My take: This is the movie The Most Dangerous Game should have been, and Charles Laughton is a riveting villain.

I’m 15 movies through the 130 movies in Studies in Terror, and as I watch each movie, I start to enjoy them more and more. I’m also starting to see even more connections between the films.

Charles Laughton and the Panther Woman in Island of Lost Souls.

Island of Lost Souls is unbelievably similar to The Most Dangerous Game. What’s similar?

• Both movies are based on written works (Island of Lost Souls is an adaptation of H.G. Wells’s Island of Dr. Moreau)
• Both are set on tropical Islands
• Both involve shipwrecked men ending up on those islands
• Both islands happen to have just one attractive female
• Both movies revolve around the nefarious plans of a madman who owns said tropical island
• Both have scenes where the heroes try to escape through the jungle

What makes Island of Lost Souls different? It’s simply better.

Island of Lost Souls is about a shipwrecked man named Edward who is picked up by a passing freighter. The ship is carrying cargo to Dr. Moreau’s island,which consists of a whole lot of exotic animals. Edward gets on the wrong side of the drunken captain and is dumped on Dr. Moreau’s island along with the cargo.

Dr. Moreau, played by Charles Laughton, is a mad scientist who performs horrible experiments on this tropical isle. Upon meeting Edward, Dr. Moreau sees an opportunity to use Edward in one of his experiments.

Another connection to a previous film I’ve watched: Charles Laughton. It took me until the end of the movie to realize that I had seen him before. Charles Laughton played one of the house guests in The Old Dark House. He was very funny in that movie. In this movie, he was commanding, intellectual and masterful as the mad scientist Dr. Moreau. He is the number one reason I would recommend the movie. He demands to be watched.

Final connection: Bela Lugosi (Dracula and White Zombie) is in this movie. He plays one of the monstrosities on the island. Covered in makeup and costume, he is hardly recognizable. But those piercing eyes of his are unmistakable, regardless of how much they cover his face.

I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes classic horror. I wasn’t able to find it online. I had to order it from Amazon. Bonus: it’s in the Criterion Collection, so it is very good quality once you obtain it.

Here is a trailer for it:

My take: Even though there are a million tropes along the lines of creepy old British estates, this was somehow fun to watch. There’s a madman who run amok, an alcoholic butler played by Boris Karloff, and a whole slew of awkward British dinner conversation.

The Old Dark House, the 13th film in Studies in Terror, starts out with an intriguing statement from the producers:

This note appeared at the start of the film.

This note was a wise move on their part. Without it, I doubt I would have even noticed or believed that the butler was Boris Karloff from Frankenstein. And somehow, that note made me pay attention to each character and focus on the film more than I would have without it.

Karloff as the mad butler, Morgan

Why? The film is filled with what are now common tropes in the creepy house film subgenre. A group of people in a car are forced to go to a dark, old house for help and temporary lodging. The door is answered by a silent (or as they say, “dumb”) butler. The man of the house is nervous and secretive. His sister is domineering and cryptic. There is a madman locked upstairs (which always makes me think of Jane Eyre; I really hated that book). No one can leave the house because of a furious storm causing landslides and flooding.

But despite all of these overdone themes, everything in this film came together to make it fun to watch. Like the Cat and the Canary before it, you feel the excitement of a mystery and the fear of not knowing what may come next.

I would recommend this movie to people who like those movies where everyone is stuck in a creepy location (there has got to be a word for this, but I don’t know it).

I found this movie on youtube and you can also order it through Netflix’s DVD service. Here’s the youtube video:

My take: It may be the first zombie movie, but it ain’t the best. If you like Bela Lugosi though, he is thoroughly creepy in this one.

White Zombie, the 12th movie in Studies in Terror, is not your typical zombie movie.

Poster for White Zombie

Unlike the zombies of today that rise from the dead due to disease or some unknown catalyst, the zombies in White Zombie are slaves, revived from a comatose state to enact the desires of one man. That one man is Murder Legendre (yes, that is actually the character’s name), a master of voodoo played by Bela Lugosi.

The story revolves around a couple who go to Haiti to get married. They meet a plantation owner who seems as though he wants to help the couple. In reality, he wants the young bride for himself. He strikes a bargain with Murder Legendre to turn the young woman into a zombie so he can fool the young husband into thinking she is dead and keep her for himself.

Knowing the zombie movies that come in later decades (Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, etc.), the zombies in this film are not all that frightening. But this was the first feature-length zombie film and you have to give the writer/director credit for bringing to life a thoroughly creepy idea from Haitian folklore. In fact, the concept of zombies was so new and unknown to 1932 audiences that they had to clearly explain the zombie legend throughout the film.

Bela Lugosi’s creepy stares and demeanor alone make the movie worth watching. I would recommend this to people who liked him in Dracula. I would also recommend this movie to anyone who likes zombie movies and stories, because it is always fun to see where things began.

The movie is easy to find. I watched it on Netflix, but there are also versions available on youtube such as this one here:

My take: This is a must-see movie for any horror fan. All Frankenstein monsters you have seen are derivative of Boris Karloff’s original.

