All Anime Applications Games Movies Music TV shows Other

London After Midnight (1927) Lon Chaney, Marceline Day, Henry B Walthall

    Seeders : 0      Leechers : 0

Note :

Please Update (Trackers Info) Before Start "London After Midnight (1927) Lon Chaney, Marceline Day, Henry B Walthall" Torrent Downloading to See Updated Seeders And Leechers for Batter Torrent Download Speed.

Trackers List

Torrent File Content (2 files)

Description

Movies : Horror : DVD Rip : English



A reconstruction, made from still photographs, of the lost 1927 Tod Browning film London
After Midnight (1927) starring Lon Chaney .
Director: Rick Schmidlin
Writers: Tod Browning (story "The
Hypnotist"), Joseph Farnham | 1 more credit »
Stars: Lon Chaney, Marceline Day, Andy MacLennan | See full
cast & crew »

A reconstruction, made from still photographs, of the lost 1927 Tod
Browning film London After Midnight (1927) starring Lon Chaney.

—Anonymous

 5/10
Admirable but inevitably unsatisfying
Neal9916 May 2003
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.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No
| Report this
 10/10

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.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report this
 6/10

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.
4 out of 4 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report this
 7/10

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.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review
helpful? Yes No | Report this
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?
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report this
 8/10

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
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report this
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.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was
this review helpful? Yes No | Report this
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.
2 out of 4
found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report this
 5/10

The Impossibility of
Reconstructing a Lost Film
Cineanalyst29 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers


Warning:
Spoilers

Warning Elaborated: This review may contain Warning: 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.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report
this
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.
2 out of 5 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report this
 7/10

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/
2 out of 7
found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report this 

Related torrents

Torrent Name	Added	Size	Seed	Leech	Health
The Unknown (1927) Lon Chaney, Joan Crawford [No Russian Subtitles]	1 Year+ - in Movies	220.46 MB	1	0
Only Darkness Vol I I (Kirlian Camera, Sanguis Et Cinis, London After Midnight, ..	1 Year+ - in Other	134.24 MB	0	0
London After Midnight [Discography]	1 Year+ - in Other	367.34 MB	0	0
London After Midnight - Discography - 9 releases (1990-2007) [MP3@320]	1 Year+ - in Music	1.13 GB	0	0
The Unknown avi Lon Chaney 1927	1 Year+ - in Movies	381.67 MB	0	0

Note :

Feel free to post any comments about this torrent, including links to Subtitle, samples, screenshots, or any other relevant information. Watch London After Midnight (1927) Lon Chaney, Marceline Day, Henry B Walthall Full Movie Online Free, Like 123Movies, FMovies, Putlocker, Netflix or Direct Download Torrent London After Midnight (1927) Lon Chaney, Marceline Day, Henry B Walthall via Magnet Download Link.

Comments (0 Comments)

Please login or create a FREE account to post comments