Howls of the Week (10/8/23 - 10/14/23)

This will probably be a new feature, similar to the old monthly LUNAR CYCLE I used to do. I figured I would just post quick thoughts on films I've recently seen, while giving bigger/solo spotlights to more popular/important films. Let's see how this goes.

TOTALLY KILLER (2023)

Directed By: Nahnatchka Khan

Starring: Kiernan Shipka, Olivia Holt, Julie Bowen, Charlie Gillepsie, Lochlyn Munro, Troy Leigh-Anne Johnson, Kimberly Huie, Randall Park

Genre: Horror/Science Fiction/Slasher

Running Time: 106 Minutes

Score: 3 Howls Outta 4 (7 out of 10)

Plot: Thirty-five years after the shocking murders of three teens, an infamous killer returns on Halloween night to claim a fourth victim. When 17-year-old Jamie comes face-to-face with the masked maniac, she accidentally time-travels back to 1987. Forced to navigate the unfamiliar culture, Jamie teams up with her teenage mother to take down the psycho once and for all.

Review: If you like FREAKY or HAPPY DEATH DAY, you'll get a kick out of Amazon's TOTALLY KILLER. While it should have used its BACK TO THE FUTURE premise better, I still had fun with it. The 80s needle drops are always welcomed, the characters were colorful and the mystery of the killer kept me guessing [decent twist at the end]. I wish Kiernan Shipka’s character didn't keep mentioning how things in the 80s were problematic like they are in 2023. Saying it once or twice is fine, but every five to ten minutes wasn’t necessary. I also wish the film was a bit funnier. Still, I didn’t feel like I wasted my time.

PET SEMATARY: BLOODLINES (2023)

Directed By: Lindsey Beer

Starring: Jackson White, Forest Goodluck, Jack Mulhurn, Henry Thomas, Natalie Anne Lynd, Isabella Star LeBlanc, Pam Grier, David Duchovny, Samantha Mathis

Genre: Horror/Science Fiction/Fantasy/Zombies

Running: 87 Minutes

Score: 1 Howl Outta 4 (3 out of 10)

Plot: In 1969, a young Jud Crandall has dreams of leaving his hometown of Ludlow, Maine behind, but soon discovers sinister secrets buried within and is forced to confront a dark family history that will forever keep him connected to Ludlow. 

Review: The less said about PET SEMATARY: BLOODLINES, the better. 87 minutes and felt longer than that, as I had to sit through multiple sittings just to get through this. Great actors [Pam Grier, Henry Thomas, Samantha Mathis, David Duchovny] were wasted in their roles. The story dragged towards an unsatisfying resolution. The novel and even the ‘89 version told this story in a more effective way in a much lesser time span. I wasn’t the biggest fan of the 2019 remake, but I thought maybe this prequel could have improved on that. The people behind this forced franchise should realize that sometimes, dead is better. 

SHE CAME FROM THE WOODS (2022)

Directed By: Erik Bloomquist 

Starring: Cara Buono, Clare Foley, Spencer List, William Sadler, Michael Park, Tyler Elliot Burke

Genre: Horror/Supernatural/Slasher

Running Time: 101 Minutes

Score: 3 Howls Outta 4 (7 out of 10)

Plot: In 1987, a group of counselors accidentally unleashes a decades’ old evil on the last night of summer camp.

Review: Caught this modern slasher on Tubi before it left the service and I dug it quite a bit. Set in 1987 [besides the modern language and the appearance of an Apple Watch - whoops], this supernatural slasher involves a camp being terrorized by a watch who possesses children and campers after a ritual gone wrong. Good performances [Cara Buono and William Sadler especially], decent gore effects considering its small budget and a lore that’s nicely built but doesn’t end in a real satisfactory way makes this one worth looking for whenever it pops back up on Tubi or another streaming service. Recommended for FRIDAY THE 13TH, THE BURNING and MADMAN fans.

DRACULA'S DAUGHTER (1936)

Directed By: Lambert Hillyer

Starring: Gloria Holden, Otto Kruger, Marguerite Churchill, Irving Pichel, Gilbert Emery, Edward Van Sloan

Genre: Horror/Drama/Fantasy/Vampires

Running Time: 71 Minutes

Score: 3 Howls Outta 4 (7 out of 10)

Plot: A countess from Transylvania seeks a psychiatrist’s help to cure her vampiric cravings. 

Review: The first sequel to the immortal 1931 Universal Studios classic DRACULA, I slightly like this film more due to the filmmaking style. This feels more like a real movie than the stagey DRACULA does. The story with the Countess dealing with not wanting to be like her father, trying to find ways to stop being a vampire, was actually pretty interesting, Plus for a film from this era, having a lesbian angle was quite brave and surprising in a good way. I thought the performances were okay, with only Gloria Holden really standing out as the title character. And learning she hated being in this film because she thought she was above the material, it makes her performance stronger and more legit in my opinion. Plus, the film is short and sweet and doesn’t overstay its welcome.