I’m getting to the point in Studies in Terror, where I am starting to find movies that I know and love. One of these is Frankenstein.

We all know the story. The mad scientist Frankenstein combines used body parts and electricity to create life. That life turns out to be the monster, who we generally refer to as Frankenstein even though he has no name. Even the title credits to the film refer to Boris Karloff’s character as “The Monster.” Comically enough, the opening credits don’t even give credit to Karloff. Instead an ominous “?” is in the place of his name.

Boris Karloff as Frankenstein’s monster.

In full honesty, I have always preferred the book to any movie version of the Frankenstein story. Mary Shelley manages to combine the tone and false authority of a scientific study with the visceral horror of discovery and invention. I do not believe any Frankenstein film has ever come close to replicating the feeling I get when I read Shelley’s masterpiece. This one is the closest though.

Is it the eerie way the monster ambles about each scene? Watching it now, I see something of Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers in the way Karloff walks and moves.

Is it the scene where the monster plays with the girl and things take a turn for the worse? It’s almost reminiscent of the innocent violence of Lenny in Of Mice and Men.

I can’t quite put my finger on what sets this movie apart. But when you watch it, you get the sense that you are watching a film that will stand the test of time. It somehow feels more complete and compelling than the majority of the movies I have seen from that era.

I would recommend Frankenstein to any fan of horror at any age. It is a classic not to be missed.

I got a copy of Frankenstein using Netflix’s DVD mail service. You can also buy it on Amazon. Here is a trailer so you can get a sense of the movie:

My take: Apparently, the sound of the wind can drive you insane, and the lead actress in this movie does a damn fine job showing that.

The Wind is the seventh movie in Studies in Terror, and it is not strictly a horror film. It is the story of Letty, a young woman from Virginia who moves to Texas to live with on her cousin’s ranch. On the train ride there, she encounters a man who informs her that the strong winds in this area do not stop and frequently drive woman insane. Letty stares in horror out the window at the strong gale beating dust against the pane.

Lillian Gish in The Wind.

In Texas, Letty lives with her cousin for only a short time because his wife is jealous of her. She is forced to pick a suitor, and she moves into his home where the wind seems to creep through the walls and shake the home.

This story is all about the wind and how it drives and mirrors Letty’s behavior. Letty is played by silent film star Lilian Gish, who produced the film. It is evident how much Ms. Gish cared about this role. She does a phenomenal job displaying complex emotions without needing to verbalize them.

They filmed the movie in the Mohave desert, and used 8 airplanes with propellers to simulate the strong winds necessary for the story. Lilian Gish stated that it was her most uncomfortable film experience with the devastating heat and gusting sand.

Movie poster for The Wind.

This really is the silent film-era at its best, and it is sad that this film came at the end of that era. The Wind was released right after the first talkies hit theaters, which is unfortunate. I wonder what epic silent stories have been lost as a result of sound in motion picture.

I would recommend this movie to people who like psychological terror, western dramas and classic films. It is not an easy film to get ahold of though. I had to order a Spanish version of the DVD from Amazon. Spanish DVDs will not play on a standard American DVD player. Fortunately, VLC media player will play just about anything and it started right up when I popped the DVD into my computer. The intertitles were all in English too and only slightly blocked by the Spanish subtitles at the bottom of the screen.

Here is a trailer I found on youtube that can give you a good sense of the film:

My take: Do you like Clue or the House on Haunted Hill? This was a precursor to those tales and will feel very familiar to you.

In The Cat and the Canary, the seventh movie in Studies in Terror, a wealthy old man passes away. All of his relatives gather in his creepy old mansion for a reading of the will, hoping to get their share of the fortune.

A creepy hand reaches out from the wall to snatch young Annabelle’s jewels in The Cat and the Canary.

Young and beautiful Annabelle West, played by Laura LaPlante is named the heir, but there is a catch. If a doctor declares that she is mentally unsound later that night, she will lose the fortune and the new heir will be one who is named in a different sealed envelope.

(Side note: as a lawyer, I have to warn all other fellow lawyers that you need to forget everything you know about wills and estates law while watching this film.)

During the night, we discover that the mansion is filled with secret panels and passageways. We also learn that a madman is on the loose. And the lawyer who holds the sealed envelope naming the hopeful heir is murdered.

Yes, this is a story we have heard over and over again. But the fun in watching it lies in the fact that you are watching one of the first. According to Studies in Terror, this was a film that launched a hundred copycats. While watching The Cat and the Canary, I continually compared it to Clue, The House on Haunted Hill, and episodes of Scooby Doo.

A new theme emerged while I was watching this film. It was directed by the same man who directed Wax Works, Paul Leni. In my opinion, the intervening years did much to improve his directing abilities, and it was fun to see how he had improved his style.

I would recommend this movie to fans of classic movies and those who love films where the characters are all locked together in an old creepy mansion.

I found the movie on Netflix Instant Watch. I also found it on youtube without musical accompaniment:

My take: A fast campy story that was fun to watch.

The sixth movie listed in Studies of Terror, The Unknown comes in at a short 41 minutes. But in the short time, a lot happens and the story moves quickly.

