This reconstruction was obviously a labor of love. But it simply reinforces the uniqueness of film - a compendium of stills set to music is an entirely different medium - and makes the loss of London After Midnight and all other vanished films all the more heart-breaking. That's not to say there's no place for this kind of thing; certainly it was used in a positive way to fill in the gaps in the 1954 A Star Is Born. But to watch a reconstruction of an entire film becomes rather tedious. So, this is interesting, useful - but inevitably unsatisfying.
13 Reviews
Stills Restoration Interesting...
Space_Mafune5 July 2003
but it can't replace the original film work as others have said here. While it certainly casts some new light on LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT (1927) and some of us finally get to see what it was all about, it's never going to be able to in any way duplicate the experience those who first enjoyed the film in the theater had..still it was fascinating to see so many previously unseen stills from this movie especially those which show off Lon Chaney's most unusual make-up.
The Legend in Vault 7
DarthVoorhees8 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
London After Midnight is without a doubt the most sought after lost film in history.So badly do we want to see The Man in the Beaver Hat have motion that TCM made this reconstruction that gives a loose idea of what the plot was like. This reconstruction gives us more or less a taste of what this picture might have looked like on the screen but I think TCM failed to understand the allure of London After Midnight. Most Chaney fans accept the fact that London After Midnight received poor to lukewarm reviews but Chaney's make-up and characterization through the photos we have left have left us fascinated. The Chaney fan in me wants the much better film The Miracle Man to be found but the kid in me wants London After Midnight. This make-up is some of the best in film history, I argue that the vampire in London After Midnight is Chaney's finest make-up and the picture hasn't been seen by mainstream audiences in 80 years.
I can tell that the best people were involved with this reconstruction of the picture and that they meant well but inevitably people will be disappointed. London After Midnight without action is exactly what it has been all along, lifeless. The fact that all we have left are these still photographs doesn't quench our thirst in the least bit, it makes us even thirstier. I know Lon Chaney's characterization and performance must have been fascinating and when we see that outstanding make-up in a narrative fashion we want to see it move with life. Browning's sense of the macabre and the atmosphere of terror are all too ingrained in what we have left.
The finished product? It's actually watchable, I know a lot of people complain about reconstructions but I thought this one was okay. The narrative is pretty much intact even when they have trouble finding images for scenes. The crew even gives us some seldom seen photos which show the supporting cast give some interesting interpretations of their characters. My favorite thing about this production was the score which is outstanding, very dark and foreboding and much like what this film probably was scored with in the 1920's.
As for the plot, I'll put my money that many people would be disappointed if London After Midnight was found because they didn't grasp the plot. Tod Borwning's 1935 remake Mark of the Vampire is in essence a faithful remake and it has been panned for it's "fake vampires". Chaney plays a Scottland Yard detective named Burke who uses hypnosis and fear to try to find the murderer of Roger Balfour. Burke is in fact the Vampire who haunts the Balfour mansion, he plans to scare the killer into a confession. Not many people like the plot after reading it and seeing this reconstruction, I do. Chaney is playing something he seldom got to play, a smart man and a hero at that. Is the plot a little far fetched? Undoubtedly so but this is Tod Browning we are talking about here with Lon Chaney in the lead role. With the atmosphere and a great performance by Chaney I have no doubt that this film could have been good even great.
The loss of London After Midnight is all the more tragic because it is the crucial representation of how badly the studios took care of their films in the early days of motion pictures. Lon Chaney was without a doubt one of the best actors who ever lived and yet less than 50% of his filmography is left to judge him with. If you want London After Midnight to be found donate to film preservation programs. I hope and pray that London After Midnight is found in some dusty old attic one day but until then this is what we have and I applaud TCM for trying to satisfy the fans who mourn the loss of burnt nitrate from MGM;s vault 7.
I can tell that the best people were involved with this reconstruction of the picture and that they meant well but inevitably people will be disappointed. London After Midnight without action is exactly what it has been all along, lifeless. The fact that all we have left are these still photographs doesn't quench our thirst in the least bit, it makes us even thirstier. I know Lon Chaney's characterization and performance must have been fascinating and when we see that outstanding make-up in a narrative fashion we want to see it move with life. Browning's sense of the macabre and the atmosphere of terror are all too ingrained in what we have left.