BLOOD OF DRACULA (1957)

Directed By: Herbert L. Strock

Starring: Sandra Harrison, Louise Lewis, Gail Ganley, Mary Adams, Malcolm Afterbury, Barbara Wilson, Lynn Alden

Genre: Horror/Vampires

Running Time: 69 Minutes

Score: 2 Howls Outta 4 (5 out of 10)

Plot: A crazed teacher at a respectable girls’ school draws power from a medallion she has obtained from the Carpathian Mountains, and uses it to experiment telepathically on the school’s newest young pupil.

Review: Pretty much the same template as I WAS A TEENAGE WEREWOLF, this “vampire” movie feels more like a teen drama with supernatural elements in it. Honestly, this film didn’t do a whole lot for me. It sort of meanders towards the finish line, with the main character being hypnotized and controlled by her teacher, for whatever reason, until we see the main reveal in the last moments of the movie. I thought the main character’s relationship with her father and her indifferent stepmother was interesting at the start, but it just felt flatter as the movie rolled on. Not bad, but nothing I would rush out to watch again.

THE VAMPIRE LOVERS (1970)

Directed By: Roy Ward Baker

Starring: Ingrid Pitt, Peter Cushing, George Cole, Kate O'Mara, Ferdy Mayne, Douglas Wilmer, Madeline Smith, Pippa Steel

Genre: Horror/Vampires

Running Time: 91 Minutes

Score: 3 Howls Outta 4 (7 out of 10)

Plot: In the heart of Styria the Karnstein Family, even after their mortal deaths, rise from their tombs spreading evil in the countryside in their lust for fresh blood. Baron Hartog whose family are all victims of Karnstein vampirism, opens their graves and drives a stake through their diabolical hearts. One grave he cannot locate is that of the legendary beautiful Mircalla Karnstein. Years of peace follow that grisly night until Mircalla reappears to avenge her family’s decimation and satisfy her desire for blood.

Review: Part of the Karnstein trilogy, this Hammer production is quite titillating with its lesbian undertones and an Ingrid Pitt performance that commands the spotlight and captivates the audience. Nicely paced, with a Gothic atmosphere and good performances that balance the horror with the melodrama. Probably not one of the best Hammer films out there, or even one I would think of whenever the studio is brought up. Yet, this one is definitely worth watching if you’re into sexy vampires.

TWINS OF EVIL (1971)

Directed By: John Hough

Starring: Peter Cushing, Dennis Price, Madeleine Collinson, Mary Collinson, Isobel Black, Kathleen Byron, David Warbeck

Genre: Horror/Vampires

Running Time: 87 Minutes

Score: 3 Howls Outta 4 (8 out of 10)

Plot: While dabbling in Satanism, Count Karstein resurrects Mircalla Karnstein who initiates him into vampirism. As a rash of deaths afflicts the village, Gustav the head of Puritan group leads his men to seek out and destroy the pestilence. One of his twin nieces has become inflicted with the witchcraft but Gustav’s zeal and venom has trapped the innocent Maria, threatening her with a tortuous execution, whilst Frieda remains free to continue her orgy of evil.

Review: The third film of Hammer’s Karnstein’s trilogy, I thought TWINS OF EVIL was a lot more fun to watch than THE VAMPIRE LOVERS. Better action. Better effects. More compelling performances, especially by Peter Cushing, David Warbeck and the Collinson twins. The title is misleading [only one evil twin really] and it isn’t as titillating as THE VAMPIRE LOVERS. But I liked this film quite a lot and would definitely watch this again.

SANTO VS. THE VAMPIRE WOMEN (1962)

Directed By: Alfonso Corona Blake

Starring: Santo, Lorena Velazquez, Maria Duval, Jaime Fernandez, Augusto Benedico, Ofelia Montesco, Xavier Loja

Genre: Horror/Action/Fantasy/Vampires/Werewolves

Running Time: 89 Minutes

Score: 2 Howls Outta 4 (5 out of 10)

Plot: A professor recruits a professional wrestler to protect his daughter from vampires intent on kidnapping her and marrying her to the devil.

Review: If you’ve ever watched a horror film starring Lucha Libre star Santo [or Samson in the English dubbing], you know exactly what you’re getting. Silly, campy and just oddball story and action involving a coven of female vampires and their male minions who want to kidnap the daughter of someone who escaped their grasp many years prior. The grandfather hires Santo to protect her, leading to many goofy action scenes, including a wrestling one involving a vampire/werewolf person(?). Considering this was an episode of MST3K, I don’t think the film is that bad that it earned that honor. While pretty dumb, the dubbing is actually funny and the action scenes are amusing. Plus I thought the final act was a lot of fun, especially with Santo driving that sweet convertible. Better than what its reputation would tell you, to be quite honest.

Midnight Confessions Ep. 76: "Classic black and white horror triple feature"

Our countdown to Halloween starts now and we're kicking it off with some classic horror. This episode we review THE BLACK CAT (1934), THE UNINVITED (1944) and NIGHT OF THE DEMON (1957).