Lon Chaney and Joan Crawford in the Unknown

The plot involves characters in a gypsy circus in Spain. The leading man, played by Lon Chaney, is an armless knife thrower named Alonzo. He is obsessed with Nanon, played by Joan Crawford, a young girl who is terrified of hands (I’m not making this up). Alonzo thinks that this will make things easy in his pursuit of this girl. But there is another suitor, the dashing strongman Malabar. Also, Alonzo happens to still have his hands (yes, it is this ridiculous).

To give more away would ruin the quick story, and it is worth a watch. While the tale is far fetched and at times even ridiculous, the campy tone and fast pace make it entertaining. Also, I was truly surprised by how hot Joan Crawford was in 1927. I am a straight female and I couldn’t take my eyes off her.

By today’s standards, I would not call this film terrifying. But I would still recommend it to people who are interested in old-timey horror, especially since the star is Lon Chaney of Phantom of the Opera fame.

If you want to watch it, you may have to hunt down a DVD copy. I got a copy through Netflix’s DVD service. Here is a good amateur trailer that I found on youtube that can give you a feel for the film:

I also really enjoy this poster:

Poster for The Unknown (1927)

My take: The acting of Conrad Veidt alone makes this a film you must watch. He displays his emotions with the slightest movements of his hands and eyes, and, as a result, you are drawn right into the story.

The Hands of Orlac is the fifth movie listed in Studies in Terror, and it is the first that I am certain I will watch again. It follows the tragic story of Paul Orlac (played by Conrad Veidt), a pianist who is injured in a train crash. Unable to save his hands, the surgeon replaces them with the hands of a recently executed murderer.

Conrad Veidt as Paul Orlac in The Hands of Orlac.

When Orlac awakens and discovers the origin of his new hands, he is filled with despair and fear. He begins to believe that his hands are driven to murder and other nefarious acts. Watching Veidt’s Orlac, you puzzle over whether it is all in his mind or if his hands do have some evil purpose.

This movie was incredibly fun to watch. With Studies in Terror next to me, it didn’t take me too long to realize who I was watching: Conrad Veidt played Cesare in the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and Ivan the Terrible in Waxworks. Suddenly a theme emerges, and that theme made watching Conrad Veidt’s latest work all the better.

The strong emotions he portrayed as the troubled somnambulist Cesare shine through in The Hands of Orlac. Watching his expressions, you are drawn into his tale and can sympathize with the horror and pain Orlac is feeling.

I would definitely recommend this film to fans of horror, especially if you have watched the previous films I’ve blogged about from Studies in Terror.

Here is The Hands of Orlac on youtube:

My take: Max Schreck’s vampire carries the film and makes it worth watching for his spider-like fingers and dominant presence on screen.

I’m at the third movie listed in Studies in Terror: Nosferatu. I’ll admit, I’ve seen this German horror classic before, and I have always liked it. Not only is it a solid vampire movie, especially given its age, but it is also a study in copyright issues. The film follows Stoker’s oft-told tale of Dracula. The difference: director F W Murnau never got the rights from Stoker’s estate. As a result:

Max Schreck as Count Orlok in Nosferatu

• We have Count Orlok and not Count Dracula
• The story does not take place in London, it’s set in Bremen, Germany
• The names are all different (if you are watching an old version of the film)
• Vampire bites do not create more vampires; they lead only to death

I don’t think these changes are necessarily a bad thing. Instead, they set the film apart from the book. The first time you watch it, it is similar enough to the book that you can follow it but the slight variations keep you on edge, unsure of where this particular version will take you.

One thing really popped out at me while watching this movie: somnambulism. When psuedo-Mina Harker’s character was sleepwalking, an intertitle referred to it as a “somnambulistic dream.”  I couldn’t believe it. There was that word again that I had to look up while watching the Cabinet of Dr Caligari. I only noticed because I’m trying to “watch the book.” This seems to be a theme in 1920s horror, and I wonder if it will crop up in other films.

Sleepwalking fad aside, if you like vampire movies, this is the first great one. And anyone who professes a love for horror should watch this film at least once.

You can even find it on youtube now that it is in the public domain:

My take: A bit too long but worth watching all of the creepy vignettes about medieval beliefs when it comes to witchcraft and satan.

Häxan, the second film listed in the book Studies in Terror, definitely has some creepy moments. The movie itself is almost like a documentary. The first 20 or so minutes are entirely textual descriptions of medieval beliefs along with images from that time period. It starts to get good, however, when the film starts showing those images acted out on the screen. This leads to some eerie vignettes involving:

The devil in all his creepy glory.

• Witches literally kissing Satan’s ass
• Demons sacrificing an infant
• Satan tempting a lady out of her marital bed
• A witch selling a love potion made from dove hearts and cat feces

Those are just a few of the scenes that stood out.

This is definitely a movie I would recommend to people who want to see some unique early horror. Some of the shots of the witch’s kitchen could also provide excellent inspiration for a haunted house.

I managed to find this movie on youtube (turn on subtitles or much of the film will be useless to you):