201) The Return of Dracula (1958)

Son of Halloween 2024's spectacular and not random vampire movie review extravaganza! (Part Five)

"I bring you a death- a living death."

Director

Pat Landes

Cast
Francis Lederer - Bellac Gordal
Norma Eberhardt - Rachel Mayberry
Ray Stricklyn - Tim Hansen
John Wengraf - John Meierman
Virginia Vincent - Jennie Blake
Gage Clarke - Reverend Whitfield
Jimmy Baird - Mickey Mayberry
Greta Granstedt - Cora Mayberry


I've skipped over a few vampire movies released between the 1940s and 1950s to get to this oddity - "The Return of Dracula."

The last movie I posted, "Son of Dracula" spawned the sequel "House of Dracula" in 1945 with John Carradine and Lon Chaney, Jr. 

"The Vampire's Ghost" was released in 1945 as well, from Republic Pictures. It's its own movie, though, and has nothing to do with the previous Dracula movies from Universal. 

The classic horror comedy, "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" came out in 1948 with Béla Lugosi reprising his role as Dracula. That deserves to be included in the Dracula-verse.  

"The Return of Dracula" is a United Artists production. It's not Universal so "Dracula" isn't the same at all to Lugosi's depiction. Plus, it was shadowed by U.K's Hammer Horror masterpiece, "Horror of Dracula" with Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, and Michael Gough. I have a copy of "The Return of Dracula" as part of an MGM double-feature DVD set called "Midnite Movies." I found it on a free DVD shelf at a local library. 

There's several of these individual sets with different double-features, and this is one of a few I own in my library. It's packaged with the 1957 movie "The Vampire" also from United Artists. Both of these movies came out when horror movies were moving away from the shadowy and mysterious monsters, and moving towards the atomic age of the late 1950s and into the 1960s. 

"The Vampire" is a more sci-fi horror take on the vampire horror sub-genre. I was torn which one to post about in this slot.

However, they're both directed by Paul Landres. And as far as I know, the films are unrelated. 

In this movie, John Meierman (John Wengraf) is over in Central Europe investigating Count Dracula and attempting to capture him. 

Francis Lederer as Bellac Gordal, the vampire, in 
"The Return of Dracula."

He and some assistants are out at a cemetery planning on to corner Dracula inside his tomb and drive a steak through his heart. It's the best way to kill a vampire! 

When they open his casket, Dracula isn't inside. 

Little do they know that he's onboard a train heading out of town. 

On board the train. the vampire kills a Czech artist named Bellac Gordal who's heading to Carleton, California to visit some distant family members he hasn't seen since he was young. 

So, Dracula poses as Gordal once he steps off the train in sunny California. It doesn't sound like a safe place for vampires, but that's were he is.  

Gordal's widowed cousin, Cora Mayberry (Greta Granstedt) is fooled and is happy to see whom she thinks is Gordal after all these years. She invites him to stay inside her home with her son, Mickey (Jimmy Baird) and older teenage daughter, Rachel (Norma Eberhardt). 

Rachel is anxious to meet her distant cousin as she, too, has a love for art and is working on being a fashion designer. 

However, "Belloc's" behavior seems very strange. And he sleeps all day. 

Mickey's cat goes missing the day after he arrives, which is rather odd as well. 

Little do they know that he's really a vampire, and that he has taken up his resting place inside a nearby abandoned mineshaft. 

But the truth as a way of inserting itself, and before long Rachel and her boyfriend, Tim Hansen (Ray Stricklyn) begin to suspect Belloc isn't really whom he claims to be. 

"Return of Dracula" has a different setup to the customary Dracula movies, but the general idea remains the same. The vampire is looking to create a brood of vampires. Instead of taking up residence in the dark and sinister cold stone walls of a far-away castle nearly impossible to reach, this vampire takes up residence in Anytown, USA amidst an unwary typical suburban family. It could happen to anyone. 

Despite how much I found this to be a fun movie, I don't understand the title. First, where is Dracula returning from. I initially thought Dracula was returning from "The Vampire" which I mentioned. I actually haven't watched "The Vampire" yet, so I had to look up the synopsis. There is no Count Dracula in "The Vampire." I wonder if the writers of both these Landres movies are using the word "Dracula" as a noun instead of a proper noun. In other words, they think a vampire and Dracula mean the same thing as though Dracula isn't a proper noun. 

"A dracula snuck into my room last night and drank all my blood."

In one scene, Gordal turns Rachel's friend Jennie into a vampire. Later, Jennie is steaked through the heart. 

Norma Eberhardt and Ray Stricklyn.

Though the movie is in black and white, Jennie's quick death scene is colorized with the bright crimson red color of the stage blood grabbing the audiences attention.

The movie surpasses my expectations. I thought it was going to be the most vampiric B-movie so far. While it's certainly a product of its time, it's well executed and I found it satisfying and entertaining. This feels like a classic horror movie which may be why I enjoyed it. It has the feels of a B-horror movie or a long episode of "The Twilight Zone." Despite its obviously dated execution, it keeps it's classic premise sharp and maintains it's sense of horror, eeriness and dread. 

I wouldn't be surprised if Stephen King pulled some inspiration for his vampire tale, "Salem's Lot" from "The Return of Dracula" in that the audience doesn't need to travel off to Transylvania to be in the presence of a vampire. The vampire pops up in their own American neighborhood with all his mysterious foreign mannerisms. 

"The Return of Dracula" keeps a sense of fear and trepidation, perhaps tarnished with age...but it's still there and recognizable. 

It's not a perfect movie, especially considering whatever it has to do with the name of Dracula. In fact, the title would suggest it's a sequel which it's not. It's misleading. The movie is banking on the property of Count Dracula, and mentions the name Dracula only once as lore. But the vampire isn't Count Dracula. No relationship is referenced. It's its own movie. 

This movie might be confused with the 1943 movie "Return of the Vampire" which stars Bela Lugosi once again in the lead role.  

Though this movie comes across as a bit unnecessary, it still manages to leave a humble mark on the legacy of vampire movies. 

For a film from the late 1950s, it's borderline risque. It also utilizes jump scares, shadows and creeps. 
It keeps the suspense and trepidation lasting, and maintains a decent pace. 
Also, the sound track sounds like the theme from "The Shining." That's probably because it's the Dies Irae which can be heard at traditional Catholic funeral masses. 

200) The Exorcist (1973) - My Defense of William Friedkin's Classic

My 200th  Review!  

"The power of Christ compels you!"

Director

William Friedkin

Cast
Linda Blair - Regan MacNeil
Ellen Burstyn - Chris MacNeil
Max von Sydow - Fr. Lankester Merrin
Jason Miller - Fr. Damien Karras, SJ
Lee J. Cobb - Lt. William Kinderman
Kitty Winn - Sharon Spencer
Jack MacGowran - Burke Dennings

Two-hundred horror movies into this blog! There's just 800 more to go until I reach 1,000. And it only took me since 2018 to get to this many. If I wasn't insane before, I must be now. 

I wanted to interrupt my series of vampire movie commentaries to post something particular for my 200th review. 

Like my 100th review, The Monster Squad, back in 2021, I wanted my 200th entry to be a good one! This time, I wanted to pick a title that would stir the pot...just a little. I wanted to include a horror movie that waves high above other movies in the genre. I wanted number 200 to be on a movie that doesn't cease to be discussed. I wanted a classic, which I know is a word that covers a lot of territory. 