 

Like "Midnight Confessions" Facebook Page: Midnight Confessions Podcast

Follow us on Twitter @MC_Podcast!

Subscribe on iTunes! - Midnight Confessions

Visit our archive stuff - MC_PodcastVault

We're now on Stitcher! - Stitcher Version

The Invisible Man (1933) [700th Review!!!]

DIRECTED BY
James Whale

STARRING
Claude Rains - Jack Griffin/ The Invisible Man
Gloria Stuart - Flora Cranberry
William Harrigan - Dr. Arthur Kemp
Henry Travers - Dr. Cranley
Una O'Connor - Jenny Hall
Forrester Harvey - Herbert Hall
Duddley Digges - Chief Detective

Genre - Horror/Science Fiction/Mad Scientists

Running Time - 71 Minutes


Usually I get asked the question, "If you ever were granted one superpower, what would it be?" While some say flight, or reading minds, I usually say shape shifting or invisibility. Who wouldn't want to take the identity of someone else? Hell, it's probably better not being seen, allowing you to do whatever you want and get away with it. No wonder Dr. Jack Griffin had a ball with this ability in H.G. Well's "The Invisible Man".

Wells' novel inspired a film adaptation, as Bram Stoker's "Dracula" and Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" had prior. Universal Studios, the leader of the horror pack back in the 1930s, found success with their DRACULA and FRANKENSTEIN adaptations, wanting to bring more horror/sci-fi novels straight to film. With the potential to wow audiences with great special effects that have never been seen on the big screen, Universal wanted to do an adaptation for THE INVISIBLE MAN to follow up the massive success of FRANKENSTEIN.

Many directors and actors were up to visualize and bring the adaptation to life. Even though Cyril Gardner was hired to direct the adaptation, he was later replaced by FRANKENSTEIN director James Whale. Boris Karloff was up for the Griffin role at the start, but money issues took him out of the running. Colin Clive almost had the role, but Whale loved Claude Rains voice, feeling he could carry the film just with his vocals alone. Even though pre-production took a while to get the film off the ground, THE INVISIBLE MAN was finally released in 1933 to massive success, leading to a series of sequels and other adaptations that would take elements of this film and use it in theirs. But it's easy to see that Universal's take on THE INVISIBLE MAN is still tops after 80-plus years.

PLOT
A mysterious man (Claude Rains) covered in bandages and dark glasses asks for a room at an English inn. While his appearance is being talked about, it's his rude attitude to the townspeople that grabs hold of their attention. As they try and figure out what's going with this man, the stranger takes off his clothes to reveal that he's invisible. As the town is terrified, this invisible man happily causes chaos and destruction as something to remember him by.

We learn that the man is Dr. Jack Griffin, who has experimented with a drug that has rendered him invisible. But he doesn't know that the side effects will cause him to lose his sanity by making him yearn for absolute power. Wanting to display his power to everyone, Griffin decides to avoid authorities and cause nothing by disorder. But when his best friend (William Harrigan) betrays him and the cops see ways in capturing him, Griffin becomes desperate and deadly to the unseen eye.

REVIEW

Even though H.G. Wells himself wasn't the biggest fan of this adaptation of his novel, I still feel THE INVISIBLE MAN is a wonderful interpretation of Wells' story - making a somewhat dry, yet good book into a fun, likeable movie. Countless others have attempted to adapt the novel, including 1998's HOLLOW MAN. But the Universal version is the best on-screen take of the novel, through its wonderful acting, well paced story, and impressive visuals for its time.

THE INVISIBLE MAN is fairly faithful to the novel, although the script constantly changed to get to that point due to H.G. Wells having script approval. Some things are changed, like making Griffin a sympathetic character and giving him family and friends that tend to ground him. It's a template that worked in FRANKENSTEIN - giving the so-called villain of the piece an emotional arc that makes him human and likeable, despite his actions. Griffin clearly loves his fiancee, Flora, and wants his best friend Kemp [who wants to bone Flora - the cad] to help him, even if it is to do bad things with him. Griffin also clearly struggles with these new powers and the effects of the drugs that made him this way, almost in a DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE sort of deal. In fact, the mad scientist theme was pretty common place in the 1930s, as these characters wanted absolute power and were clearly corrupted by it. Griffin is more layered than that, as this lust for power is really against his will due to the drugs.

I also feel the theme of an outsider feeling invisible is pretty strong here. Besides Flora and her father, no one else really takes the time to understand the Invisible Man. Because he's different, he's automatically considered a freak and a non-member of society. It's only when he does bad things around town that he's noticed, even if it is through a negative light. It's a theme that's still relevant today, even if it's not a supernatural deal in reality. The Invisible Man is that thing inside of us whenever we feel ignored or misunderstood - it's that thing yelling "I'm here! Why can't you see me?" before we sometimes make questionable actions to get noticed. This film may have been released 81 years ago, but the topic is still a fresh one.

If I had any issues with THE INVISIBLE MAN, it's probably some of the stilted dialogue and the lack of characterization for anyone not Dr. Griffin. It's really tough to criticize the wooden delivery at times since talkies were starting to find their groove at this point, and most of the actors were from theater origins. But you can definitely notice these things and the film doesn't feel as natural as one would like it to be at times.