The finished product? It's actually watchable, I know a lot of people complain about reconstructions but I thought this one was okay. The narrative is pretty much intact even when they have trouble finding images for scenes. The crew even gives us some seldom seen photos which show the supporting cast give some interesting interpretations of their characters. My favorite thing about this production was the score which is outstanding, very dark and foreboding and much like what this film probably was scored with in the 1920's.
As for the plot, I'll put my money that many people would be disappointed if London After Midnight was found because they didn't grasp the plot. Tod Borwning's 1935 remake Mark of the Vampire is in essence a faithful remake and it has been panned for it's "fake vampires". Chaney plays a Scottland Yard detective named Burke who uses hypnosis and fear to try to find the murderer of Roger Balfour. Burke is in fact the Vampire who haunts the Balfour mansion, he plans to scare the killer into a confession. Not many people like the plot after reading it and seeing this reconstruction, I do. Chaney is playing something he seldom got to play, a smart man and a hero at that. Is the plot a little far fetched? Undoubtedly so but this is Tod Browning we are talking about here with Lon Chaney in the lead role. With the atmosphere and a great performance by Chaney I have no doubt that this film could have been good even great.
The loss of London After Midnight is all the more tragic because it is the crucial representation of how badly the studios took care of their films in the early days of motion pictures. Lon Chaney was without a doubt one of the best actors who ever lived and yet less than 50% of his filmography is left to judge him with. If you want London After Midnight to be found donate to film preservation programs. I hope and pray that London After Midnight is found in some dusty old attic one day but until then this is what we have and I applaud TCM for trying to satisfy the fans who mourn the loss of burnt nitrate from MGM;s vault 7.
Excellent representation - the only choice
thedevilmyself26 July 2004
Now, i saw this movie thinking at first that i was going to get to see the original, as i didn't yet know the history, but thankfully at the beginning, they tell you the history. Given that, the script was amazing, and the stills leave you wanting more. Really i think that if anything this will cause more people to be aware of the greatness of LAM and maybe bring that lost reel out of the woodwork.
The stills are more than i've found anywhere else, and it's amazing so many quality pictures still exist. The only questionable part is at the beginning when they mention the previous movie, they say "21* years ago" *don't remember the actual number, but it was in the 20's... when the remake was made in 2002. Curious. Was there a remake made in 1950something?
The stills are more than i've found anywhere else, and it's amazing so many quality pictures still exist. The only questionable part is at the beginning when they mention the previous movie, they say "21* years ago" *don't remember the actual number, but it was in the 20's... when the remake was made in 2002. Curious. Was there a remake made in 1950something?
As of yet, still the only way to watch this classic 1927 movie.
Boba_Fett11383 February 2007
"London After Midnight" is perhaps the most sought after movie, that is presumed lost. The only remaining print of it was destroyed in a fire in the late '60's. I tend to say no. Remaining still existing pictures of Lon Chaney in full make-up effect added to the hype of this movie and also the fact that this Tod Browning movie features vampires, 4 years before he made the horror-classic "Dracula", starring Bela Lugosi. In 2002 a reconstruction, made from still photographs of the 1927 was made and aired on TCM. It's an attempt to retell the story and show how the movie must have been like, also with the help of persons who had actually seen the 1927 movie at the time of its release. It's an interesting experiment and attempt to reconstruct a lost movie, though it of course doesn't work out as good as the moving images would had.
The movie purely consists out of photographs. It makes the sequence feel rather limited in terms of its mood, acting and overall storytelling. It's a flat and far from engaging way of film-making, that is not always easy to watch. I mean, you can just as good read a paper version of this movie with pictures in it and let your own imagination do the work. It perhaps would work out way better than this movie eventually did.
The movie features a whole lot of characters that don't get properly introduced (but then again, how could they). It makes the movie confusing and also from an engaging one to watch.
The story and its plot really don't work out because of the way of storytelling. The movie is more of a murder-mystery than a horror-movie, like you perhaps would expect from persons like director Tod Browning and actor Lon Chaney. I suggest that if you want to understand the story, you watch "Mark of the Vampire". A 1935 sort of remake of this movie, also directed by Tod Browning and starring Lionel Barrymore and Bela Lugosi.
