User reviews

It's sad to say, I would probably not know much about this movie had it not been reconstructed. I did not know it was a lost "classic" (with mixed reviews). That's one of the reasons why I love projects like this so much, they help manifest the place in movie history some lost movies deserve. Another reason why I like projects like these, is that they give you the thrill of getting as close as possible to seeing something considered lost. Even though it's readily available, it feels somehow exclusive. (Oh, the vanity!) Even though they managed to piece the surviving stills and title cards together in an impressive coherent way, I still did struggle to follow the plot at times. Still, I prefer it over trying to recreate motion by editing the stills, as that can easily seem silly. I did figure out the plot by the end of it, and must say that I was not that impressed by it, but it has its charm. Playing with the ideas of vampires, hypnosis and murder is always fun, to some degree. The highlight to me was probably Cheney's make up. In the close up on some of the stills you can see how he achieved those eyes, for instance.

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.

As of October 20, 2007, "London After Midnight" is a lost film - there is no known surviving footage. Hopefully, a print or portion will be discovered. Until then, TCM's 2002 reconstruction, by Rick Schmidlin, will have to suffice - it was created by referencing the original script and utilizing movie photograph stills. Robert Israel provided a representative musical score. Cheers to all involved!

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

Hey, wait!! Hold it a second, guys....how can a film unseen by the general public for 75 years get any User Ratings? Granted, there may be some seniors around who saw the film as children, but are they the ones rating this film on IMDb? Or, are these merely false ratings made by silent film fans based on the reputations of Chaney and Browning and the existence of some tantalizing surviving stills from the film?

I think we need a reality check here: this film is lost, folks, and it's going to stay lost. All efforts to flush a print out of hiding have failed, including those of Turner, who owns the rights and have the most to gain by the film's recovery. (TCM will broadcast a stills-only re-creation of the film in October '02. Translation? Even the rightful owners of the film have given up hope! Does this tell you anything?) And, yes, while someone may have a print in a private collection, or in their attic, etc., it's a real longshot.

Don't get me wrong; the loss of this film is lamentable in the extreme. (The loss of any film is lamentable. The loss of any SILENT film is most lamentable. The loss of any CHANEY film is truly awful. And, the loss of any Chaney film featuring the coolest vampire get-up EVER is unspeakably awful!!!) But, I believe film fans need to let go of this one and move on. The reputations of Chaney and Browning will survive without this film. I believe our energies would be better spent putting pressure on archives and film libraries to release their long-held treasures to the viewing public, as there is a huge amount of silent material that HAS survived, but which goes unseen by all but scholars and the privileged few.

Personally, I'm grateful that the elegant B&W production stills survived in order that we can see what Tod Browning's production might have looked like had it not been destroyed by fire.

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.

I enjoyed the reconstruction, for what it was. Of course, its sound remake - MARK OF THE VAMPIRE (1935) - is a very good indication of what London AFTER MIDNIGHT (1927) must have looked like.

The plot is unbelievably contrived but let's not forget that the films adhere more to the style of 'old dark house' thrillers, then in vogue, than the typical 'vampire' film (that said, Chaney's vampire make-up is terrific and I'd love to see it in action!). It's interesting, however, to note how Browning was able to adapt himself with the times: in "London" the emphasis seems to be on grotesquerie (witness also Edna Tichenor's death-like pallor), since the archetype of the sub-genre during the Silent era was obviously NOSFERATU (1922); when MARK came along, Browning went for a more streamlined look - a suave Lugosi abetted by a sexy Carol Borland - spearheaded by his own landmark take on the Stoker classic! I also prefer the remake's change-of-setting (Hungary instead of London) and the blood-draining device to dispose of the victim (rather than the conventional 'suicide' of the original), thus giving credence - initially at least - to the vampires' presence in the film in the first place!

