London After Midnight (2002 TV Movie)
8/10
Satisfied with the Reconstruction
3 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I must admit I am totally satisfied with the reconstructed version that aired on TCM on Halloween a few years back. Rick Schmidlin has really done a wonderful thing and given the people who care (the fans) a chance to see how the script looked and how the story moved for this famous lost film.

In all truth, judging by Browning's other silents of the period, Schmidlin probably improved upon the pacing of this film by giving us more "shock" close-ups of Chaney in that wonderful make-up. The use of stills also probably saved us from being distracted with some ham acting as well. Just like watching a letterbox film on television, after the first five minutes, my mind settled into the tempo and pacing and I really did enjoy the story. It had much more to do with vampire lore than I thought it would and was so perfect to air on Halloween night.

The film reconstruction was about 20 minutes shorter than the original cut. LAM truly was a Chaney picture from beginning to end. He is much more prominent than either Lionel Barrymore or Bela Lugosi in the 1935 Mark of the Vampire. I enjoyed the story more than the 1935 version too. Thank god they did not have that ridiculous "cupping the blood with a hot glass" solution. It is much more simple and clear to have it be a gun shot and they still had all of the great Gothic vampire atmosphere. Also, characters were missing, such as Lionel Atwill's character from the 1935 film. Chaney really carried the picture.

The music score was too excellent, highlighting Chaney's vampire and giving us some other recurring themes that we associate with silent horror classics. And the camera movements were excellent and after a slow opening they seemed to have more stills to work with and made good use of them too. All in all, an important, delightful work! 8/10
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed