'Potter' takes on vampires

This editorial originally ran in the July 15, 2009 Standard-Examiner newspaper:

http://www.standard.net/live/opinion/editorials/178403/

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" opens in theaters today. Although author J.K. Rowling wrapped up the series almost two years ago, it's been a very long film wait between No. 5, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" and No. 6 "the Half-Blood Prince."
Perhaps Harry Potter's long cinema hiatus is because the boy wizard is battling an otherworldly creature even more ferocious than death eaters or even Lord Voldemort -- teenage vampires.

It's no secret that Stephenie Meyer's smoldering tales of chaste lust between a teenage vampire boy and virginal human girl have drawn in millions of youngsters entering the teen years who spent their earlier years with Harry Potter, Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Hogwarts may be a fascinating place for readers to hang out, but Twilight has almost steamy scenes of heroes Edward Cullen and Bella Swan making out on Bella's bed while clueless dad sleeps away in another part of the house.

Even "Harry Potter" star Emma Watson, who plays Hermione Granger in the series, admits to being hooked on the "Twilight" series. And "Half-Blood Prince" director David Yates admits that there's a lot more "snogging" -- British slang for kissing -- in this latest Harry Potter film.

Are Meyer's vampire tales crowding out "Harry Potter?" Although the "Twilight" book saga has also finished, Meyer's novels are easily outselling Rowling's for the past year. In overal sales, though, Rowling's seven books still rule at 400 million, compared to 53 million tallied for the four "Twilight" books. But the first "Twilight" film's amazing numbers, a $382 million haul last fall on a tiny $37 million budget, underscores that Meyer's series has growing global appeal that will only mean larger numbers in the next few years. It's a fair question to wonder which books pre-teens -- particularly girls -- are apt to start reading first: "Harry Potter" or "Twilight."

Industry analysts will be watching the box office take of "Half-Blood Prince" this weekend. Will its long break from movies adversely affect the "Potter" box office? In what might be construed as a nod to "Twilight's" sex appeal, ads and trailers to the new "Potter" film have explicitely stressed the budding teenage romances between Ron Weasley and Lavender Brown, Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger, and finally Harry Potter and the once-in-the-background Ginny Weasley.

No doubt Warner Bros. executives are hoping "Half-Blood" stars Daniel Radcliffe and Bonnie Wright will generate at least a portion of the onscreen sex chemistry between "Twilight" stars Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart. So far adventure, not sex, has sold the "Potter" series. It would be a mistake to trade the adventure for the modern gothic sexuality of "Twilight," but a little sex appeal might add some much-needed spice to the "Harry Potter" film series.

Purists will argue with us, saying that the films simply follow the books. That's true, but the "Potter" books can be long, and not everything Rowling writes makes it into the films. Portions and plot twists, particularly in books 4 and 5, have been excised from the film versions.

So, to us at least, the fact that all that snogging in "Half-Blood Prince" has made it to the screen tells us that the creative forces behind "Half-Blood Prince" are paying attention to all those fans who swoon over the romance in "Twilight."

Review: The Black Cat

By Doug Gibson

The 1934 Universal Studios' The Black Cat is a magnificent film, the best pairing of stars Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff. It is masterfully understated, both rivals mad but possessed of grace, dignity and impeccable manners. Lugosi is the good guy, but he's also crazy enough to skin the bad guy (Karloff) alive at the end.

The plot involves an American mystery writer, and his fiance (Julie Bishop) honeymooning in Hungary. They meet a courtly gentleman, Dr. Vitus Werdegast, who is traveling to meet an old nemesis, Hjalmar Poelzig, played by Boris Karloff. It reminds me a bit of the famous Hungarian novel, Embers. The tone of the film has a classic Hungarian fatalism.

While traveling to a city, a coach overturns. The young couple and Lugosi seek shelter at Karloff's forbidding castle. It is built on the site of a prison, where Werdegast was once held. He seeks his wife and daughter, who were in Poelzig's care. Karloff's Poelzig is the soul of courtesy, but that masks a truly terrifying evil. There are dark secrets in Castle Poelzig, and once Werdegast learns them he's driven to righteous madness.

Stuck in the middle of this is the young bride (Bishop) who becomes an object of desire to Poelzig. Naturally, that puts her husband in danger too.

This brisk, 65-minute horror film is well directed by Edgar Ulmer, who later hamstrung his career by winning the heart of a Universal executive's wife. The plot moves at a dignified pace, and what is literally a cinematic chess game grows more sinister until suddenly the horror of Karloff's character bursts out to the audience.

Lugosi excells at his role, that of a decent man with decent gestures who can't suppress his bitterness and longing. His final rage is memorable. There's little of Edgar Allen Poe's tale, just a cat that Lugosi's Werdegast has a phobia of and Karloff sometimes puts to use.

Horror fans, and Universal afficianados will love this black and white classic. Watch it in a single setting, marvel at the skill of horror experts Lugosi and Karloff. They deserve such respect.

Review: Frankenstein 1970

By Doug Gibson

"Frankenstein 1970" is pretty bad. And that's a shame, since the 1958 independent film, directed by Howard Koch, stars Boris Karloff as Baron Victor Von Frankenstein, last descendant of the infamous Dr. Frankenstein. Von Frankenstein, who suffers torture wounds received at the hands of the Nazis, allows a film crew to his castle to make a movie. Wih the cash, they give him, he uses an atomic reactor to, after killing him, turn a former servant into a reanimated monster. More murders follow.

This film is just flat, more soap opera and corny interludes from cliched characters -- film crew, Dr. Frankenstein's solemn colleague -- than terror. The monster is a huge letdown. It just has a box on its head with slits for eyes. Even Karloff isn't that good. His languid, tired appearance seems like he is just phoming in his performance. His salary -- $26,000, was more than a fifth of the entire budget. Despite the futuristic title, is never clear if it really is 1970. In fact, the film's settings look like its late-'50s timeframe.

The best scene is the opening scene, where a terrified young lovely is pursued to her doom by a monster in a lake. Unfortunately, a "director" yells cut and we learn that it's the movie company. That's about if fright-wise. The 83-minute feature also featured Norbert Schiller, Jana Lund, Donald "Red" Barry and Charlotte Austin. Watch it only for Karloff. Even at his most lackluster, he still has worth for cult films fans.