London After Midnight (1927) : Brief Review -

It's difficult to judge a lost and reconstructed film, and TCM put me through a tough job. Nevertheless, it's an experience to review a tranquil movie. Despite mixed reviews from contemporary critics, London After Midnight emerged as the biggest hit for Tod Browning and Lon Chaney. Both being giants in their fields, the magic was inevitable. London After Midnight is a smoky flick for today, or for anyone who hasn't seen it in theatres since then. It's sad that one of the most sought-after lost films was burned. TCM's reconstruction is not a motion picture at all. The stills and intertitles can give you an idea of the story, the characters, the settings, and the screenplay, but they don't make a "movie". It is tough to judge such a film because you don't see actors acting; you don't feel the tension, the atmosphere, or anything else that's not moving. It becomes soulless, but still. I'd like to talk about the script and the storytelling. I won't talk about acting, assuming that Lon Chaney must have done the best job, just like he was doing in almost every film at the time, and that Browning must have done fine work, just like he was doing back then. There will be a lot of assumptions here, but that won't reflect on my final ratings. So, it's a bang-on script with thrilling suspense and some frightening horror images. The killer's identity is pretty suspenseful, and you'd be surprised to know the way it unfolds. That hypnotism trick is mesmerising for its time and the way it is used as the main element to solve a murder mystery. The bats and those horrendous eyes will scare the hell outta you. But sadly, these are just images, and motion would have definitely felt more frightening. Browning's guts to go against mainstream formulas does the trick again, and nobody could have used Chaney better than him.

RATING - 6/10*

By - #samthebestest.

The Turner Classic Movies recreation of this "lost" classic was unbelievably well done. The Recreation using still photos was close to experiencing it on film. The music was well suited to the theme. I sincerely hope that a print of this classic exists somewhere so that it can be seen.

The presentation of the still pictures (not the movie) lead to evaluate that presentation. I don't know if this movie was ever a good one, but I imagined it from Chaney's expressions (and those teeth) to be quite entertaining. So much takes place in talky drawing rooms and focuses on men with guns, roaming around. But we do get the interesting expressions of the actors and actresses and from experience with the genre, make some determinations about mood. Sad that we shall never see this. Sad that that fire destroyed so many silent films.

From the day that the supposedly 'last' surviving copy of the movie was destroyed in a fire in the 60s, movie fans remained deprived of one of the GREATEST gems the horror-mystery genre had ever produced - until it was wonderfully restored in 2002, with very cleverly arranged scene stills and a very atmospheric music score. Now, watching this masterpiece of film restoration, you've REALLY got the feeling that you're actually watching the movie itself...

And it shows clearly that this early example of the classic mystery movie was almost MORE than perfect in every way: the atmosphere of the old mansion (complete with vaults, cobwebs, ancestors' portraits and bats hanging from the ceiling) would become kind of a basis for all the films of the genre - and was probably only equaled in Browning's other unique masterpiece, the one and only "Dracula"...

The narration technique (using flashbacks) was quite modern for the time, as well as the police methods depicted: even hypnotism was used to solve this 'horror' mystery - a feature which would also be 'borrowed' from many a movie of the genre's Classic era in the 30s...

And, of course, we can see the actors (even through the scene stills) at their VERY best - especially Lon Chaney, who is simply fabulous as the horrifying, devilishly grinning creature; with THIS make-up, he'd even have scared 'Nosferatu' Max Schreck himself! A really GREAT experience for every real fan of the genre, and a lesson for film specialists: it shows how even a 'lost' film can almost be 'put together' again with the help of scene stills - a really ADMIRABLE piece of work done by the experts from the USC and the AMPAS!

and was totally disappointed. Dull, long (even at 50 minutes) and just the same stills over and over again. Since TCM released this, I think it's safe to say that no prints of this film exist at all (unless some private collector has it and isn't saying a word). What I did see didn't impress me in the least...and that horrible ending! "Mark of the Vampire" was a (sort of) remake and much much better (even with the ending). I do applaud TCM for doing this, but I honestly didn't like the results. So, my advice is to stick with "Mark...". Also I remember seeing a documentary about this ages ago (sorry--I don't remember the title) and they talked to one senior citizen who remembered seeing the film as a child. She said when you first got a good look at Chaney in that wild vampire makeup the audience laughed! That aside she said the movie was pretty bad and no one liked the ending. So maybe it's a good thing that this is lost.