But was the 'real' "London After Midnight" really a great classic movie? I tend to say no. At the rime of its release the movie already got mixed reactions from the critics, though the movie still was the highest grossing Tod Browning/Lon Chaney movie.
The story was too weak and messy to make this a classic must-see. It isn't a very intriguing story and the movie misses tension, a good solid main plot and likable main characters. But of course it's impossible to say this with a 100% certainty, since I haven't seen the 'real' moving full length version of this movie, for the obvious reason.
It really looked like Lon Chaney's presence uplifted the movie though, both with his looks and performance. He looked genuine creepy in his role, with some great make-up effects and mimics from 'the man of a thousand faces'. It's the reason why this movie is still probably better than the average one from the same genre, especially for 1927 standards. Also Edna Tichenor as Luna the Bat Girl looked impressive in her role.
The sets looked good and it must had given the movie a real good and creepy kind of atmosphere, I assume. Like mentioned before, the make-up effects also looked really convincing and are now part of the movie its legacy and status among movie lovers.
This movie forms a good enough alternative to still be able to watch this lost 1927 movie from legendary director Tod Browning and actor Lon Chaney, until the real movie shows up again somewhere, though this isn't very likely to ever happen.
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
The movie purely consists out of photographs. It makes the sequence feel rather limited in terms of its mood, acting and overall storytelling. It's a flat and far from engaging way of film-making, that is not always easy to watch. I mean, you can just as good read a paper version of this movie with pictures in it and let your own imagination do the work. It perhaps would work out way better than this movie eventually did.
The movie features a whole lot of characters that don't get properly introduced (but then again, how could they). It makes the movie confusing and also from an engaging one to watch.
The story and its plot really don't work out because of the way of storytelling. The movie is more of a murder-mystery than a horror-movie, like you perhaps would expect from persons like director Tod Browning and actor Lon Chaney. I suggest that if you want to understand the story, you watch "Mark of the Vampire". A 1935 sort of remake of this movie, also directed by Tod Browning and starring Lionel Barrymore and Bela Lugosi.
But was the 'real' "London After Midnight" really a great classic movie? I tend to say no. At the rime of its release the movie already got mixed reactions from the critics, though the movie still was the highest grossing Tod Browning/Lon Chaney movie.
The story was too weak and messy to make this a classic must-see. It isn't a very intriguing story and the movie misses tension, a good solid main plot and likable main characters. But of course it's impossible to say this with a 100% certainty, since I haven't seen the 'real' moving full length version of this movie, for the obvious reason.
It really looked like Lon Chaney's presence uplifted the movie though, both with his looks and performance. He looked genuine creepy in his role, with some great make-up effects and mimics from 'the man of a thousand faces'. It's the reason why this movie is still probably better than the average one from the same genre, especially for 1927 standards. Also Edna Tichenor as Luna the Bat Girl looked impressive in her role.
The sets looked good and it must had given the movie a real good and creepy kind of atmosphere, I assume. Like mentioned before, the make-up effects also looked really convincing and are now part of the movie its legacy and status among movie lovers.
This movie forms a good enough alternative to still be able to watch this lost 1927 movie from legendary director Tod Browning and actor Lon Chaney, until the real movie shows up again somewhere, though this isn't very likely to ever happen.
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
Stupid piece of crap
mrdonleone20 March 2019
So anyway you know that song off what's-her-name Patsy Cline going I keep on walking after midnight so darling hold me tight don't make me cry over you or something that the point is I did cry and it was over this movie was really stupid when and you wouldn't expect the stupid movie to come from the great actor Lon Chaney that you love so much the person you love so much whom you love so much especially for his great scary movie performances and you do expect the best out of such a fellow yes sir you want to be excited to be blown away by by excitement it's incredible that this movie was incredibly stupid and why for God's sake with your try to put together a movie which was Burgers wasn't worth it I don't understand it may be the descendants of Chaney said hey we want this movie to be fine and okay you have a new vampire thing going on at the deception game but it's not clearly don't you know it's a whole big problem because you don't see it the end what really happened because you don't it's not a reason that you said okay and you know I need some paperwork from the internet to understand really what happened to her it was really all stupid and most of it was boring my partner fell asleep and so did I and I would have loved to make love to my partner but I didn't the fortunately I watch this stupid movie it was meant to be scary movie with only scary thing about it was indeed the performance of the guy of Lon Chaney himself but it wasn't so interesting the movie wasn't great only interesting part was the with the teeth and the tooth and the everything of the main character who was also let us be serious here the bad guy yes let us just see it the way it was and that is all that I have to say about this movie I would rather see all the other movies of those brown and then this one I really did not like it and maybe it would have made a difference if you really side before the burning but then again what foreign idiots only keeps all the copies together at the same place to burn it onto your stupid m*********** an idiot so it doesn't make sense
A contemporary movie in a classical era.
