Transilvânia - Hotel do Outro Lado do Mundo

Okay, this is a VERY silly film. I hadn't seen it in many years, but I vividly remembered a few scenes really standing out as quite funny to me. I just now re-watched it and I basically came away with the same impression.

If you don't care for really silly physical humour, than you likely won't care for this movie very much. Also, in my lowly and wretched opinion, I didn't think that the last 20 minutes or so were really that good, sadly. Thus the reason I only gave this film a '6'

BUT... FWIW... there are a handful of scenes that are clearly ad-libbed and not scripted. THOSE are the best ones! I think I remember reading several years ago about Michael Richard's scenes, especially at the 'dinner' being completely improvised. And YES, they are super silly, but for some reason I honestly found them very funny. You can easily tell that Jeff Goldblum is genuinely laughing during Richards' antics at the table. And, the scenes between Carol kane and John Byner, especially the very first one in the kitchen which was also improvised, were great! The timing and cadence of their lines back and forth in that first scene are excellent!

But, unfortunately, towards the end they started going for very broad 'Comedy' which was kind of ho-hum. It's interesting to me how so many films that try to be funny or silly usually fall kind of flat. But, in this case, especially with the handful of scenes that I mentioned, I think they came across really well, mainly because they struck me as genuine and spontaneous rather than flatly scripted. I think that if they had kept it more along the lines of the small sight and sound gags rather than going for 'situational' comedy, that would have played to the strengths of the film a lot better.

So, if you like 'Silly' at all, you might find at least some of this film entertaining.

I remember seeing this movie so many years ago,i liked it then and i love it now.I'm a huge fan of New World movies from the post-Corman era of the mid-late-80's.They made cheesy but good B-movies such as "Night Patrol","Tuff Turf","18 Again"and this one.Jeff Goldblum does an excellent job as the dead-pan straight man who does'nt believe in monsters(same as Bill Murray who did'nt believe in ghosts in"Ghostbusters")and Ed Begley,Jr.is also good as the monster believing neurotic.This movie would of been made from a bigger studio if there had been a bigger budget,cuz of the all-star cast.

Michael Richards is funny as the comedian butler,although he's been funnier on Seinfeld and in"UHF".John Byner,Carol Kane,Joseph Balogna,Geena Davis,Jeffery Jones and Theresa Ganzel are also good as a supporting cast.The plot is great,the characters are quirky but they work,the editing is fine,and the locations are adequate.The soundtrack even has its moments.Transylvania 65-000 is an 80's campy classic comedy.10 out of 10.

Two tabloid reporters head to modern Transylvania - now a charming eastern European tourist trap - in pursuit of a story about monsters, and find the place over-run with vampires, mummies, werewolves etc. Ed Begley Jr. and Jeff Goldblum have good on-screen chemistry together as the luckless writers, but the script does them few favors. The tone of the movie is all over the place, aiming for wacky and scary by turns, but that sort of approach (familiar to Abbott and Costello fans) takes finesse that is not on display here. The production designers worked hard to create an attractive and convincing modern monster movie setting and mostly succeeded, but the script has a too-many-rewrites-by- committee feel and the material is very weak for the most part. Geena Davis has a very appealing bit as a beautiful vampire wannabe, but most of the supporting performances are not well fleshed out and are occasionally just absurd. Joseph Bologna, as always, chews the scenery outrageously as a mad scientist, plus Michael Richards is just annoying and unfunny as a clumsy bellhop. There are a few genuine laughs here and Davis' first appearance in vampire gear is worth a rewind, but most of the movie is just exasperatingly unfunny and tiresome. Avoid.

I loved anything connected with horror as a kid. As such, as a boy, I watched many stupid horror comedies that I didn't know any better than to watch at the time, case in point, Jim Carrey's ridiculous Once Bitten. However, this movie is one of three horror comedies I loved as a boy that is still funny to me today (the other two being A&C Meet Frankenstein and Young Frankenstein). Mostly because it was writer/director Rudy DeLuca's (very funny man who works for Mel Brooks today) 1980's update of the classic Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. It's funny as hell, and anybody who didn't think so at the time should pick up the new DVD and check it out again.

Interesting post scripts to the movie's production:

1. Goldblum and Begley's parts were to be played by Bosom Buddies' own Tom Hanks and Peter Scolari respectively, but New World would not let them play the parts because they didn't know who the hell they were. 2. Michael Richards' dimwitted servant Fejos was not originally the clumsy idiot he is in the movie. Richards was recommended for the role by his friend Begley, and characteristically fell all over himself at his audition. As a result, he ad-libbed every one of Fejos' physical acts and they were all kept.

I just have to mention this. My favorite line in the movie is after Geena Davis' lady Dracula attacks Begley from Goldblum.

Begley: Do you smell perfume?

Goldblum (mock scared): Yes. I know what was in this room.

Begley: What?

Goldblum: The Creature from Estee Lauder!

Two reporters (Ed Begley and Jeff Goldblum) travel to a strange castle in Transylvania to investigate the apparent reappearance of Frankenstein's monster...

One would think that with this cast (besides Begley and Goldblum, you have Jeffrey Jones, Geena Davis, Carol Kane and Michael Richards) it would be a non-stop fun romp through Transylvania. But, it really is not all that. While there are some decent jokes, most of them just fall flat or are never really properly explored.

Seeing a pre-Seinfeld Richards is a treat, with his antics being more along the lines of his role in "UHF" (the doofus with the childlike behavior). But although he may be the highlight of the film, he is not enough to carry the entire picture.

I feel like there was a lot of potential here and it was an idea that just never got fully cooked. But, you know, that happens.