My initial choice was going to be the 1931 movie "Frankenstein" which is an absolutely excellent film. It's one I have a lot of appreciation for. But I changed my mind as I normally do. 

I think a defense of the 1973 movie "The Exorcist" will turn some heads, especially within my little circle of fellow Catholics. I say that because I also think "The Exorcist" is a Catholic movie!

When I started this platform in 2018, I didn't have any plan nor desire to review "The Exorcist." But that changed when I sat through the despicable, abhorrent, lazy, stupid, unpleasant, repulsive, unwelcomed, pretentious and putrid mess of a film, "The Exorcist: Believer." It's a flick that intruded its way into theaters back in 2023. I apologize for mentioning it as I swore, I would never bring it up again. So, I decided I wanted to comment on "The Exorcist" at some point. And there's no better time than my 200th horror movie commentary. 

Directed by William Friedkin, "The Exorcist" is a movie that has aged well as a religious picture considering how baseless and politically driven, or "woke" most modern movies have become. Heck, even "The Exorcist: Believer" has been dubbed by critics as the "Wokecercist." 

I wrote about "The Exorcist" four years ago in a post regarding whether it's still the scariest movie ever. I also reviewed the third movie in the series, "The Exorcist III" if anyone cares what I thought about it. 

Linda Blair as Regan MacNeil in "The Exorcist."

The Plot

The film is based on William Peter Blatty's 1971 novel of the same name. Blatty's story is based on the real exorcism of a 14-year-old boy from Mount Rainier that took place in the late 1940s, 

"The Exorcist" centers on 12-year old Regan MacNeil (Linda Blair) who lives with her mother, Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn) in a fancy Georgetown home. 

Chris is a film actress and is in Georgetown working on a movie directed by her good friend, Burke Dennings (Jack MacGowran). 

At nearby Georgetown University, Fr. Damien Karras S.J. (Jason Miller) is a psychiatrist who counsels other priests at Georgetown. 

His elderly mother lives by herself in New York. Her health is failing, but she refuses to move out of her apartment and into a care facility close to Fr. Karras.

He tries to convince his mother to move someplace where she'll have the around-the-clock care she needs; all the while Fr. Karras confides to his fellow priest that amidst the turmoil he feels leaving his mother alone in her New York apartment, he thinks he's losing his faith. His work as a priest, counselor, and psychiatrist is overwhelming him. Fr. Karras doesn't think he can cut it anymore. 

In the MacNeil house, shortly after Regan discovers a Ouija board in the basement and plays around with it, her behavior and demeanor start to change. Regan becomes violent and soon, supernatural phenomenon starts taking place around Regan.

Fr. Karras's mother eventually passes away. His heart is not only heavy with sadness, but also with guilt as he wasn't with her when she died.

Meanwhile, the more hostile and vulgar Regan becomes, medical professionals can't explain what is wrong with her despite several medical examinations. 

Chris is at her wits end. On top of this chaos, when Chris returns home one night and checks on Regan who's fast asleep in her room, she's notified that Burke Dennings was found dead at the bottom of a set of stairs outside Regan's window. Evidence suggests he may have been in Regan's bedroom and somehow fell out of her window. 
Police Detective William Kinderman (Lee J. Cobb) investigates his death, going to Fr. Karras for information as Denning's head was found turned completely around. 

Regan's body develops sores and marks all over. And the medical professionals examining her without any answers suggest that maybe Chris should question the Catholic Church as Regan is showing signs of psychosis and even demonic possession. 

After Chris witnesses Regan attacking herself with a crucifix and then turning her head completely around, speaking in Denning's voice, she's convinced that a demon must be doing this to her daughter.

She consults Fr. Karras who's highly skeptical at first at the notion of demonic possession, but agrees to go visit Regan. 

When he does, Regan claims to be the devil himself. She speaks in different tongues, knows things about Karras that she couldn't possibly know, and has greater strength than what a normal 12-year-old would have. The demon inside Regan also tells Fr. Karras that it plans to remain until Regan is dead and decaying in the earth.

After a few more visits, Fr. Karras concludes that the girl needs to see an exorcist. 

He consults with his bishop who gives permission for an exorcism to be conducted, but wants another priest, Fr. Lankester Merrin (Max von Sydow) who has experience with possession and the demonic, to lead it. 

Max von Sydow as Fr. Lankester Merrin in "The Exorcist."

My Thoughts

When "The Exorcist" was released, horror movies were transitioning out of the atomic age of giant monsters attacking cities and space aliens invading earth. The genre was entering a more authentic age with realistic movies that don't follow romantic leads amidst horrific or frightening scenarios. "Rosemary’s Baby" from 1967, which helped launch this sub-genre, "Night of the Living Dead" from 1968, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" from 1974, and "The Amityville Horror" from 1979 are such movies that come to mind. 

"The Exorcist," released just four years after "Rosemary's Baby," was a movie the likes of which had never been seen before. There was no other movie before it about a demonic possession and Catholic exorcism. It not only tells a story, but it has a documentary tinge to it. 

I've mentioned before that the supernatural/ demonic possession sub-genre of horror movies often makes my eyes roll. They're very few I consider good. Often, they're just forgettable and repetitious.   

These kinds of movies normally depict what Hollywood hack writers think the devil is capable of doing alongside the erroneous way they think God behaves. That is, in some kind of Deist way, these movies too often depict God as an entity too far away, sitting out there somewhere looking down and watching the scene play out but not caring enough to intervene, even when invoked, in the demonic attack the characters are suffering.  

His intervention is one big question mark. Maybe He'll help when invoked by priests or pastors, but don't hold your breath. Is He even listening? Who knows? But the demonic entities in these movies are free to do whatever they please, even kill people in the most gruesome way imaginable. The religious side, no matter how it's depicted, often lose but not before a severe beating.  

"The Exorcist" does depict the devil's activities, which goes without saying, are very disturbing to view for anybody. And God's intervention is depicted as well, but not with the same fireworks and performance the agitated and agonizing demon puts on. However, God's presences and intervention isn't doubted here. It's trusted.

The focus of Regan's possession is more on the grotesque and putrid phenomenon that has been known to take place with severe demonic possessions.  For instance, this kind of activity was witnessed in a demonic possession that took place in Earling, Iowa in 1928 involving a young girl as documented and verified in the book, "Begone, Satan: A Soul Stirring Account of Diabolical Possession in Iowa" by Fr. Carl Vogl. 

"The Exorcist" doesn't quite touch on the demonic mindset and psychological aspect of possession which can be much more frightening than projectile vomit and head-spinning. I mention this in my review of another well-made possession film, "Nefarious." 

In that review, I quoted real life exorcist Fr. Carlos Martin from his interview on a podcast called "Pints with Aquinas."

"['Nefarious'] brought you into the demonic mind which is much more interesting," he says. "That's the realm that I deal with - that an exorcist deals with. And that, I will tell you, at the end of the day is far more frightening. It's far more! If you saw somebody levitate in front of you, it would probably make the hair on the back of your head stand up. The 18th time, would it do that? The 118th time? At a certain point, you move on," 

"The Exorcist" briefly mentions something about the psychological attack that'll come about in the exorcism about to be performed when Fr. Merrin warns Fr. Karras about what's to come. 

"Especially important is the warning to avoid conversations with the demon. We may ask what is relevant but anything beyond that is dangerous. He is a liar. The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don't listen to him," Fr. Merrin says.

I don't know if the film intends such a depiction or it's my own interpretation, but as the Second Vatican Council had just concluded in 1965, there's a contrast between Fr. Karras and Fr. Merrin that's timely. 