jerryrodriguez20002 October 2006
I would like to disagree with the above. I thought that the use of the remaining stills to recompose this movie, was brilliantly done. It was, indeed, obviously a labor of love, but now, we at least have SOME idea of what the audience saw in 1927...here it is, 2006, and I thought that for it's time, it probably WAS frightening. And Chaney's makeup is outstanding. The people of that era weren't used to those kinds of images on the screen, so I imagine that they were probably petrified by Chaney and his ghastly makeup, which, for its day, was superb, as I stated before. I'm clearly a Chaney fan, however, so, more than likely, I am truly biased.
All in all, this was brilliant, I thought.
All in all, this was brilliant, I thought.
Reconstruction
ashfordofficial28 March 2022
A 45/47-minute reconstruction using the same still photographs with added camera motion, released by Turner Classic Movies in 2002.
It's such a shame that we had to watch an influential film like this in this format. I'm grateful for TCM for this reconstruction.
It's such a shame that we had to watch an influential film like this in this format. I'm grateful for TCM for this reconstruction.
Satisfied with the Reconstruction
the_mysteriousx3 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
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
The Impossibility of Reconstructing a Lost Film
Cineanalyst29 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers Warning Elaborated: This review may contain spoilers for the films "Dracula" (1931), "Mark of the Vampire" (1935) and, if possible for a lost film, "London After Midnight" (1927).
This, Rick Schmidlin's reconstruction of the lost silent film "London After Midnight" (1927) is interesting. It demonstrates the impossibility of reconstructing a lost film in the sense of restoring it; instead, it is an entirely different thing that barely even resembles a motion picture. Yet, presented as a film, with title cards, intertitles and a musical score and otherwise using still photographs in place of the lost celluloid, it's the closest approximation in lieu of a rediscovered print.
Unfortunately, perhaps due to the limited number of stills and this reconstruction's presentation as a film approximation, the plot of "London After Midnight" is a bit confusing, which isn't helped by the reconstruction, overall, being dull due to its reliance on stills. It's like reading a reconstruction of the film in book format, which exists. Philip J. Riley, author of a reconstruction of the film as a book, however, seems to have a bad reputation for dishonesty on website forums such as NitrateVille and the Classic Horror Film Board.
Anyways, although the 1927 film may be the most desired lost film, there seems to be the common sense among the most devoted silent and horror film fans (as in the aforementioned forums and some other IMDb reviews) that it probably wasn't a great movie. Maybe so, and there are likely other lost films I'd rather see—being that most silent films are lost (e.g. the loss of another Lon Chaney photoplay, his star- turning role in "The Miracle Man" (1919), seems especially lamentable). Nevertheless, 1927's "London After Midnight" is a conceptually intriguing narrative. In a way, it was director Tod Browning's first of three attempts at adapting Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula," with the 1931 film being the only official adaptation. The third film and an unacknowledged remake of "London After Midnight" is "Mark of the Vampire" (1935), which like the 1931 "Dracula" stars Bela Lugosi.
Unlike "Dracula," the other two films are not of the supernatural horror genre, but rather are murder mysteries—the supernatural being explained away in the end by it having been a ruse to catch the crook. The 1931 "Dracula" largely invented the Hollywood genre of horror; before it, mystery pictures tended to be the closest thing, but these would explain away supernatural shocks in the end. Horror mysteries, let's call them, were also common in theatrical productions and, indeed, Stoker's Gothic horror novel was turned into a mystery on the stage. "London After Midnight" was released to capitalize on the popularity of such a contemporary play. It even keeps the names of Arthur and Lucy/Lucille from Stoker. Moreover, all three of the films are relatively stagy in their confinements for large portions of their runtimes to versions of Seward's home and Dracula's Carfax Abbey—demonstrating the influence the play had on all of them.