London After Midnight...the very mention of this lost film brings to mind all of the other outstanding performances of the greatest ACTOR that ever lived, Lon Chaney. It has been suggested by some that Lon was only an O.K. actor, and that he let his makeups do most of his acting for him. Nothing could be further from the truth. The talent of this man is immeasurable. Yes, his makeups helped to bring his characters to life, but it didn't define them. His ACTING inspired pity in Quasimodo, the Phantom, and others.

I hope someday London After Midnight does show up so Lon's detractors can eat their words. If you are unable to look beyond the greasepaint, putty, false teeth, and wigs, and see a truly remarkable characterization, the fault is yours, not his. Having seen every one of his films that survive, (nearly twenty) I can tell you that some of his most unforgettable roles used little or no makeup at all! Try watching Tell It To The Marines or The Penalty and see what you think...

Lon Chaney shall NEVER die! He will live in the hearts of his fans forever.

I thought I saw this one as a very little kid (between 3 to 5 years old) - but it was not. I think what I am remembering are the photos of the film on television and maybe some commentary on the film but not the film itself.

I will say it is a shame the original film is burnt - but I can say I have seen the wonderful recreation of the movie. It is worth watching if you love silent films. OK so we only see still shots (photos) instead of the actors moving but the pictures work well because it is a silent film.

I finally watched the recreation of the film and over the last 2 or 3 years I have had people look at me as if I was crazy when I told them I saw "London After Midnight" -- but they must have never seen what I saw - this awesome version of the film. Maybe they don't know this exists.

If you enjoyed this silent film then I do recommend 'Phantom of the Opera' and 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame' both starring the incredible Lon Chaney, Sr. 9/10

The worst kind of movie is one you can't watch, know what I'm saying? MGM is cringe for lightning their warehouse on fire. Smh

It is really too painful to watch this movie substitute, too painful if you are interested in old silent era classics, too painful to realize that so many other films are lost too. It is useless to have amassed those ashes, yes ashes, that's the way I describe this, those pictures. What the use, rub salt in the wound? This film seemed so much terrific, if you consider the topic. I prefer stopping now, because it is too painful to continue.

To those who think that Chaney was just an OK actor, sadly have no clue what they are talking about. To make a statement such as he let his makeup do his acting also do not know that one of his most famous roles as the drill Sergeant in "Tell It To The Marines".The role earned him a honorary status among the Corp. So not only was Chaney a master of make-up, earning him the title of a man of a thousand faces, but also that of an exceptional actor with a range of emotions that could flash across his face that would later inspire the likes of Burt Lancaster to state "one of the most compelling and emotionally exhausting scenes I have ever seen an actor do." Lancaster was referring to the scene from "the Unknown" in which Chaney portrayed an armless knife thrower in love with a young Joan Crawford.

To say make up was his "gimmick",is ignorant at best, it was more of an extension of the man and the actor. For Chaney didn't limit himself to just one area, physically he performed acts that would later bring him a place in film history such as the con artist that fakes being crippled to be healed by a charlatan in the "Miracle Man." The scene had people swearing that Chaney was a contortionist or double jointed, when in fact it is more a credit to his acting skills. Also in the "Penalty", he actually had a harness that he wore to bind his legs behind him and tucked into leather stubs. The pain allowed him only to wear the harness for fifteen minutes at a shoot, but Chaney insisted no trick photography be used. In "The Unknown", he had his arms bound up in a harness as well, you only have to watch the film to see not only the weird twist the movie takes, but also Chaney's cleverness.