The real highlight of THE INVISIBLE MAN to many is probably the groundbreaking special effects for its time. I'm still amazed by how it was done back in 1933. John P. Fulton, John J. Mescall, and Frank D. Williams were in charge of the visual effects, using several techniques to display the abilities of The Invisible Man. Wires were used when Griffin wasn't wearing clothes, using the wires to move objects as if Griffin was doing it. A matte process was also used when Claude Rains was wearing clothes and taking them off, having Rains in a black velvet suit against a black velvet background while combining these shots with location shots to create the effect. Rains, being claustrophobic, had issues with the suit, so a double was sometimes used. Dummies and masks were also used as well. Just really impressive and creative stuff going on behind the scenes.

James Whale really captures the essence of THE INVISIBLE MAN, giving the film an energy to match the downward spiral Griffin is taking as he becomes more unstable due to his experiment. The film is briskly paced, and the way the special effects are used within the story is done to perfection. There's also a bit of odd humor throughout the film, which is a trademark of Whale's. Whale seems to be having a lot of fun visualizing this story, making THE INVISIBLE MAN an entertaining 75 minutes.

The acting is pretty damn good as well. Besides Gloria Stuart, who would probably be best known for her role as the older Rose [even becoming the oldest person to be nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar] in 1997's TITANIC, as Griffin's love interest Flora, and Una O'Connor, whose voice and screams made her more memorable in Whale's later film, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, only one real actor stands out in the cast. THE INVISIBLE MAN belongs to Claude Rains, who isn't even seen until the end of the film, but whose voice is so memorable and iconic, that his vocals truly carry the film from beginning to end. I can't imagine Colin Clive in the same role, even though Rains' terrible screen test almost led to that choice from actually happening. But Rains' voice is so unique and emotive, that you're sucked into every word he says. Rains would later have a blossoming film career due to THE INVISIBLE MAN, starring in films like CASABLANCA and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. But for me, THE INVISIBLE MAN will always be his career highlight.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE STAYING AWAY FROM THE SNOW
- A bandaged man wanted a hotel room with a fire. This would have been believable as a Michael Jackson biopic, but MJ, fire, hair, and all that plastic surgery really don't mix.

- Scientist Dr. Kemp admitted his affection for his best friend, Griffin's, girlfriend, Flora. Judging by her rejection, chemistry is not the right field for study for Kemp.

- Griffin orders Kemp around, telling him that he's strong and will strangle him if he disobeys. Well like they say - if you want things done right, you got to threaten the poor bastard.

- Griffin spilled black ink on a cop's face. Donald Sterling would have had a fit if this happened to him!

- Griffin caused a train to fall off of a cliff. You were supposed to just THROW MOMMA FROM THE TRAIN, not everyone else!

THE FINAL HOWL
THE INVISIBLE MAN is one of the finest pieces of early horror cinema. Claude Rains' performance is immortal, with his strong unique voice carrying the film from beginning to end. James Whale's fun direction and the special effects - that were way ahead of its time - still holds up pretty well today. And while not a perfect adaptation of H.G. Wells' novel, it's probably still the best one out there. It's pretty easy to see that THE INVISIBLE MAN still happens to be a powerful, effective film after 81 years.


SCORE
4 Howls Outta 4

The Wizard of Oz (1939) [The 650th Review]

DIRECTED BY
Victor Fleming

STARRING
Judy Garland - Dorothy Gale
Ray Bolger - Scarecrow/Hunk
Jack Haley, Sr. - Tin Man/Hickory
Bert Lahr - Cowardly Lion/Zeke
Margaret Hamilton - Wicked Witch of the West/Elvira Gulch
Frank Morgan - Oz/Professor Marvel
Billie Burke - Glinda
Clara Blandick - Auntie Em
Charley Grapewin - Uncle Henry

Genre - Fantasy/Family/Musical/Supernatural/Witchcraft

Running Time - 101 Minutes


It's always difficult deciding what film should be covered for each milestone review I write. Should it be a film I absolutely love? Should it be a film within the genres I cover that is so popular, it needs to be covered? Should it be one of the worst films out there, leading me to go on a sarcastic tirade, bashing the film in every way? It's a tough choice.

Usually, I like to go with a film I absolutely love, since every 50th review I write feels a bit special. The 650th review was actually a pretty easy choice, since I have been wanting to publish something about this particular film for years. With a blockbuster prequel having been released back in March [which became one of the biggest films of the year], I figured in order to discuss that film, I might as well start from the Judy Garland classic.

1939's THE WIZARD OF OZ is probably a film anyone reading this has seen in their lifetime at least once. It's a classic that everyone has dissected, talked about, and even tried to sequelize or reboot in some way - in both movie, animated, and theatrical form. L. Frank Baum's most popular novel has become a pop culture giant, and the film is still shown every Thanksgiving for years now. There's no place like home, and to get there, it's time to follow that yellow brick road and see why this movie is still as wonderful as it probably was almost 80 decades ago.

