: Good." The genius of Boris Karloff

It's a little late for Halloween, but I've been in a monster movie frame of mind. The classic monster movies, that is, which to me have always been the Universal Pictures horror of the 1930s to 1950s -- Frankenstein, Dracula, The Wolf Man, et cetera. I loved 'em as a kid in the 1980s and lately have been on a jag watching some of these classic black and white flicks for the first time in 25 years or so. What's amazing is how well many of them still hold up, particularly those starring the man who I'd say was the king of monster movies -- the original and best Frankenstein's Monster, Boris Karloff.

Bela Lugosi's immortal Dracula seems to get more ink today, and Lon Chaney Jr's tragic self-loathing Wolf Man was also great, but Boris Karloff created a monster who defines horror. Try not to imagine Frankenstein's Monster as the cliched star of everything from breakfast cereals to video games to really bad Hugh Jackman movies. Instead picture the Monster as he first appeared in 1931, looming from the darkened screens. An abomination against life, a morality tale about man's desire to play god, a creature cursed for the way he looks.

The very first scene when we see the Monster in "Frankenstein" is remarkable. The Monster simply walks into a dark and gloomy room, almost unnoticed for a fraction of a second -- then the camera abruptly quick-cuts inward, two beats, to an extreme, silent close-up of Karloff's heavy-lidded, haunting eyes. It's still chilling 80 years after it was filmed. Karloff's portrayal is a marvel of economic emotion, terror and innocence all bundled together. The physicality Karloff brought to the Monster defines it; the locked-kneed, lurching walk, flailing hand movements, the monosyllabic grunts and groans.

The famous "monster meets the blind hermit" sequence in "Bride of Frankenstein" is a bit hard to watch without bias today because Mel Brooks' "Young Frankenstein" did such a glorious job of sending it up, but try to picture it as it seemed in 1933. It's an amazing little character arc, as the Monster learns and grows an astounding amount in just a short time, from guttural grunts to emotion-packed short sentences. Treated with brief kindness, we see his potential, which makes what happens next that much more stinging.

The naked emotional need of the blind man and the Monster is startling. But what we're seeing here is a real attempt at human connection between two utter outcasts, a connection that is of course shattered by the outside world's cruelty. "Alone: bad. Friend: good." That line could have sounded awful done wrong, but Karloff puts just the right spin of hope and sadness on it. The genius of Karloff is in full flight in this scene, as he's alternately savage, needy and rocked with childlike glee. He helped form the whole "monster you feel kind of sorry for" motif we've seen everywhere from "King Kong" to "Twilight."

Karloff's skill is more notable when you compare his portrayal to that of other actors who've played the Monster -- in the many sequels to the 1931 movie we saw actors like Glenn Strange and Lon Chaney Jr. take on the role, but they lacked that almost-sweet innocence Karloff brought. What was a character of real tragic depth became the more familiar lumbering monster we now know, still cool, but not quite as shocking and strange as the half-human Monster Karloff created in the first three films. And Frankenstein's Monster on film since has never quite managed the power of the Karloff years.

Movies I Have Never Seen, Part 4: Halloween special

HALLOWEEN
Why it's famous: Like, duh -- one of the top horror movies of all time, and the father of uncountable modern slasher flicks in its wake.
What I thought: Well, this is more than a little embarrassing a movie to admit I've only seen now at the age of 37. "Halloween," though, is kind of one of those movies you feel like you've always seen -- faceless killer Michael Myers is just part of the zeitgeist. And in my defense, way back in the dreary 1990s at some point I got dragged to see a really bad "Halloween" sequel, let's say Part 4 or Part 6 or somesuch, and it was so bloody awful that I was really turned off on the whole franchise and never saw the original.

Plus, while I love a good horror movie, I tend to loathe slasher films. Give me monsters, give me zombies, give me mutants or creatures from black lagoons, but guys with knives stabbing lotsa pretty girls in inventive fashion have never done it for me. I've never seen a "Friday the 13th" movie or a "Saw" movie, and have no plans to. Not my bag.

But "Halloween," of course, is a bit different. It's the template for a million inferior knockoffs, which is its curse, but on its own merits it's a chilling and spooky little flick. What surprised me is just how NON bloody it is -- I think you barely see a splatter of scarlet the entire flick, and how brooding and moody director John Carpenter makes it. Really, the whole movie is a very slow burn with Myers stalking teen Laurie Strode and her friends, with the "action" so to speak only coming in the final 30 minutes.

But Carpenter is a master at evoking mood -- his chilling "The Thing" and campy "They Live!" have long been favorites of mine -- and he casts a cold, clinical eye on placid Haddonville, Illinois, using long stretches of silence punctuated by startling bursts of his iconic musical score to heighten the tension. Carpenter plays it subtle, in other words, using now-cliched tricks like the killer who won't die or the "gotcha" moments in restrained fashion. The scariest moments of "Halloween," I thought, are the ones where you just vaguely see Michael Meyers lurking in the background, an almost subliminal shape in the shadows. Jamie Lee Curtis, in her first movie role, is quite good too as "the girl," giving a bit of toughness to her victim's part.