Fr. Merrin is the more traditional "old school" priest while the younger psychiatrist Fr. Karras has a more progressive mindset and ideas that are far from being truly Catholic, such as demonic possession being a thing of the 16th century, and not relevant anymore now that people understand mental illness, schizophrenia, and paranoia much better than they did centuries.  

"It just doesn't happen anymore," he tells Chris MacNeil when she presses him about getting an exorcism, which is far from the truth. Exorcism is just as relevant and practiced in the Catholic Church today as it was since Christ instructed His apostles to cast out demons in His name. 

After visiting with Regan, he also tells Chris, "You probably know as much about possession than most priests." Ok....maybe that much is true in the modern conciliar church. 

Such a lapse was surfacing fast in the Catholic Church even before the Vatican II. It's no wonder he thinks he's losing his faith.

But the experienced and traditional Fr. Merrin proves him wrong, and surely Fr. Karras stands corrected. 

In the final scene when Fr. Karras tackles the possessed Regan, a St. Joseph medal he still wears around his neck dangles out of his cassock and in the devil's face. The possessed Regan grabs it and tosses it aside, showing that Fr. Karras hasn't completely lost his faith, and the devil is furious about that. He wants to destroy ever last vestige of it within the priest.

When the time comes to confront the devil, it's the traditional Fr. Merrin who leads the exorcism the minute he meets Fr. Karras at the MacNeil's house. Fr. Karras tries to talk about his psychological analysis of the situation with Regan. But Merrin abruptly corrects him, as the kids say, "like a boss." Don't get me wrong, Fr. Karras isn't a bad character. He represents one side of the current state of the church in its battle against evil. 

When the devil taunts Fr. Karras and he lets those taunts get to him, the "old school" Fr. Merrin tells him to leave and proceeds with the exorcism by himself.  

The devil makes it abundantly clear he's more threatened by Fr. Merrin. 

Still, both priests cast out the devil in the name of Jesus Christ as these Catholic priests are the only ones who can do that.

I initially had problems with Fr. Merrin dying of a heart attack during the exorcism ritual, and Fr. Karras slamming the possessed Regan to the floor shouting for the devil to enter into him instead. 

Still, despite their human frailty, God is victorious through these two imperfect priests in driving out the devil in His name as Jesus ordained them to do - St. Mark 16:17.
In the end, Fr. Karras maintains his faith through the repentance of his sins at the last few minutes of his life. And he fulfilled his duty to cast out the devil by the power of Christ. God's mercy is abundant to the very last second of our lives. 

"The Exorcist" isn't a movie I would consider required or recommended viewing for Catholics or Christians in general. Like I said, some of the scenes are very graphic and grotesque, shocking and uncomfortable to sit through. 

I'd say the same thing about Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." It's an impactful movie, but it's a movie I wouldn't recommend to everyone due to its graphic acts of violence. It's one thing to meditate on our Lord's suffering and passion. It's another thing to watch a realistic depiction of Jesus going through it. Not everyone can sit through such an experience, nor do they need to. 

Coming at the movie from a writing perspective, the depictions in "The Exorcist" serve an important part within the narrative. The devil is the prince of darkness and the father of lies. He's a disgusting entity. And I'm sure being in the same room with the devil manifesting himself would mentally scar anyone. This source of evil and disgusting and grotesque entity is possessing an innocent and charming young girl. So, obviously the devil is going to lash out at God and God's creature (i.e. Regan) by making her do disgusting and grotesque things. 

It's his feeble and weak way in mocking God by turning His creature, made in His image and likeness, to act like himself instead. It gives the audience all the more reason to want to see God victorious in this outcome, hidden in a bedroom in an otherwise normal looking home. The movie can't depict just how evil the devil is without showing just how evil the devil is. 

Though there are several scenes that help accomplish this, one scene stands out. 

During Fr. Karras's evaluation of Regan in her bedroom where she's tied to the bed, he asks the possessing demon, "How long are you planning to stay in Regan?"

"Until she rots and lies stinking in the Earth." 

It's a line that well reflects how far demonic hatred for both Christ and mankind goes. 

The devil doesn't just plan on sticking around until Regan dies. He's going to watch her deceased body decompose and fall apart in her grave. Watching God's creations turn to dirt must be a thrill for the demonic.

There are some liberties taken in this movie. For instance, exorcists go through a period of preparation that normally involves prayer and penance before conducting an exorcism. And Fr. Karras expresses doubts about his faith after suffering the loss of his mother. He doesn't seem like he'd be fit to conduct an exorcism with his mental and spiritual state being what it is. 

But, again from a story-telling point of view, movies need room for character development. The two priests fight and expel the devil by the power of Christ. The devil doesn't go out calmly. His exits come with kicking and profanity on his part. And that's what happens here. 

Like any Hollywood production, "The Exorcist" has its share of artistic liberties which is to be expected. After all, the primary purpose of most, if not all, movies is to entertain. Even movies meant to educate and inform, still need to be entertaining above everything else, whether that movie is "The Passion of the Christ" or "Pee-Wee's Big Adventure." 

Blatty's novel, by the way, helps explain and clarify some of the scenes and situations in the movie "The Exorcist" that never made complete sense to me. For instance, I never understood what or to whom Regan was referring to during the scene when Chris is throwing a fancy party and Regan wanders down from her bedroom, stares at one of the party guests and says, "You're gonna die up there." The scene is better explained in the novel. 

Regardless, the bottom line of the movie is that the devil, who is real, possesses a girl. And two Roman Catholic priests who believe in Jesus Christ, and stand in for Jesus Christ, use the power of Jesus Christ to conquer the devil in order to save a young girl. 

The story is just as much about Fr. Karras as it is about Regan MacNeil. 

Ultimately, this film is about regaining one's faith in God and how God can use the devil himself to lead souls back to Him. 

Whether you appreciate this movie or abhor it, one thing is unarguable. It has an amazing soundtrack. 

199) Son of Dracula (1943)

Son of Halloween 2024's spectacular and not random vampire movie review extravaganza! (Part Four)

"Alucard is not his name!"

Director

Robert Siodmak

Cast
Lon Chaney Jr. - Count Alucard
Louise Allbritton - Katherine Caldwell
Robert Paige - Frank Stanley
Evelyn Ankers - Claire Caldwell
Frank Craven - Dr. Harry Brewster
J. Edward Bromberg - Prof. Lazlo
Samuel S. Hinds - Judge Simmons

The 1943 horror flick "Son of Dracula" is the third installment in Universal's Dracula series. It follows the movie I previously reviewed, "Dracula's Daughter" which follows Tod Browning's famous movie, "Dracula." 

In this movie, the Wolfman himself, Lon Chaney, Jr., plays Count Alucard as he's invited to the United States by Katherine Caldwell (Louise Allbritton). She's the daughter of a New Orleans plantation owner, Col. Caldwell (George Irving).

Just as Alucard arrives, the colonel dies of a heart attack. He leaves all his money to Katherine and his other daughter, Claire (Evelyn Ankers).

Claire gets his cash while Katherine inherits his estate known as "Dark Oaks." 

Also, Katherine and Alucard start dating and want to jump into marriage pretty fast, much to the dismay and jealousy of Katherine's former boyfriend Frank Stanley (Robert Paige). 

He can't stand seeing his old fling engaged to someone else. So, he tries to shoot Alucard. But much to his surprise, his bullets don't hurt him. He doesn't even flinch. They pass through him and hit Katherine. 