Lon Chaney died at the age of 47. It is ironic that his last movie was a "talkie", a remake of the silent classic "The Unholy Three" in which he did more than one voice. That of an old woman, a parrot and a ventriloquist. He proved to audiences that he was more than capable of transcending silent to sound.

At his death production was stopped at Hollywood to observe a moment of silence, the Marine Corp flew their flag at half staff. Wallace Berry flew over his funeral and dropped wreaths of flowers. He said, "Lon Chaney was the one man I knew who could walk with kings and not lose the common touch."

Reviewers can pontificate as much as they like about whether this is, or not, a good or bad film, but it's all guesswork as none of you seem to have seen it and are only basing your opinions on second hand accounts. I imagine that, if in the possible event a copy of 'London after midnight' was found, we would all be thrilled to bits. What our opinions would be after that would be anyone's guess. As to the TCM reconstruction, how would you have done it? The studio stills are presumably all that is available to work with. I too was frustrated, but mainly because I can't see the actual film. Incidentaly, it isn't an impossibility that this film will be found, just don't hold your breath.

"London After Midnight" is a combination mystery film and vampire movie. Lon Chaney plays dual roles--a detective as well as a crazed vampirey guy. Five years after a supposed suicide, weird ghouls move into the dead man's house--and the detective returns to investigate. At the end, the mystery is finally solved--though exactly how all this is proved is baffling--like there is either something missing or it just had a HUGE plot hole.

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.

I saw this movie on Halloween (10/31/2002) and I have to say, given that the film is still lost, TCM did well using the original script and production stills to convey the storyline and a sense of the action. It is a shame that the world can no longer see Lon Chaney in motion, in one of his best masks. I wish that TCM had properly billed this in advance as a reconstruction (maybe they did and I'm wrong), and not the real deal.

"London After Midnight" is one of those films that has sparked a lot of debate and discussion over the years.

In all likelihood, this movie will never be recovered but the reconstruction that was provided by "Turner Classic Movies," provides a good idea as to how the film looks.

Lon Chaney gives a truly frightening and un- nerving make-up job as the fake vampire. It is hard to judge how good a performance he gives but I'll wager it was very good - as he usually was.

This film was remade in 1935 as "Mark of the Vampire" (also directed by Tod Browning).

_London After Midnight_ was Lon Chaney's first and only foray into the vampire subgenre. Directed by longtime collaborator Tod Browning (of _Dracula_ and _Freaks_ fame), _London_ featured a twist ending which many contemporary viewers found unsatisfying.

Unfortunately, it is impossible for modern-day viewers to effectively judge the film as there is not a print known to exist. What we do know about the film comes from its plethora of publicity stills (which have been reconstructed into a filmbook by Philip J. Riley), Browning's remake, _Mark of the Vampire_ (which is allegedly a shot-by-shot imitation), and the recollections of those who saw the film decades ago, like the legendary Forrest J. Ackerman.

The general consensus is that, though Chaney's makeup is typically excellent, the film was only mediocre and its lost status is no great blow to film history. That being said, it is certain that the rediscovery of this film would send hundred of movie buffs into an absolute frenzy. As the IMDB says, "Check your attic!"

London After Midnight (1927)

This is not so much a review as an attack. And even then, the attack is not a hostile one. I'm not one to attack a movie without what I feel is a worthy reason. The only movies that even come to mind that I've attacked in writing are Bad Boys II and the recent Sex and the City movie, though that extends to the show as well. Personally, I found Bad Boys II offensive on nearly every conceivable level, so I attacked it. I despise the shameless embrace of materialism in Sex and the City. I think that show at one time was a satire, but just got too lazy to make the effort at cleverness, and instead wallowed gleefully it its shallow pool.