As this reconstruction makes clear, "London After Midnight," interestingly, features a vampire book. Seeming to reference its source in Stoker's novel, as well as the epistolary structure of it, by having a vampire book within the adaptation is a device that has been used in a few vampire films. The first was probably "Nosferatu" (1922). "Vampyr" (1932), "Son of Dracula" (1943) and "Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary" (2002) also make good use of it.
The main thing "London After Midnight" has going for it that the other two films don't, however, is Lon Chaney, and this is where the film may've been especially clever. Renowned for using makeup and other effects for dramatic and shocking transformations, Chaney played dual roles here: one without makeup (the Van Helsing type) and one with (the Dracula type). This may've been a clever self- reference when Chaney's character's makeup-enhanced acting was revealed. "Mark of the Vampire" has a similar self-referential aspect altered for the persona of its star Lugosi.
The duality of the Dracula and Van Helsing types is also interesting. It seems to get at something of the parallelisms between the two Stoker characters. Although fighting on opposite sides, both men have hypnotic powers, both apply blood transfusions of a sort to women (the proto-scientific sort and, from Drac, feeding breast blood) and both are foreigners who convert the Anglican English to their cults (vampirism for Drac and Catholicism for Van Helsing). And, reading the end of the novel, I suspected there was some deviant trickery about the old Dutchman insisting on traveling with Mina alone while he frequently puts her under his spell.
This, Rick Schmidlin's reconstruction of the lost silent film "London After Midnight" (1927) is interesting. It demonstrates the impossibility of reconstructing a lost film in the sense of restoring it; instead, it is an entirely different thing that barely even resembles a motion picture. Yet, presented as a film, with title cards, intertitles and a musical score and otherwise using still photographs in place of the lost celluloid, it's the closest approximation in lieu of a rediscovered print.
Unfortunately, perhaps due to the limited number of stills and this reconstruction's presentation as a film approximation, the plot of "London After Midnight" is a bit confusing, which isn't helped by the reconstruction, overall, being dull due to its reliance on stills. It's like reading a reconstruction of the film in book format, which exists. Philip J. Riley, author of a reconstruction of the film as a book, however, seems to have a bad reputation for dishonesty on website forums such as NitrateVille and the Classic Horror Film Board.
Anyways, although the 1927 film may be the most desired lost film, there seems to be the common sense among the most devoted silent and horror film fans (as in the aforementioned forums and some other IMDb reviews) that it probably wasn't a great movie. Maybe so, and there are likely other lost films I'd rather see—being that most silent films are lost (e.g. the loss of another Lon Chaney photoplay, his star- turning role in "The Miracle Man" (1919), seems especially lamentable). Nevertheless, 1927's "London After Midnight" is a conceptually intriguing narrative. In a way, it was director Tod Browning's first of three attempts at adapting Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula," with the 1931 film being the only official adaptation. The third film and an unacknowledged remake of "London After Midnight" is "Mark of the Vampire" (1935), which like the 1931 "Dracula" stars Bela Lugosi.
Unlike "Dracula," the other two films are not of the supernatural horror genre, but rather are murder mysteries—the supernatural being explained away in the end by it having been a ruse to catch the crook. The 1931 "Dracula" largely invented the Hollywood genre of horror; before it, mystery pictures tended to be the closest thing, but these would explain away supernatural shocks in the end. Horror mysteries, let's call them, were also common in theatrical productions and, indeed, Stoker's Gothic horror novel was turned into a mystery on the stage. "London After Midnight" was released to capitalize on the popularity of such a contemporary play. It even keeps the names of Arthur and Lucy/Lucille from Stoker. Moreover, all three of the films are relatively stagy in their confinements for large portions of their runtimes to versions of Seward's home and Dracula's Carfax Abbey—demonstrating the influence the play had on all of them.
As this reconstruction makes clear, "London After Midnight," interestingly, features a vampire book. Seeming to reference its source in Stoker's novel, as well as the epistolary structure of it, by having a vampire book within the adaptation is a device that has been used in a few vampire films. The first was probably "Nosferatu" (1922). "Vampyr" (1932), "Son of Dracula" (1943) and "Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary" (2002) also make good use of it.