Frank thinks he's accidentally killed his former girlfriend. He quickly fetches Dr. Brewster (Frank Craven) to try to save her life. 

When the doctor arrives, Katherine is up and well, as is Alucard. 

For some reason, they open up to the doctor telling him how they're going to devout themselves to scientific research. Also, they'll only permit visitors in the evenings. 

Meanwhile, Frank is still upset thinking he has killed Katherine. So, he turns himself into the police 

Louise Allbritton, Lon Chaney, Jr., and Robert Paige in
"Son of Dracula."

while the sheriff goes to investigate Dark Oaks. 

There, the sheriff finds Katherine dead. Brewster tries to convince the sheriff that he has just seen Katherine alive and roaming around. 

Still, the sheriff has her remains transferred to the local morgue. 

Brewster figures out Alucard is vampire and turned Katherine into a vampire, too. What other explanation could there be? He also realizes that "Alucard" is Dracula spelled backwards. 

Hungarian professor Lazlo (J. Edward Bromberg) comes to visit Brewster and confirms his suspicions of vampirism. 

An injured or dead young boy is brought to Brewster's home and has two bite marks on his neck which also confirms their collective fear that a vampire is among them.

Then who should show up? Alucard!

Brewster and Lazlo drive him away with a crucifix. 

Meanwhile, Katherine, who's up and about now, sneaks into Frank's jail cell to tell him she only wanted to marry Alucard in order to have immortal life. She also wants to share that immortality with Frank, whom she calls her "true love." 

At first, he doesn't want any part of what she's offering. But then he gives in, and she drinks his blood.

Afterwards, she instructs him to destroy Alucard. He agrees to do just that, breaks out of jail, and seeks out Alucard's coffin. 

When Frank finds the coffin, he sets it on fire. 

This leaves Alucard without a shelter from the sun's light which can destroy him. 

Lon Chaney, Jr., as Alucard.

When the sun rises, Alucard is destroyed. The sheriff, along with Brewster and Lazlo show up to find what's left of the vampire. 

Frank finds Katherine's coffin where she lies. He's torn as he has to kill her since she's now a vampire. But he loves her. He puts the ring that was on his finger onto Katherine's finger. And then he sets her coffin on fire. 

Rather than continue the story of Count Dracula, with more "exciting adventures" of the vampire, "Son of Dracula" continues the curse of Dracula. The story centers on how Dracula's aftermath continues turning other innocent victims into what he is- undead. It feels restrained in that it goes more for drama than frightening horror. 

Lon Chaney, Jr. is an iconic actor, and really established the infamous "Wolfman" into pop culture. However, as Dracula, he doesn't have the intimidating quality as Bela Lugosi has. Rather, he's more like a random guy dress as Count Dracula for Halloween, swirling his cape and giving off his best Dracula stare to scare all the kids. 

Chaney puts effort into his role and tries to give him a distinct personality all of his own. But despite his best efforts, he just doesn't quite pull off the fear factor Dracula needs to have, 

Regardless, I enjoyed this movie better than the previous "Dracula's Daughter." 

"Son of Dracula" has a little more horror movie feel to it when compared to the last movie I reviewed, while still carrying the noir vibe that "Dracula's Daughter" started. 

The camera work is great. There's a well worked shot of Dracula gliding supernaturally towards his victim in the woods. 

It's satisfying to see Dracula get sweet revenge. The movie presents an evil in such a way that the mere fact the characters know such an evil exists weighs heavily of their peace of mind.

Thankfully, underneath Chaney's performance, there still remains the taste of a classic Dracula flick.

198) Dracula's Daughter (1936)

Son of Halloween 2024's spectacular and not random vampire movie review extravaganza! (Part Three)

"Be thou exorcised oh Dracula, and thy body long undead find destruction throughout eternity in the name of thy dark unholy Master. In the name of the oh holiest and through this cross be the evil spirit cast out until the end of time."

Director
Lambert Hillyer

Cast
Gloria Holden - Countess Marya Zaleska
Otto Kruger - Dr. Jeffrey Garth
Marguerite Churchill - Janet Blake
Irving Pichel - Sandor
Halliwell Hobbes - Hawkins
Billy Bevan - Albert
Nan Grey - Lili
Hedda Hopper - Lady Esme Hammond
Edward Van Sloan - Prof. Van Helsing

Picking up right were Tod Browning's "Dracula" left off, "Dracula's Daughter" (1936) is a direct sequel to the 1931 horror classic which I last reviewed. 

In this movie, Van Helsing just steaked Dracula through his heart as seen in the last movie.

The police are called to Carfax Abbey where Van Helsing (played again by Edward Van Sloan) admits to killing Count Dracula. He's immediately arrested and taken to Scotland Yard.

There, he discusses his situation with Sir Basil Humphrey of Scotland Yard (Gilbert Emery) admitting that he did in fact kill Count Dracula. There's just one small snag. Dracula has been dead for 500 years. 

So, Van Helsing can't be charged with murder. 

That works in his favor, obviously. Van Helsing seeks the aid of a former student of his who's now a psychiatrist, Dr. Jeffrey Garth (Otto Kruger). 

Back in Whitby, the place where Van Helsing was initially arrested and booked by Scotland Yard, Constable Albert is left in charge at the prison where recovered bodies are being kept, while Sgt. Wilkes (E.E. Clive) goes out to meet an officer.
Countess Marya Zaleska (Gloria Holden) shows up in an attempt to steal Dracula's body. Why? Because she's Count Dracula's daughter!

Gloria Holden and Irving Pichel in "Dracula's Daughter."

Zaleska hypnotizes him with a dazzling ring she's wearing. 

She has her servant and muscle, Sandor (Irving Pichel), retrieve Dracula's body. 

She then makes a pyre to burn Dracula's body hoping it'll end her vampire curse. 

But Sandor discourages her from going through with it claiming all she has in her eyes is "death."

Zaleska is then left with nothing but her insatiable thirst for blood. She goes out into the night looking for a new victim. Deep down, she doesn't want to be a vampire. This is the curse of the situation. 

Later, she attends a fancy party where she meets Dr. Garth. She asks the doctor about overcoming some influences she's coping with that are coming from the afterlife - referring to her vampire curse thanks to Dracula. 

Garth thinks she needs to confront those urges. Zaleska feels confident that her will, and the doctor's advice, will help break her curse. 

However, she resorts to going back out looking for a victim. And in no time, Sandro finds an innocent young girl for Zaleska to feed on. He tells this young lady named Lili (Nan Grey) that Zaleska will offer her food, money and warmth if she'll pose for a painting his mistress is creating. 

Lili agrees and he takes her back to Zaleska's place. 

Zaleska tries to resist attacking her, but she can't and does what vampires are known for doing. 

Lili survives the attack - barely. 

Dr. Garth examines her under hypnosis. Lili squeals on Zaleska, revealing what she did. Soon after, Lili dies from heart failure. 

Dracula's daughter gives up on resisting those urges. As far as she's concerned, fighting them is futile. 

She kidnaps Dr. Garth's secretary, Janet Blake (Marguerite Churchill) in order to lure Dr. Garth to Count Dracula's Castle in Transylvania. 

Of course, he follows her there and offers himself in place of Janet. Just as she is about to attack him, Sandor intervenes. 

Lambert Hillyer directs with Edward Van Sloan returning to his role from the previous movie as Professor Van Helsing. 

One of the more iconic scenes in "Dracula's Daughter" with
Nan Grey (left) as Lili.