Those attacks were hostile. My reason for Attacking London After Midnight is not so much an attack on the film in and of itself, but an attack on the "reconstruction" of the film - the only way to see it today. The film opened to mixed reviews, yet was director Tod Brownings and Lon Chaney's most financially successful work. But then the only remaining print of the film was destroyed by fire in 1967. It's now on the AFI's lost films list, and has garnered something of an illustrious reputation and following. There are rumors that another print, fully intact exists, but this reconstruction is the only version available. It was reported as "the closest to the original version we'll see." Maybe that is so, maybe the rumors of an intact print are just that. Although many are grateful that this reconstruction exists to give them a glimpse at a lost film, when it comes down to it, this version is nothing that cannot be matched looking at a google image search, playing ominous music on windows media player, and reading from a transcript. What I'm trying to say is that this is nothing but an only kind of slick 45 minute power point presentation. It consists entirely of still photographs, panned and zoomed upon with intermittent title cards. Now, while I think this is a fairly ambitious and interesting attempt at a reconstruction, it's nevertheless just a summary from someone else's point of view, Rick Schmidlin's. He famously reconstructed Greed and Touch of Evil, and he did win an award for London After Midnight. It's my opinion though that while this is an admirable attempt, its also a misguided attempt. It's simply a curiosity project for those who have been waiting patiently to hear of a found copy of a movie that was by most accounts only mediocre. I can't make that judgment, because I still haven't seen the movie, just an elaborate photo summary of it.

Now this is not to say that still images cannot make films (lets face it, its just still images flickered through light 24 times a second), and I would direct you to my impressions of La Jetee. But La Jetee's style was Chris Marker's intent for his film, but it wasn't Tod Browning's intent for London After Midnight. Browning had his own style, and moved and shot with his camera in particular ways for particular reasons. By reducing his direction to static images removes him from director and replaces him as set photographer. In a way, it's almost a rape of the directors work. Not intentional, of course, though.

My "attack" is this: this reconstruction brings me no closer to having seen the film. I only have an idea of how it went. Sure I know a bit more about it and how it looked than before, but its just tantamount to preview research. Hence, no rating. Not zero stars, simply no rating, because, simply, I never got to see the real movie.

Was it a waste of 45 minutes? My time, yes. Your time? Depends on your predilections, I suppose. Maybe this is not so much an attack then as a warning or disclaimer akin to those found on hazardous products. If you expect a real view of a lost film, you're likely to be annoyed that you only get to glimpse through archives, and be left sour. That might not be good for your health.

I have been a fan of Lon Chaney since I first saw clips of him in The Phantom of the Opera (1925) on the TV show Muppet Babies and since I have become a huge fan of Phantom of the Opera, I also became a fan of Chaney. I have seen only three of his films, The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923), The Phantom of the Opera (1925/29), and He Who Gets Slapped (1925). And I must say when I heard of London After Midnight I was intensely interested in this film purely cause of Lon being in it (being a strict Roman Catholic and not loving horror films) and I thought I'd see it. I saw the documentary on Lon and I quite enjoyed it. Truly he was the master of makeup, but his most terrifying makeup is this role as the Vampire/Inspector Burke. I heard the reviews on it and though they all agreed his makeup was terrific and his acting well done, the film was a bomb. So when TCM played the Restoration of the film using photos, I jumped for it. And I must say, I didn't enjoy it as much as I did Phantom and Hunchback. But indeed the makeup IS terrific and the most frightening out of any vampire makeup I have ever seen. Primitive stuff and he managed to turn his rugged good looking face into a truly horrific thing. I also enjoyed Marceline Day in the film, she was quite beautiful and is said to be a wonderful actress (she has recently passed on). But Lon is the star and I must say as poor as the film is, Lon did as usual a fantastic job. And wouldn't you believe it?? His own box which he created all his monsters and characters with (his makeup box) is at the end of the film. I found that rather touching in a way. But other than those things the film is too erratic and fantastic and hardly makes sense. But it is a good film in that Chaney created yet another fantastic makeup, but other than that, the film itself, despite Chaney and Day, was a bomb. But it was interesting to see Lon in this film and I still watch it as a reference that I saw it. But I truly think this is not his better films.