PLOT
Dorothy Gale (Judy Garland) from Kansas is whisked away inside her house by a massive cyclone along her loyal dog, Toto. When the house lands, Dorothy steps out to find out she's been transported to some magical land called Oz. She also learns that her house has landed on the Wicked Witch of the East, killing her. The Munchkin natives of Oz congratulate and celebrate with Dorothy for killing the witch, because now they're independent of her rule. While she's treated like royalty by a good witch named Glinda (Billie Burke) for her deed, Dorothy just wants to find her way back home to her Auntie Em (Clara Blandick) and Uncle Henry (Charley Grapewin). Glinda and the Munchkins tell Dorothy that she must follow the Yellow Brick Road, that leads to Emerald City, to find a wizard named Oz (Frank Morgan), who will grant any wish she desires.

As Dorothy follows the road, she encounters three new friends. The first is a Scarecrow (Ray Bolger), who wants a brain. Then they encounter a Tin Man (Jack Haley, Sr.), who only wants a heart. Finally, they meet the Cowardly Lion (Bert Lahr), who wants a jolt of courage to confront his foes. As the four of them head to Emerald City, they're being chased by the Wicked Witch of the West (Margaret Hamilton). This dangerous villain not only wants revenge on Dorothy for killing her sister from the East, but she wants possession of Dorothy's powerful ruby slippers that were her sister's to begin with.

REVIEW

It's hard to really review THE WIZARD OF OZ. What do I say that others haven't already said or written about such an immortal classic movie? It's probably the greatest family fantasy film ever made, based on a novel that's actually better than this fantastic adaptation. It's hard to really be objective with this film. I've seen it so many times since I was a kid, so my enjoyment of it sort of blinds any flaws the film probably has here and there. But THE WIZARD OF OZ is still as magical to me as an adult as when I first watched it. It's just that good.

To go deep inside the screenplay would be missing the point with THE WIZARD OF OZ. It would also be redundant, as it's well written, logical, and deeper than one would think. The dialogue is memorable. The characters all have distinct personalities and looks that make them special. The narrative follows a path anyone can follow, carrying various themes all ages can relate to. Sure, a lot of things from the novel were either omitted or changed. The silver slippers are now ruby [a color that's more vibrant onscreen]. Glinda the Good Witch is the blending of two characters in the novel [the Witches of the North and South]. The Wicked Witch makes her appearance much later in the story, although her role in this adaptation makes her a better and more present villainess. The Scarecrow and Tin Man had deep backstories. Certain characters and dangerous situations were left out for time constraints and possibly flow issues. Obviously, you'll get more out of the story by reading the novel. But the screenplay adapts the essence and more important parts of the narrative, so it works really well in terms of cinema.

I think what's most interesting about the adaptation are the themes. Obviously, we have good vs. evil. We have reality vs. illusion/magic. There's the idea that what we want in life is within ourselves. However as an adult, I've noticed some political allegories when it comes to THE WIZARD OF OZ. I'm not sure if L. Frank Baum had intended this in his novel back in 1896 - although I'm sure there was some influence. But it's pretty clear to see some metaphors when it comes the film version. Oz, the Great and Powerful, is a stand-in for any powerful political leader who makes promises to people that he can't really make. He appears as this giant head, looking menacing and all-knowing.

But in reality, he's just an illusionist behind a screen who has no real idea what he's doing ruling Oz. He's corrupted by the power because it makes him feel important. He also lets the citizens go at war with each other to solve the land's problems, rather than doing something himself to aid in the situation. The Wicked Witch of the West is the embodiment of sin and corruption. She's greedy for ruby slippers. She assaults innocent people to send a message. She sends out Winged Monkeys to tear the stuffing out of the Scarecrow, or mistreat Toto. She has the power, but uses it in ways that doesn't benefit anyone but herself. In other words, she's a dictator. Dorothy, Scarecrow, Tin Man, The Cowardly Lion, and all the Munchkins are the lower-to-middle class workers who expect rewards from their government - in this case, Oz. Each character wants something individually, but Oz makes them work for it. When they do the job, Oz still refuses to help, leading Dorothy and the others to reveal the truth about the ruler. This revelation that Oz is a fraud gives Dorothy and her group the knowledge that they had the power all along. And without them, Oz would cease to exist due to the presence of the Wicked Witch of the West. The truth allows the Land of Oz to be more independent than they were before Dorothy had arrived. I may be looking way too deep into the theme, but it's clearly there if you really look at it. I think the allegory is pretty interesting, and gives one a different perspective on the film as an adult as it most likely did as a child.