"Dracula's Daughter" a horror movie a bit ahead of its time, especially with its inclusion of psychiatry. I don't know of too many, if any, horror movies from this period that uses psychiatry as part of its story like "Dracula's Daughter." 

Overall, the movie strikes me as a serious movie and sequel. It's elaborate in its setting and premise, and tries to be frightening, but it feels heavier in drama. It has a stronger taste of film noir, rather than horror. 

That's not to say I was bored or not entertained by it. Rather, I was really intrigued by this movie considering its story and the era it was made. It's definitely a noteworthy film being foundational in the genre of psychological horror. 

The writers didn't simply make a girl version of Dracula. She's no chip off the ol' block. She's a separate entity. As "Dracula" is a story of the dark side of human nature, "Dracula's Daughter" is a story of struggle between reason and passion, or concupiscence. 

There seems to be a lesbian undertone in this movie, particularly in the scene with Zaleska preying on Lili. The seductive scene has strong lesbian implications. However, it's worth considering that, like Dracula, the vampire as a general character whether male or female, thirsts for blood. Dracula has been known to kill men to consumer their blood. I think the undertone in this movie is more in the way Countess Marya approaches her. The film's tagline, "she gives you that weird feeling" takes on a new meaning, doesn't it. It's pretty bold for a film from 1936. It continues that depiction of the flesh against the spirit. 

"Dracula's Daughter" has a sophisticated style to it rather than being some campy Dracula sequel. Maybe it tries to be too sophisticated. 

By the way, the 2024 movie "Abigail" is apparently a remake of "Dracula's Daughter." In fact, the original title for "Abigail" was "Dracula's Daughter." 

197) Dracula (1931)

Son of Halloween 2024's spectacular and not random vampire movie review extravaganza! (Part Two)

"The spider spinning his web for the unwary fly. The blood is the life, Mr. Renfield."

Director

Tod Browning

Cast
Bela Lugosi - Count Dracula
Helen Chandler - Mina Seward
David Manners - John Harker
Dwight Frye - Renfield
Edward Van Sloan - Van Helsing
Herbert Bunston - Dr. Seward
Frances Dade - Lucy Weston

F. W. Murnau's German expressionist horror film "Nosferatu" portrayed the vampire for the first time so audiences could gaze upon the bloodsucking ghoul written about in Bram Stoker's novel, "Dracula." The movie laid an undying foundation for the horror genre. It was before all the modern tropes and depictions which Tod Browning's 1931 horror classic "Dracula" established. 

The character of Dracula, thanks in very large part to Browning's iconic film, has surely given horror cinema so much material and support unlike any other character in literary or cinematic history. There's so much that can and has been done with vampires, not to mention with Dracula's allegorical nature - the battle of the spirit against the flesh, good against evil, the devil versus God. 

Browning's film established the image of Count Dracula which has endured from decade to decade. Basically, Bela Lugosi is Dracula though the character has been depicted in various ways since 1931. Lugosi is Dracula, and Dracula is Lugosi. And if you say the name "Dracula" to practically anyone out there, images of Lugosi's character will come to mind. 

Like "Nosferatu" the plot of "Dracula" is based on Bram Stoker's book. Still, there are plenty of differences between both movies. To begin with, "Dracula" has sound. Not only do audiences see Count Dracula, they hear his soft but authoritative controlling voice and middle European/ Romanian accent. Perhaps sound is both a good quality as well as bad. With "Nosferatu" the silence gives the audiences' imagination more room to play. 

Lugosi's Count Dracula is an upscale wealthy aristocratic character with a bit of sex appeal compared to Max Schreck's Count Orlock who's more of an entity than an evil person. 

This movie begins as Renfield (Dwight Frye) travels to Count Dracula's castle in Transylvania on a matter regarding Dracula's leasing Carfax Abbey in England. 

When he arrives in Transylvania, the locals who fear Count Dracula warn Renfield not to visit his castle. 

Of course, he has business to tend to that can't simply be skirted based on the warnings of some superstitious locals. 

Bela Lugosi as Count Dracula in 'Dracula.'

When he boards the carriage to Dracula's castle, Renfield doesn't realize that Dracula himself is the carriage driver in disguise. During the trip, he looks out of the window and notices the driver is missing. Instead, he sees a bat guiding the horses. 

When Renfield arrives and enters the castle, he's greeted by the Count himself (Bela Lugosi). Little does Renfield know Dracula's true nature! 

After the two discuss the lease, Dracula hypnotizes Renfield and makes him open a window. 

A bat appears causing Renfield to faint. Dracula's three wives move in to attack Renfield, but Dracula forces them to get away and attacks him himself.

Later, we find Renfield onboard the Vesta sailing back to England. He's now become Dracula's slave. 

Dracula is onboard, too, hiding in his coffin. At night, he feeds on the boat's crew. 

By the time the ship reaches shore, the entire crew is dead. From the boat, Renfield is taken to Dr. Seward's (Herbert Bunston) sanatorium near Carfax Abbey. 
Now in London, Dracula meets up with Dr. Seward who introduces him to his daughter Mina (Helen Chandler), her fiancé John Harker (David Manners), and their friend, Lucy Weston (Frances Dade). Lucy is rather taken by Count Dracula's charm and appeal. 

Later that night, Dracula shows up in Lucy's room while she sleeps and drinks her blood. 

She dies the following day after a series of blood transfusions are administered. 

In the sanatorium, an out-of-his-mind Renfield has been eating flies and spiders, and whatever other insects cross his path. 

Another doctor pays him a visit - Dr. Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan).

He tests Renfield's blood and discovers his bond to Dracula. Van Helsing knows an abundance of information on vampires. Renfield is agitated as Dracula calls him through telekinesis. Van Helsing presents Renfield with wolfsbane which agitates him even more. 

That night, Dracula intrudes into Mina's room while she's asleep and drinks her blood as well.

When the count visits again the night after that, both Van Helsing and Harker confront him. 

Van Helsing notices that Dracula doesn't cast a reflection in a mirror. 

Later, Mina sneaks out to the garden and meets Dracula there. This is Dracula's chance to finish her off, which he does. 

Fortunately, one of the maids finds Mina, and she's given Van Helsing's care.

He puts Wolfsbane around her neck as she sleeps to keep Dracula away. 

Back at the sanatorium, Renfield escapes but is caught and taken back to his cell.

Dracula drops into the parlor at Seward's house where Van Helsing is waiting for him. 

Edward Van Sloan as Dr. Van Helsing.

Dracula, pissed off, says Mina belongs to him and suggests Van Helsing better return to his home country or suffer serious consequences. 

Van Helsing calmly tells Dracula that he's planning on killing him by driving a steak through his heart.

This irks the Count even more. He tries to hypnotize Van Helsing, which seems to work until the doctor pulls a crucifix out of his pocket, which scares Dracula off. 

Harker finds Mina out on the terrace and goes to talk to her. She starts going on about the night, and the fog, and how she loves both. 

A bat starts fluttering above them. All Harker can hear is squeaking. But Mina can understand its commands. She attacks Harker but fortunately, Van Helsing and Seward come to his rescue. 

Mina knows what Dracula has done to her, and she tells Harker about it before ending their love. 

Van Helsing makes it his mission to kill Dracula. It's the only way to save Mina. 

"Dracula" is a movie that is rich in imagery and visuals right from the start of the film. 

This is early talking cinema. So, the presentation and style of "Dracula" feels like a recorded stage play. Hollywood was still learning the art of movie making back in 1931. 

