London After Midnight

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.