The special effects for its time are quite impressive. Even in 2013, you have to marvel at how much work was put into the production of this film, as color was ultra rare in cinema at the time. Kansas is a black and white world, which seems to represent how simple life is there, and that certain things are right and certain things are wrong - there's no middle ground. Oz, in its Technicolor glory [which I'm sure amazed audiences back in 1939], creates more freedoms and represents all shades of right and wrong. It also allows Oz to feel more like this fantasy, surreal world compared to the dreary and boring looking Kansas. You also got to admire the wire work as the Wicked Witch of the West flies around on her broom, or as the Winged Monkeys make their presence known in the air. We also get moments of trapped doors, like when the Witch melts due to water being thrown at her. The sets are lavish and creative. The make-up work is fantastic for 1939. There was a lot of work put into the film's presentation, making THE WIZARD OF OZ one of the most expensive films for its time. Strangely enough, the film wasn't a huge box office success [it did well enough], gaining its life through television showings. I guess it was one of those films that found its appreciation later in life.

The direction by Victor Fleming is very good. Fleming, mainly a silent film director who would also direct the classic 1939 GONE WITH THE WIND, really gives the film life through his visualization of both Kansas and Oz. I love the transition that occurs when Dorothy opens her black and white door to reveal a brightly colored Oz once the house lands. It's such a classic moment in cinema history, probably making audiences awestruck at the use of colors and composition. Fleming also gives THE WIZARD OF OZ a ton of energy through a fast pace, and with memorable great music [songs that will transcend time] that moves the story forward. I also like how the set designs and the way Fleming directs his actors create an artificiality about Oz, which works in the film's favor. I also love Oz's huge green head, which is a great visual and special effects moment - especially in 1939. Fleming creates a fairy tale come to life in terms of his visuals, which is probably a big reason why the film is still loved by all ages today.

The acting is great. Judy Garland, in the role that made her a star, is pretty much synonymous with the role as Dorothy. Not only did she have a great singing voice, but she had a charm about her that made her endearing. It's sad to hear about what happened to her during the production, as she was fed pills to stay awake and to keep the weight off, knowing what it would eventually lead to. But Garland is fantastic and conveys the innocence of a teenage girl convincingly. It would have been interesting to see what Shirley Temple would have done with the role, since she was the first choice for Dorothy. Ray Bolger, who was originally cast as the Tin Man, is very fluid and charismatic as the Scarecrow. Jack Haley, Sr. is also good as the Tin Man, although he wasn't the first or second choice for the role. As I mentioned, Bolger was the original choice, but wanted to play a character with more movement. Buddy Epsen, who would later become a pop culture icon himself as Jed Clampett in the television show The Beverly Hillbillies, was originally going to be the Scarecrow but switched with Bolger to play the Tin Man. However, the make up tests caused a massive allergic reaction to Epsen, making him extremely sick. Jack Haley, Sr. took his place after the production was stopped for ten days. Bert Lahr, one of the few first choices in the production, is quite great as the Cowardly Lion. I think out of the three Oz protagonists, he stands out the most. Margaret Hamilton haunted many audience members as the Wicked Witch of the West, although she had terrible mishaps during production as well, including being lit on fire during her escape from Munchkinland. She's iconic though, and definitely plays the part perfectly. She was also a second choice, as Gale Sondergaard was the original choice [but left because she wanted to play a prettier role]. The rest of the actors do their parts well. Just a wonderful cast.


THE FINAL HOWL

What can I say about THE WIZARD OF OZ other than it's a family classic that deserves its status as one of the greatest fantasy films of all time? It's a great adaptation to an even better novel, with memorable musical numbers, colorful characters and situations, fantastic visualization by Victor Fleming, and wonderful acting by a talented cast. I still love this film now as much as I did when I was younger. When it comes to cinema, THE WIZARD OF OZ is truly iconic. And I don't need a giant floating head to tell me that.


SCORE

4 Howls Outta 4



TRAILER


JUDY GARLAND - "SOMEWHERE OVER THE RAINBOW"

[SEQUEL SEPTEMBER II] Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

DIRECTED BY
James Whale

STARRING
Boris Karloff - The Monster
Colin Clive - Dr. Henry Frankenstein
Ernest Thesiger - Dr. Septimus Pretorius
Valerie Hobson - Elizabeth Frankenstein
Una O'Connor - Minnie
O.P. Heggie - Blind Hermit
Elsa Lanchester - Mary Shelley/The Bride

Genre - Horror/Science Fiction

Running Time - 74 Minutes


At the birth of horror cinema, Universal Studios was king. Sure, other studios crafted their own horror films as well, but Universal had all the attention with their classic monsters that still resonate all these years later. 1931's DRACULA with Bela Lugosi started the trend, becoming quite the success and making Lugosi an icon. However, FRANKENSTEIN months later would top it, becoming one of the most beloved horror films of all time and considered one of the best Universal Monster films out there.