The grandiose gothic sets, smoke, shadow, pacing, exposition, and general layout are haunting. It all conforms well with the camera work that seems to move through scenes like a creeping fantom floating through the rooms leading the audience to view the horror building up.  

Bela Lugosi brings a lot of mystery to the character. What is Count Dracula's backstory? What led him to become a blood thirsty creature? What pushed him towards demonic influences? 

In my eyes, Edward Van Sloan is just as quintessential in being Van Helsing as Lugosi is as Dracula. He's not impulsive or rash. Or, at least, he hides it well. 

Edward Van Sloan's Van Helsing knows exactly what he needs to do and doesn't let his guard down. He presents Van Helsing as a character with the duty to do what no one else can. Van Helsing takes on the duty because he has the mental stability.

Van Sloan returns as Van Helsing in the next Dracula movie I'll be review - a direct sequel to "Dracula" and released in 1936. 

Where "Nosferatu" is quite the ambitious undertaking, "Dracula" doesn't quite hit the same level of ambition. Instead, Dracula's presence turns menacing little by little through the movie. He starts off welcoming yet dark and deceitful. His true evil nature intensifies as the story progresses. Like the devil himself, Dracula works in secret - a quality of that evil nature of his. 

Browning's movie certainly made a major impression on audiences' decade after decade, nightmare after nightmare. 

The proof is found in every Halloween costume shop to this day. 

Browning uses both wide shots to really utilize the menacing and frightening atmosphere alongside close ups of Dracula's evil glare - windows to a soulless monster. Eyes can arouse the emotions their owner is expressing. In this case, fear and intimidation. These eyes are illuminated by an otherworldly light surrounded by shadow. They have the power to burn themselves into the minds of audiences where they can remain for years after. Audiences might forget the movie they saw years ago, but they won't forget Dracula's eyes.

This technique is used, funny enough, in the 1993 movie "The Addams Family" with the matriarchal Morticia Addams. It's more of a gag. A gleam of mysterious light is always across her eyes in each scene she's in.   

The darkness in "Dracula" is similar to "Nosferatu," and has a looming presence. 

Lugosi would nail this role so remarkably and memorably well but would only return as "Count Dracula" in "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein." 

Though "Dracula" had no musical score upon its release, the inclusion of "Swan Lake" turns it into one of the best and most fitting scores in movie history. 

196) Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror (1922)

Son of Halloween 2024's spectacular and not random vampire movie review extravaganza! (Part One)

Director
F. W. Murnau

Cast

Max Schreck - Count Orlok
Gustav von Wangenheim - Thomas Hutter
Greta Schröder - Ellen Hutter
Alexander Granach - Herr Knock
Georg H. Schnell - Shipowner Harding

Ruth Landshoff - Ruth
John Gottowt - Prof. Bulwer
Gustav Botz - Prof. Sievers

Introduction 

This is my third year in which I dedicate the Halloween season to something monstrous and horrific (as far as movies go). In October of 2022, I watched and reviewed the first 15 Godzilla movies. And I called that set of commentaries, "Halloween 2022's Godzilla-Maniapalloza Extravaganza...For the Love of Godzilla. All Hail, the Monster King!
And then in 2023, I watched all the "Leprechaun" movies for "Halloween 2023's Somehow Leprechauns are Scary... Extravaganza!" Honestly, I don't know why I picked the Leprechaun movies, but I did, and I'm stuck with my decision. 

Now October is upon us once again, and I'm dedicating this season to... vampire movies! 

Dracula, the most famous of vampires, is a major pillar of the horror genre and a huge staple of Halloween. He's still a figure of intrigue that lingers from generation to generation.

In my review of "The Horror of Dracula" from 1952, I wrote about my introduction to Count Dracula during my youth when my family used to take day trips to the Cliff House in San Francisco. 

Anyways, I've already reviewed a fair share of vampire films in the past such, "Mama Dracula" (1980), "Dracula, Sovereign of the Damned" (1980), "Billy the Kid vs Dracula" (1966), "Vampire Burt's Serenade" (2020), "Vampire Circus" (1972), and "Blood of Dracula's Castle" (1969).

But there's a lot more movies out there when it comes to vampires. I wanted to have some method to my madness for this October's "spectacular and random vampire movie review extravaganza." I picked at least one vampire movie, popular or not, from each decade between the 1920s... to however far I get. My goal is at least the early 2000s. And I'm starting with what is perhaps among the greatest of vampire movies ever made. This is "Son of Halloween 2024's Spectacular and Random Vampire Movie Review Extravaganza!"

The Review

🧛

Max Schreck as Count Orlock in "Nosferatu."

Outside of Bram Stoker's 1897 novel, "Dracula," the 1922 German expressionist horror film, "Nosferatu" is the start of the never-ending vampire nightmare that has fueled the fear of darkness for millions world-wide for decades. This is the first film adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel. 

Though the word "Vampire" or the name "Count Dracula" conjures up various images resembling Bela Lugosi in Tod Browning's 1931 classic, "Dracula" with his pale face, slick black hair, black cape and Hungarian accent, it's F. W. Murnau's silent film starring Max Schreck as Count Orlok that sets the foundation as far as vampire movies depictions go. 

The story is pretty much similar to Stoker's novel with some differences of course. 

The story takes place in the fictional town of Wisborg, Germany where Thomas Hutter's (Gustav von Wangenheim) boss, Herr Knock (Alexander Granach) is sending him to Transylvania. 

Knock is a real estate agent, and he wants Thomas to visit with a new client of his who's interested in some property that's right across the street from Thomas's home. That client, by the way, is none other than Count Orlock. 

Before he takes off for Transylvania, Thomas stops at a local pub where he tells some of the locals about his plans to visit with Orlock. 

The locals are terrified to even hear the name, and they warn him not to go.

But Thomas blows off their superstitions. He also snatched a small book from the pub about vampires to read, which he scoffs at and disregards. 

His wife, Ellen (Greta Schröder) is distraught over her husband's departure, worried she may never see him again. 

Once in Transylvania, Thomas is taken by coach to the Count Orlock's castle in the Carpathian mountains. There, he's greeted by Orlock (Max Schreck) himself. 

During supper, Thomas accidentally cuts his finger with a dinner knife. Orlock, who has an insatiable thirst for blood, tries to suck his blood out. Disgusted, Thomas pulls his hand away. 

After, he decides it's best to turn in for the night. But the next morning, he wakes up with two small holes in his neck which he thinks are just really bad mosquito bites. 

Later, Orlock signs the documents necessary to purchase the house in Wisborg. While doing so, he sees a small picture of Ellen on Thomas's desk and comments how lovely her neck is. Weird! 

As Thomas continues his stay at Orlock's castle and reads the vampire manual he stole from the pub, things start to click. His suspicion that Orlock is a vampire begins to grow. 

That night, he tries to block his bedroom door but can't. Orlock approaches and slowly opens his door. So, Thomas hides under his bedsheets and becomes unconscious. 

Back home, Ellen, who misses her Thomas so much, wakes up and begins to sleepwalk. 

Her friend sees her and calls a doctor. Ellen starts calling for her husband and has a vision of Orlock looming over Thomas lying unconscious. 

Later, Thomas goes on a little exploration around the castle. He freaks out when he finds Orlock's coffin with Orlock lying inside it. Hours later, he sees Orlock piling coffins onto the carriage heading for the docs where a ship is going to set sail for Wisborg. Orlock climbs into the last coffin he places on top and waits for the carriage to depart. 

