“He is not insane; he simply wants to die.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review:
Meanwhile, the rapid change of heart undergone by young Dr. Mannering (Patric Knowles) defies all logical belief, highlighting the screenplay’s already paper-thin premise.
Enjoy the reliably atmospheric cinematography and sets, but don’t expect much else from this one. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
“The Frankensteins were monsters who brought life from death — and that’s a true achievement.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review:
is the hideous beast in question, given that images of her pert teenage face made up with gruesomely bushy brows and rotten, crooked teeth dominate the virtual landscape.
But no: while Dr. Frank does try out his potion (?) on her, the ACTUAL monster is supposedly crafted from Knight’s snooty blonde rival (Sally Todd):
— though the monster him/herself was actually played by a man (Harry Wilson):
… and the make-up designer, Harry Thomas, didn’t realize until after the fact that he was designing a mask for a female, and there was no money left to create another one. (Thanks to Goremasterfx for this info.) Well, you get the point. Watch at your own peril. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
“The werewolf instinctively seeks to kill the thing it loves best.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
Links: |
“There’s a million Indians out here against one coward!”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: Note: Interestingly, this title is included in the notoriously snooty 1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, though the reviewer is frustratingly elusive as to exactly why it should be considered “must-see”. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? (Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die) Links: |
“I told you that no one could leave.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: Peary spends the bulk of his review analyzing the film and its characters in light of Lewton’s limited but impressive oeuvre (nearly all of which are “must see” movies). He points out that “in Lewton films, when a character” (such as Karloff’s general) “loses his mind he reverts to old, superstitious ways”, and notes that the screenplay allows Lewton to “exploit his concept of man controlled by fate”. He makes an apt analogy between Drew’s character (Thea) and Simone Simon’s Irena in Lewton’s Cat People, noting that Thea, like Irena, is “not sure she doesn’t harbor evil within her” — but while Irena is immediately presented as a sympathetic character whose fate we genuinely care about, Thea (a gypsy) simply functions here as a conveniently “Othered” scapegoat (and a requisite romantic lead). Ultimately, you’re better off spending your time rewatching one of Lewton’s many other classic psychological horror flicks — though film fanatics will be probably be curious to check this one out at least once. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
“If I had Frankenstein’s records to guide me, I could give you a perfect body!”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
“Now remember this, Forbush: sex and Scotch in either order do not a biologist make.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review:
— is unspeakably lame on every count. Hurt’s character is not only insufferable, but — even worse — we never really believe in him as a viable researcher, given that the screenplay fails to offer us any credible scenes actually showing him intelligently engaging with scientific material. Once he’s out living with the penguins, we see him keeping vague track of the birds, and (in one truly weird scene) slaughtering a penguin to analyze its innards (?? really ??) — but unlike Charles Martin Smith’s protagonist in the infinitely superior Never Cry Wolf (1983), he’s simply never convincing. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
“There’s a curse in this village: the curse of Frankenstein!”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review:
Regardless, it’s difficult to care very much about the ultimate outcome, given that Chaney is unable to imbue the Monster with any of the depth or pathos Karloff brought to this most pitiable creature.
… and the vaguely power-hungry desires by Ludwig’s colleague (Lionel Atwill) to interfere in the brain transplantation —
… fail to engage us on any level. Lugosi gives his all once again in the critical role of Ygor:
… but doesn’t bring anything new to the character. Feel free to skip this one. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
“Nothing in nature is terrifying when one understands it.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
Links: |
“Science — like love — has her little surprises.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: At any rate, Peary goes on to argue that this second film “is not cold, bleak, or depressing like the original” (apples and oranges, anybody? I find nothing wrong with the first film having more of this tone), and that it “has a higher budget [so that] the production values breathe life into the story” (though again, I found the production values just fine in the original). He notes that “the claustrophobic castle and laboratory sets are balanced by spacious, candle-lit chambers with shiny floors and columns, all covered with shadows”, and exclaims (rightfully so) over “how wonderful the expressionistic forest [is]!” As Peary points out, “neither Whale nor cameraman John Mescall strove for realism”, given that this “film is meant to be a visualization of a story”. He calls out the way Whale “has fun with the four stars’ angular faces”, shooting them “in tremendous close-ups, often using wild camera angles” — indeed, it’s this particular element of the film that strikes one as most innovative and astonishing. (“Really? He’s filming from THAT perspective?!” you’ll find yourself wondering aloud.) Peary accurately argues that the 5’4″ Lanchester is “marvelous in her brief appearance as the Bride”, walking on “2 1/2-foot stilts that make her movements birdlike” — yet despite her visual dominance in our collective consciousness of this film, she’s really a very minor character, not showing up until the very end, and on-screen for less than five minutes. Thus, Peary’s right to note that “it is Karloff’s touching performance” (as in the original) “that makes this film great.” While he’s “almost hidden beneath Jack Pearce’s remarkable make-up, his sensitive eyes still come through, expressing the Monster’s feelings”. Peary sums it up perfectly: “With Karloff in the part, the Monster is eloquent even when silent”. Just as memorable, however — and arguably an equally essential ingredient in the film’s success — is the bold performance given by Thesiger as “one of the genre’s most eccentric scoundrels”. Whenever this angular villain is on-screen, we simply can’t look away — particularly as he’s showcasing his display of miniaturized humans, each perfectly realized, and reminding one of the expert special effects work done a year later in Tod Browning’s The Devil Doll. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die) Links: |