The biggest problem watching "Halloween" for the first time in 2009 is that the beats it hits, the innovations of its story, have all become rank cliche in the years since -- which is a tribute to Carpenter, but makes it a bit paint-by-numbers in some sense. It's kind of like watching "Psycho" when you know what happens in the shower, or not seeing "Star Wars" until you're in your thirties -- a little of the shock of discovery is gone. It's done with immense skill, though, and that sets "Halloween" apart from the infinite bloodbaths that it inspired.
Worth seeing: Definitely, preferably on a dark and silent autumn evening with the wind whistling outside.
Grade: A-

The Five Kinds of Vampires

It's October, Halloween is nigh, and everyone's doing spooky blog posts. You don't get much spookier than vampires, which for my money are the top monster movie villains of all time. According to Wikipedia -- and I'm not 100% certain of it myself, but it sounds cool -- Dracula has been the subject of more films than any other fictional character.

Bram Stoker tapped into something primal about sex, death and immortality when he wrote 'Dracula' way back in the day, and ever since then vampires have been the go-to for grim and gory and Gothic grandeur. But say you need some blood sucked somewhere -- what kind of vampire might suit your vamping needs? In my exhaustive study of the vampyr mythos (I watched every episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" after all), here's my thoughts on the Five Kinds of Vampires, each of which blends into each other a bit -- kind of like mixing bloodlines, I suppose. Ew!

The Lugosi

Seen in: "Dracula," duh.
Characteristics: You think of vampires, you think of Bela Lugosi, and his "I vant to suck your blood" performance in 1931's "Dracula." Black cape, formal wear, thick accent, spooky stare, it's all here. While seen today his turn verges on parody, in it are the bones of horror. As a movie, it's actually not quite as good as a lot of its successors or other Universal monster movies of the time, I think, but still worth seeing.
Place in vampire history: Where it all began. He's been imitated many times, including such worthies as Christopher Lee and Gary Oldman, but Lugosi deserves his place in coffin lore for his groundbreaking, hugely influential portrayal. Nearly every other type of vampire takes a bit of Lugosi and builds on it.
See also: The Shadow

The Aristocrat

Seen in: Any book by Anne Rice, Christopher Lee's many "Dracula" movies, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" by Coppola, "Fright Night," "Underworld," "Dark Shadows"
Characteristics: A direct descendant of The Lugosi, but with added sultry. The aristocrat can either be a fancy-pants European sort, or perhaps in the American version, more likely a glorified bad boy outsider with a nice leather jacket. You wouldn't want to go on a date with them, but with a kind of sexual allure all the same. (And for the record it might be heresy, I really think Tom Cruise did quite a nice job as the Vampire Lestat, myself.)
Place in vampire history: Until "Buffy" came along and raised the prospect of actually dating a vampire, the Aristocrat was the most popular of its kind.
See also: The Sexy Beast

The Sexy Beast

Seen in: "Buffy/Angel," "True Blood," "The Lost Boys," "The Hunger", and sort of, in "Twilight"
Characteristics: He's hot, he's dangerous, he's dead.
Place in vampire history: Right now, vampires couldn't be sexier. And while they're still killers, they're pretty hot it seems -- I'd say "Buffy" was the modern instigator of this old trend, with Buffy and her vamp boyfriends Spike and Angel doing all the brooding and such. Sex and vampires have been entwined from the start, of course, but it's only more recently that it seems you can have long-term relationships with them. The fantastic TV series "True Blood" is perhaps the most interesting current take on this. On the other hand the wuss Edward from "Twilight" is a dampened-down tween version of the beast, Mildly Threatening Sparkly Beast.

The Shadow

Seen in: "Nosferatu," "Let The Right One In," "Near Dark," "Salem's Lot."
Characteristics: As insubstantial as smoke but as deadly as a nightmare, the Shadow is the vampire you're not really sure exists until it grabs you. It either is silent and horrifying, such as Max Schreck's terrifyingly iconic turn in the 1922 film, or perhaps appears to be a normal if slightly "off" person at first, like in the great recent Swedish film "Let the Right One In." This one is closest to the mythological version of the vampire that Stoker drew on for his defining novel.
Place in vampire history: Schreck's hugely creepy performance still stands up nearly 100 years on, and is actually considered by many to be even more definitive than Lugosi's. And as I wrote a while back "Let The Right One In" is basically "Twilight" done right. Not as common these days as other types of vampires, the Shadow is tremendously effective.
See also: The Abomination

The Abomination

Seen in: "30 Days of Night," "Blade," "From Dusk Till Dawn," "I Am Legend."
Characteristics: These vampires are nowhere near human. Slobbering, blood-drenched ghouls, with stretchy jaws and an infinite abyss of razor teeth, they're probably the most "modern" interpretation of vamps. But while they're menacing and very gory, they kind of lack the human mystery and romance that make vampires what they are over the years. Nobody would want to date them. Good for a scare, though.
Place in vampire history: For folks who like their blood suckers bloody, but less iconic than others.