Thomas rushes home as quickly as he can, hoping to get there before the boat does. 

The sailors on board discover a ton of rats hitching a ride with them. Little do they know this is Orlock taking on a different form. 

By the time the boat reaches port, all the sailors are dead, and Orlock is all that's left onboard. 

He takes his coffin under his arm and makes his way to his new home. 

People around Wisborg begin to die mysteriously. Doctors blame it on a plague carried by rats. 

Thomas returns home and reunites with his Ellen.

She also seems to know that the vampire from her nightmares has moved in across the street. What a coincidence!

Ellen finds the vampire book Thomas has and learns that they can be defeated when a pure woman offers herself as a willful victim, and then kill him by exposure to sunlight. Soon, she conjures up a plan to take down Orlock before he takes anymore innocent victims. 

In his book "Classics of the Horror Film" author William K. Everson says, "'Nosferatu" was once aptly described by a critic as "a chilly blast of doomsday...." I've seen this label printed elsewhere but I can't yet find a source. 

However, this is the truest form of the story long before Dracula became a Halloween decoration. 

During World War I, as well as the war's aftermath felt in Germany in the 1920s, what's referred to as Weimar expressionism - a new way of looking at the world - grew popular and landed heavily into German horror films. Hence, German expressionist films like this one were produced. 

With meager budgets compared to that of Hollywood, German film makers looked to more simplistic ways to convey emotion, distinct and surreal atmospheres, and uniquely haunting stories in their movies. There were no lavish costumes, or towering sets, or mind-blowing special effects. Yet these movies left a large permanent impression in the minds of their audiences. Once seen, they couldn't be forgotten. 

Gothic horror quickly sprung from this new portrayal of reality, looking into darker, sinister characteristics of human behavior and the human mind. 

From this concept, films such as "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" (1920), "Phantom" (1922), and "The Last Laugh" (1924) were produced in this period and continue influencing modern horror movie makers today. "Phantom" and "The Last Laugh" were also directed by F. W. Murnau. 

With movies like "Nosferatu" everything on screen is used to add to the horror and fear. 

Fear is very much a visual. No words are needed to convey it to the audience. That's what makes these movies so influential and still very haunting.   

No scene is wasted. Shadow plays in practically every moment, especially in Orlock's scenes. The entire play is meticulously set up with no relief from the trepidation that wafts from scene to scene. 

This, mixed with the vampire's other-worldly dangerous and unpredictable demeanor, gives this silent movie its lasting power. 

The use of shadow is crucial in giving Orlock his nefarious and unearthly characteristics. Camera speeds also give him that supernatural quality. He may have been human once, but evil forces have taken over giving him demonic abilities. Angles and imagery inflict uneasiness. 

The way Orlock moves on screen, and glares menacingly at the audience must have been terrifying for audiences back then. His eyes remain wide open and unblinking as though he sees through your skin and into your veins and thumping heart. 

His scenes are ice cold and intimidating, especially when he roams the ship killing its crew one by one. 

Schreck doesn't play Orlock as the suave and sexy vampire that stems back to Bela Lugosi's depiction. Schreck's vampire is shown as the demonic ghoul that he is.

He is a monster both inside and outside, and that's what makes it terrifying. Even the name "Nosferatu" has an ancient supernatural and evil sound to it. 

The simultaneous stories of Thomas, his wife, and Orlock buying the house are intertwined. It's quite a feat for a silent movie. And there's a hidden clue or two that reveals Knock to be the slave of Orlock as Renfield is in the movie "Dracula." 

It's amazing how big of a presence Orlock can have in a silent film. His mannerisms and supernatural movements done through early special effects keep their impressive effectiveness. 

I love this movie for its atmosphere and for Schreck's performance. 

"Nosferatu" has managed to fix itself in pop culture distinct from the classic image of Count Dracula. He's still around. 

I watched this for the first time back in May, and images from this film have stuck with me. German horror expression has that lasting power. I spoke about it when I reviewed another horror film, "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari." Images in both these files are truly haunting in the truest meaning of the word. 

Schreck has an impressive ability to create a creature that is daunting and terrifying in all of his screen time. It's the stuff of cinematic legend. 

Schreck's performance is depicted in the 2000 film "Shadow of the Vampire" which tells the backstage story about the filming of "Nosferatu" and the suspicions the film crew had about Schreck based on how seriously he took his performance as the vampire. Willem Defoe plays Schreck in that movie, which I'm now anxious to see. 

Werner Herzog directed a remake in 1979 called "Nosferatu the Vampyre." It stars Klaus Kinski as the vampire, who is called Count Dracula rather than Count Orlock. Kinski also plays a vampire called Nosferatu in another movie which I'll post in this review series. 

It's also fitting I review this movie now as a remake called "Nosferatu," starring Bill Skarsgård and directed by Robert Eggers is scheduled to hit theaters December of this year. The trailer was released Sept. 29. 

No doubt a lot has been said about "Nosferatu." For an early horror movie, it doesn't hold back nor does it waste a moment to arouse both fear and a loathing for evil.  

195) Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice (2024) - NEW TO HORROR

"I've spent so much time talking to the dead, it's time I started living. I want to make memories with people I love, rather than be haunted by them later."

Director

Tim Burton

Cast
Michael Keaton - Betelgeuse
Winona Ryder - Lydia Deetz
Catherine O'Hara - Delia Deetz
Jenna Ortega - Astrid Deetz
Justin Theroux - Rory
Monica Bellucci - Delores
Willem Dafoe - Wolf Jackson
Arthur Conti - Jeremy Frazier
Danny DeVito - The Janitor

Spoilers ahead!

I can't say I'm a major fan of the 1988 supernatural comedy "Beetlejuice", but I enjoy it primarily thanks to its unusual style, and Michael Keaton's performance as the titular character. And it's a stand-out film in director Tim Burton's filmography. Now, after 36 years, "Beetlejuice" gets a sequel. That's the trend these days in Hollywood. Sequels to movies made over 20 to 30 years ago are all the rage now. I previously mentioned my thoughts about the first "Beetlejuice" in a post on my reaction to the "Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice" trailer back in May. 

In recent years, Keaton has taken on more dramatic roles in movies such as "Spotlight," "The Founder," and "Dopesick" among other titles. The first dramatic role I saw Keaton in was the 2005 horror thriller film, "White Noise." All I remember about it was Keaton's performance. The movie was terrible, but Keaton nailed the role. 

He's also stepped back into some of his more popular previous roles - namely Batman as seen in "The Flash" (2023) whom he stars as in Tim Burton's 1989 movie "Batman" and its 1992 sequel, "Batman Returns." 

Keaton, true to his comedic form, returns as Beetlejuice - the "ghost with the most."  

Anyways, a Beetlejuice sequel has been an idea tossed around since the period right after the 1988 movie. 

One of those ideas sequel ideas bore the title "Beetlejuice Goes Hawaiian." I believe deep, deep down that this actual sequel, released Sept. 6, is better than whatever the story idea was for "Beetlejuice Goes Hawaiian." It's an assumption I think is safe to make.

In this sequel, Winona Ryder, Catherine O'Hara, and Michael Keaton reprise their roles from the first film.

Thirty-six years after the events of the first movie, Lydia Deetz (Winona Ryder) is suddenly seeing glimpses of the ghost, Beetlejuice (Michael Keaton) who tormented her family back in 1988 when they moved from New York to the small town of Winter River, Conn. Since her first encounter with the ghost "Betelgeuse," she says she has always felt his presence. Now, he's appearing to her.  

