Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueThe abandoned home of a wealthy man who supposedly committed suicide five years earlier is taken over by ghoulish figures - could they be vampires?The abandoned home of a wealthy man who supposedly committed suicide five years earlier is taken over by ghoulish figures - could they be vampires?The abandoned home of a wealthy man who supposedly committed suicide five years earlier is taken over by ghoulish figures - could they be vampires?
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Real Estate Broker
- (uncredited)
- Gallagher
- (uncredited)
- Real Estate Man
- (uncredited)
- Burkes assistant
- (uncredited)
Avis en vedette
So, my high rating of this movie is not because of the inherit quality of the movie itself, but they enjoyment of watching a restoration of it.
Before viewing the restoration by Mr. Schmidlin, consider watching the other Tod Browning (director), Lon Cheney (actor), and Merritt B. Gerstad (cameraman) collaboration "The Unknown" (1927); it may provide the best indication of how "London After Midnight" might have looked on the motion picture screen. Then, see Browning's re-make "Mark of the Vampire" (1935); its script closely follows "London After Midnight", and it will help explain some story elements limited by the movie stills available.
I'm speculating the performances of Lon Chaney (as Prof. Edward Burke) and Henry B. Walthall (as Sir James Hamlin) were noteworthy, but the story disappointing. Conrad Nagel (as Arthur Hibbs) must have been very impressive; he would shortly co-star with none other than Greta Garbo, in 1928 and 1929 films. And, certainly, Marceline Day was lovely (as Lucille Balfour).
******* London After Midnight (12/3/27) Tod Browning ~ Lon Chaney, Henry B. Walthall, Conrad Nagel
I won't give this film a numerical rating, as the film no longer exists--at least not in any known archive. Turner Classic Movies recently showed what purported to be "London After Midnight" and I saw it on a DVD with "The Unknown" but it was a strange reconstruction--a film that should have been left lost if you ask me. Using the original intertitles and LOTS of stills from the movie, they attempted to re-create the film--without any actual film! Now I am a die-hard lover of silents and especially love the films of Lon Chaney, but this sort of reconstruction is simply ridiculous. It just isn't THE original film nor is it even a truncated version--it's a bizarre attempt to recreate the film from nothing--totally bizarre. To give the film a sense of movement, the camera moves about the stills--but again, these are just stills! And so, the film is lifeless--with no more energy than simply reading the screenplay. I say with such re-creations it's best to just leave them alone and put your energy into piecing together films with PORTIONS missing--not the entire film! I've seen such re-creations (such as Frank Capra's "Lost Horizon") and since the missing portions are filled in with stills for only tiny portions, it's very acceptable. This one, in my opinion, was a HUGE mistake and not worth your time.
It also helps if you've seen Browning's remake of this same story called THE MARK OF THE VAMPIRE ('35) with its surprise ending being made much clearer than it is in this reconstruction where there is only one caption that even hints at what was going on with the theatrics.
I was captivated by the dark-haired beauty of MARCELINE DAY and appalled at the silent histrionics of CONRAD NAGEL who wore the same look of horror and disbelief in every shot. The ending was blunted without giving a full explanation for any of the doings, which is why seeing the '35 version is advisable for anyone who is still confused.
The '35 version had BELA LUGOSI, LIONEL ATWILL and LIONEL BARRYMORE in key roles and was extremely well worth viewing. This silent version, reconstructed with stills, appeared to be beautifully photographed with appropriately cobweb-covered interiors and intense B&W lighting for atmospheric effects.
Chaney's make-up appeared to be quite startling--for me it was even more so than his "Phantom" disguise--and his Inspector Burke seemed a very forceful creation judging from the intense finger waving stills.
Well done reconstruction except for the weak ending which missed making its point. The background score was fine.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesIt is believed that this film existed until 1965. Inventory records indicated that the only remaining print was being stored in MGM's vault #7 which was destroyed by a fire that year. By that point in time, all other elements had been destroyed or were missing.
- Citations
Miss Smithson, the New Maid: Honest, Sir James... they're dead people from the grave! Vampires is what they are!
Sir.James Hamlin: Professor Burke is to be our house-guest, Williams. Have rooms prepared for him.
Professor Edward C. Burke: It's unnerving, Mr. Hibbs! The new maid swears to your Uncle that she saw living dead people in the Balfour house!
Sir.James Hamlin: Burke, I've called you in again because I believe these strange people leasing Balfour's house link up with his death.
Professor Edward C. Burke: We found his note... and his own pistol beside him! That's suicide, isn't it?
Sir.James Hamlin: Then what can it all mean? Mysterious people! Lights! Weird noises! And come... see this!
- Autres versionsAlthough live-action prints of "London After Midnight" are long lost, a reconstruction of the film made entirely from still photographs has been prepared by Rick Shmidlin for Turner Classic Movies. This reconstruction runs about 40 minutes and premiered on October 31st, 2002.
- ConnexionsEdited into Goofy Movies Number Six (1934)
Meilleurs choix
Détails
Box-office
- Budget
- 152 000 $ US (estimation)
- Durée
- 1h 9m(69 min)
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.33 : 1