Due to the success of FRANKENSTEIN, Universal quickly decided on the idea of a sequel. This was very evident when the studio requested the ending to be changed so that Dr. Henry Frankenstein would survive his ordeal with the Monster. Being smart, Universal realized that director James Whale was a huge part of why FRANKENSTEIN was so successful. However feeling that the well had dried up for the story and character, Whale passed on the idea - instead, working on 1933's THE INVISIBLE MAN, which also happened to be hugely successful for Universal. Realizing that Universal would not pursue the sequel without his input, Whale reconsidered - only if he got to make 1934's ONE MORE RIVER [which marked the film debut of Jane Wyatt of Father Knows Best fame]. Seeing how Universal was catering to his every need, Whale was happy to be given creative control over the project. Feeling that he wouldn't be able to scare people again with The Monster, and believing the film wouldn't be as good as the original, Whale decided to make the sequel more of a fun affair that would elicit more laughs than screams. With playwrights William J. Hurlbut and Edmund Pearson writing the screenplay and some of the principal actors reprising their roles, Whale directed 1935's BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN.

Although the film was shortened by 15 minutes and had to go through series of Hays Code censorship at the time, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN was released to massive success. In fact, many consider this sequel superior to the original film. And it's easy to see why. With its immaculate direction, fantastic acting, and quick paced storytelling, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN may be one of the best sequels ever made - even close to 80 years later.

PLOT
In the prologue of BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, we see author Mary Shelley (Elsa Lanchester) telling her friends that there's more to the Frankenstein saga. The actual film takes place right after the end of 1931's FRANKENSTEIN, with The Monster (Boris Karloff) not dying in that fire set up by the town mob. Also not dead is Dr. Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive), who recovers to marry his love Elizabeth (Valerie Hobson) and denounce playing God ever again.

After being befriended by a blind hermit (O.P. Heggie) who teaches him how to speak, The Monster encounters the creepy Dr. Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger). Pretorius plans to blackmail Frankenstein in helping him create a mate for The Monster, using the body parts of grave robbed corpses. Once the Bride (Elsa Lanchester, again) is created, her lack of enthusiasm for The Monster sets off a chain of deadly events for everyone involved.

REVIEW
BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN has been parodied, studied, and loved by so many, that it's one of those films people know about even if they haven't watched the film in its entirety. This sequel is a film that has so much going for it in front and behind the camera, that it deserves all the respect and adulation it receives. In fact, not only is it a better made movie than the first FRANKENSTEIN, but BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN may be the best horror film in the genre's Classic Era.

The story in BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN is fairly simple, using certain moments from the novel that weren't incorporated in the first film. Probably the most poignant scene is where The Monster encounters a blind hermit who is playing music. Not able to see The Monster's appearance, the hermit quickly befriends him - giving him a place to stay and eat, as well as teaching him speech. Even though Boris Karloff was hugely against The Monster saying a word, the speech aspect is something that The Monster is known for in Shelley's novel. But the short friendship between The Monster and this hermit is such a joy to watch onscreen, as this hermit is the only one in the film that treats The Monster like a human being in a touching scene. It's this scene where BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN reaffirms that The Monster is not the ugliest and scariest person in the film. The mob of people who freak out everytime they see him and try to kill him are more vicious than The Monster is. Tragically, the friendship is short-lived due to the locals who try to kill The Monster. But this scene just makes us sympathize with The Monster more.

Honestly, the main villain of the film is the mad scientist, Dr. Pretorius. He drinks. He smokes. He seduces The Monster in telling him that he'll be his best friend by making The Monster a female "friend" to play with. And when The Monster gets angry, Pretorius drugs him so his plans aren't ruined. Hell, Pretorius even makes us sympathetic towards Dr. Henry Frankenstein, the man who created this whole mess to begin with because he thought he could play God. Frankenstein has moved on, but Pretorius threatens Frankenstein's wife, Elizabeth - goading him into helping him create The Bride. The man is a snake, manipulating the world around him to feed his ego and power.

Speaking of snakes, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN uses a lot of Christian imagery throughout. The main ones are definitely The Monster getting "crucified" by the townspeople, and a cross of Jesus Christ nearby a grave that The Monster hides into to escape a mob of people. There's also a cross during the scene where The Monster and the hermit befriend each other, symbolizing the love Christ had for all people regardless of their appearance. Obviously, the idea of playing God with nature is definitely at play, this time with Pretorius. And ironically, there seems to be some subtext involving homosexuality between Pretorius [actor Ernest Thesiger was gay] and Henry Frankenstein - mainly for Pretorius stealing Frankenstein away on his honeymoon to create life together. There's also the friendship between the hermit and The Monster that's destroyed because it's not considered accepted by those around them. I'm not sure if that was anyone's intention [although James Whale was gay], but I can see why many consider the homosexual aspect to be in the film.

The character of the Bride herself is interesting. There's not really much to say about her, which is ironic since she's the title character. But she only appears during the last five minutes of the film, and reacts like the majority of people who encounter The Monster - screaming her lungs out. I'm really amazed how popular this character has become with such a short presence. Sure, she has an interesting look [with the big tall hair and that white streak going through it], but there's not much to her other than that.

The only other character worth mentioning is Minnie, the annoying woman who pops in whenever the film wants to lighten the tone. If there's any misstep with BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, it's probably this character. She's not terribly written and is quite humorous. But compared to the rest of the film, which is pretty dark and serious in tone, she severely sticks out. I get that Whale realized that BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN wouldn't be as scary as the first. But adding this character is just rubbing it in to audiences. She doesn't hurt the film all that much really, since she's not a serious constant within the story. But she sort of distracts from the focus rather than genuinely add anything that will be remembered fondly.