She has since moved out of Winter River and hosts a paranormal show called "Ghost House." 

Her boyfriend, Rory (Justin Theroux) is the show's producer. During a taping of the show, she has a glimpse of Beetlejuice sitting in the audience which causes her to panic during the show. 

Soon after, she goes to see her mother, Delia (Catherine O'Hara) at her art exhibit somewhere in Manhattan where Delia just received news that her husband, Lydia's father, Charles Deetz died in a plane crash.

So, they head back to Winter River, picking up Lydia's daughter, Astrid (Jenna Ortega) from boarding school along the way. 

Michael Keaton and Winona Ryder return in Tim Burton's "Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice"
after starring in the first film 36 years ago. 

Back at the old house that once belonged to Adam and Barbara Maitland from the first movie, Delia makes funeral arrangements for Charles. Lydia tries to strengthen her relationship with Astrid, who's still angry and mourning for her father, Richard (Santiago Cabrera), who died during a trip to South America. 

Meanwhile, from the afterlife, Beetlejuice, who works at a recruitment desk job, is still trying to pursue Lydia and marry which he almost did in the first film. 

Beetlejuice is also informed by an afterlife police investigator, Wolf Jackson (Willem Defoe), who was a B-Hollywood actor during his life, that his ex-wife Delores (Monica Bellucci) from the mortal world is on the loose in the netherworld trying to find him. During her lifetime during the black plague, at which time she met Beetlejuice and married him, Delores belonged to a soul sucking cult and is now sucking the souls out of random ghosts as she wanders the afterlife looking for her late husband and seek revenge on him.

There's a lot going on in this movie. 

After Rory proposes awkwardly to Lydia during the funeral reception, Astrid rides off on her bike in anger. She doesn't care for Rory and deep down, wants her mother's attention instead of watching her chase ghosts.

While riding through town, Astrid meets a boy named Jeremy (Arthur Conti) who's friendly at first but isn't quite the person Astrid thinks he is. He reveals later that he's a ghost and wants to take Astrid to the afterlife so that he can return to earth. "The Handbook for the Recently Deceased" has a whole chapter on how to make that happen. He convinces Astrid to enter the afterlife by promising that she can see her dad again. 

So, despite her better judgement, Lydia feels the only way she can find Astrid in the afterlife and bring her home is by summoning Beetlejuice for help. All she has to do is say his name three times. 

When she does, Beetlejuice agrees to help only if Lydia will sign a contract agreeing to marry him. 

Like the first, the story is really centered on the Deetz family. This time it focuses on the relationship between Astrid and Lydia, as well as Lydia and Delia. 

Beetlejuice remains a side character despite being the titular character. Beetlejuice is certainly not overused in part two.  

(L to R): Catherine O'Hara, Jenna Ortega, Winona Ryder, and
Justin Theroux in "Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice."

"Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice" relies more on its story than it does on its surreal depictions of the afterlife though it delivers in that regard because the afterlife is a crucial part of the story. 

There are multiple plot points going on at the same time. Thankfully, it's not confusing and it all ties well enough together. 

The sequel captures the same atmosphere and style as part one without straying too far into trying to be something all on its own. It's a story continuation and it doesn't try to be anything but a continuing story. 

It gives a few more glimpses into the story's version of the afterlife, and the audience gets some backstory about Beetlejuice while he was alive during the black plague. In the first movie, Beetlejuice already reveals he lived through the black plague during the scene when first meets with Barbara and Adam Maitland. It follows it by claiming, "And I had a pretty good time during that." In part two, we can see just what he meant by this actually sarcastic remark. 

Like the original, Tim Burton pulls a lot of inspiration from early German expressionist films such as "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" to create the movie's atmosphere. This is true for many Burton movies, and it's just as true for "Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice."  

Monica Bellucci's character is rather underused. She serves as an antagonist, and the only thing that makes her memorable to any degree is that she's Beetlejuice's ex. She's not used much, and when she finally confronts Beetlejuice, she's taken out by a sandworm. Delores should have been explored more as a character and as an avenue to explore Beetlejuice a bit more as well. 

In fact, a lot of the afterlife might have been explored more as it leaves the imagination wanting to know and see more about how things work in this depiction of the afterlife. Then again, I supposed it leaves the rest up to the audience's imagination. 

While Michael Keaton is truly back to form, his energy levels have slowed down just a tad. He is back to his classic comedic self, like the class clown at a high school reunion. His personality is the same, more or less, but his age isn't. 

Keaton doesn't give quite the lively performance he did in 1988. For a dead guy, Beetlejuice has certainly gotten older. That's not to say Keaton isn't entertaining and hilarious to watch. Though some jokes and gags are call-backs to the first movie, there's plenty of fresh material that got a lot of laughs which make up for the 36-year span. Keaton really picks up right where he left off. This is still very much classic Michael Keaton!

The character Lydia received some criticism from Beetlejuice fans for not being the angsty self-absorbed teenager Winona Ryder portrayed her as in the first film. Evidently, characters are not allowed to change within a 30+ year span. 

Monica Bellucci as Delores.

I appreciate her going from what I just described, to being a mom trying to be responsible and supportive of her daughter after suffering a terrible loss before the story begins, and still grieving over it. Astrid is angry at her mother because, well, she needs her mother and feels she isn't getting that motherly support. There's some good character development in there.  

Meanwhile, Astrid isn't the goth type like her mother was, but she is as morose and bitter as her mother was in her teenage years. 

Lydia had to cope with the loss of a parent who's replaced by someone else. Astrid deals with the same. So, like her mother was, Astrid has that angsty characteristic, too. She's an updated version of Lydia. And Jenna Ortega puts on a deadpan frustrated look making her a great fit for the role of Lydia's daughter. No doubt she borrows a little from Wednesday Addams, whom she plays in Tim Burton's mystery series, "Wednesday." 

Her presence in "Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice" seems to also work as a means to pull younger audiences in and introduce them to the world of Beetlejuice. Seeing as how Ortega is popular among Gen Z audiences, it's only logical to cast her in the movie. 

I think I caught a slight reference to "Batman Returns" in Danny DeVito's cameo as an afterlife janitor as in one instance, he make a few grunts that sound similar to Penguin, whom he plays in "Batman Returns." 

Also, Rory seems a bit similar to the character Otho from the first film, played by the late Glenn Shadix. Both are similarly eccentric with clueless and awkward personalities. 

In this film, there's a few sequences that involve a "soul train" which takes souls from the afterlife to "the great beyond" whether it be the pearly gates or eternal damnation. 

Those waiting on the platform to board the soul train constantly engage in a song and dance routine. As unusual as it sounds, this part of the movie was, well, the most unusual. It felt contrived and out of place. Go figure.

The colorful vibrancy, the style, the comedy and the imaginative creativity is still there. Tim Burton is back to his roots with his style of fantasy, even down the stop motion animation like that used in "Beetlejuice." 

I think the September release and limited competition helped score the Beetlejuice sequel success with its number one spot at the box office, topping the domestic box office with its $51.6 million in ticket sales, according to the AP. International sales brought in an additional $28.7 million, giving "Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice" a total of $264.3 million.

Tim Burton's latest sequel, even after so many years, does entertain and leaves the audience with memorable elements. It's a respectable enough follow-up to a story from 36 years ago. It has its own laughs and a good number of them! Maybe if they do a third movie, perhaps Beetlejuice should take that trip to Hawaii. They could take the franchise in a whole new direction.