The main thing "London After Midnight" has going for it that the other two films don't, however, is Lon Chaney, and this is where the film may've been especially clever. Renowned for using makeup and other effects for dramatic and shocking transformations, Chaney played dual roles here: one without makeup (the Van Helsing type) and one with (the Dracula type). This may've been a clever self- reference when Chaney's character's makeup-enhanced acting was revealed. "Mark of the Vampire" has a similar self-referential aspect altered for the persona of its star Lugosi.
The duality of the Dracula and Van Helsing types is also interesting. It seems to get at something of the parallelisms between the two Stoker characters. Although fighting on opposite sides, both men have hypnotic powers, both apply blood transfusions of a sort to women (the proto-scientific sort and, from Drac, feeding breast blood) and both are foreigners who convert the Anglican English to their cults (vampirism for Drac and Catholicism for Van Helsing). And, reading the end of the novel, I suspected there was some deviant trickery about the old Dutchman insisting on traveling with Mina alone while he frequently puts her under his spell.
A commendable effort....
poe42621 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Given that London AFTER MIDNIGHT may never be found intact, the "stills restoration" that's been done is indeed a commendable effort. Like the French montage LA JETEE (which was remade by Terry Gilliam as 12 MONKEYS), this version of the Lost Chaney will suffice until something better comes along. There's striking imagery throughout (which the stills, which are simply frozen feature film frames, anyway, clearly convey) and the editing keeps things moving at a fairly brisk pace. The use of slow zooms and pans to zero in on significant details for dramatic effect- something that didn't happen in feature films of the period- add immeasurably to the proceedings. (In fact, one suspects, the "stills restoration" may, in some ways, outshine the "persistence of vision" Browning version: Browning's sense of pacing was always slow and deliberate- sometimes detrimentally so.) All in all, it's a painstaking pastiche and we'll just have to settle for that for the nonce.
Good Viewing
Michael_Elliott27 February 2008
London After Midnight (2002)
*** (out of 4)
Tod Browning's lost and highly sought after film got a photo reconstruction several years ago that tries to capture the mood and feel of that original film and for the most part I think this works. In fact, these photos are still a lot more entertaining than Browning's 1935 remake Mark of the vampire. As I've said countless times before, it's probably best that this film remains lost because if it were ever found then all the mystery and legendary status would probably be gone since most reviewers called this a very poor film. It's doubtful the film will ever be found but I'd love to just see a few moving frames of Chaney as the vampire because the make up is so incredible that I'd love to see how Chaney played the role.
*** (out of 4)
Tod Browning's lost and highly sought after film got a photo reconstruction several years ago that tries to capture the mood and feel of that original film and for the most part I think this works. In fact, these photos are still a lot more entertaining than Browning's 1935 remake Mark of the vampire. As I've said countless times before, it's probably best that this film remains lost because if it were ever found then all the mystery and legendary status would probably be gone since most reviewers called this a very poor film. It's doubtful the film will ever be found but I'd love to just see a few moving frames of Chaney as the vampire because the make up is so incredible that I'd love to see how Chaney played the role.
A Beautiful Still Restoration
Leahcurry31 July 2003
When I learned that "London after Midnight" was going to be on, I thought it was the actual film, and was very eager to see it. At first I was slightly disappointed when I saw pictures instead of action. However, my disappointment was quickly gone. In essence, the restoration was a "silent film" but had no motion. The "still acting" was masterful, and it was so easy to understand the characters. The script and sets were great, the timing between the "shots" was good, particularly when different angles of a subject were changed rapidly. I am a Lon Chaney fan, and his close-ups are masterpieces. He truly stole the show, although it had a good cast. Chaney was unrecognizeable in his unsettling vampire makeup, and it helped make his performance as the vampire more potent. Coupled with his performance as the highly intelligent, take-charge Inspector Burke, he's truly a winner.
I am curious to see the actual film, but I am greatly impressed with the restoration TCM did. They tried to get the restoration as much like the film as possible, and because of that, it is a godsend.
I am curious to see the actual film, but I am greatly impressed with the restoration TCM did. They tried to get the restoration as much like the film as possible, and because of that, it is a godsend.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