The screenplay is quite strong overall, with great dialogue, nice plot twists, and continuing the idea of tolerance and "man as God" that were introduced in the first film. It's a sequel that probably doesn't need to exist, but at least it's one that's well told and follows up the first film in a logical, if not campier, manner.

The special effects and make up in BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN are quite great. Of course, Jack R. Pierce's iconic Monster make up returns for the sequel. This time though, the dental plates that lowered The Monster's jaw in the first film had to be removed due to Karloff needing to speak during the second half of the film. Pierce also added scars to show the trouble The Monster had been through. The Bride make up and look are great as well, although Lanchester hated working with Pierce due to his ego.

The scene that really impressed me was the one where Pretorius shows Henry Frankenstein his jars of living things. Thanks to John P. Fulton, actors were shot in full-sized jars that eventually became matted and rotoscoped onto the film so they would look miniature compared to Colin Clive and Ernest Thesiger. I had forgotten this scene was in the film, so I was awestruck by how advanced this technique was for its time. It's sad when I'm more amazed by techniques like this over CGI. But Fulton was ahead of his time here.

The direction by James Whale is just as good, if not better, than it was in FRANKENSTEIN. I think just the use of mise en scene is just more powerful in BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN than it was in the first film. Like I mentioned before, the religious imagery is aggressive, yet subtle, at the same time. There are also moments where The Monster sheds a tear, and we clearly see it run down his cheek - first when the hermit befriends him, and the last when the Bride rejects him. It's a nice touch that makes The Monster the most human character in the film. Whale is also great when it comes to pacing [a lot of action moves the film along really fast], as well as dissolves that go from establishing shots to close ups. The cinematography [very much German expressionism by John Mescall] is quite stunning as well, as the picture quality looks strikingly beautiful even after all these years. Whale may not had wanted to direct this sequel, but he took his visual presentation seriously. It's a very confident and professionally made film that carries a specific tone and a much darker, edgier look.

The acting is just as good here as it was in the original. Boris Karloff is still the star as The Monster, giving the creature life through his facial expressions, body language, grunts, broken English, and emotions. No one has played Frankenstein's Monster better than Karloff since. The man is iconic in the role because he's that good. Colin Clive returns as Henry Frankenstein, getting less to do. But he does it well. Apparently he was in some sort of accident prior to shooting, which is why he's mostly in scenes where he sits down. But Clive gives a more sympathetic turn this time around, which I thought fit his character arc well. Ernest Thesiger is over-the-top as Dr. Pretorius, but in a good way. He's evil in a campy sort of way, but you still feel a bit threatened by him. He pretty much steals the scene anytime he appears. Valerie Hobson, replacing the then-ill Mae Clarke, is decent as Elizabeth. She plays the damsel-in-distress well. Una O'Connor is kind of annoying as Minnie, but she did manage to get me to chuckle with her melodramatic acting. O.P. Heggie is cool as the blind hermit, sharing a really touching scene with Karloff. Dwight Frye returns in a different role - Karl, Pretorius' assistant. He's good in the role. And Elsa Lanchester, as both Mary Shelley and the Bride, is very memorable. I love her bird-like mannerisms as The Bride. And she can definitely scream. A very cool cast that helped make BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN a classic many still go back and watch even today.


THE FINAL HOWL
What's there to say about BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN? It's an absolute classic, with a memorable story, great acting [especially by Boris Karloff], and impressive direction by James Whale. Sure, the title character doesn't make her appearance until the very end. And not everything works within the story. But I can overlook those things since this sequel is entertaining and creates a logical continuation to where the last film left off. BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN is definitely a step-above its 1931 predecessor, displaying more confidence and more subtext that maintains its rewatchability. I believe BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN may be the best horror film of the Classic Age and will continue to leave an impression for years to come.



SCORE

4 Howls Outta 4

Frankenstein (1931)

DIRECTED BY
James Whale

STARRING
Colin Clive - Dr. Henry Frankenstein
Boris Karloff - The Monster
Mae Clarke - Elizabeth
Edward Van Sloan - Dr. Waldman
Dwight Frye - Fritz
Frederic Kerr - Baron Frankenstein
John Boles - Victor Moritz

Genre - Horror/Monsters

Running Time - 71 Minutes


The year 1931 is probably considered the genesis of the popularity for horror cinema. Universal had the extremely successful Bela Lugosi DRACULA. Paramount Pictures released the great DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE, starring Frederic March [which MGM had bought the rights of until Warner Brothers rebought those rights recently for home video distribution]. But I think the most popular, and beloved, horror film of the year was probably James Whale's take on the 1818 Mary Shelley novel, FRANKENSTEIN.

There was a lot of buzz for this adaptation. The main buzz was about the casting of the Monster. Bela Lugosi, who had become a major horror star due to DRACULA, was originally cast for the role. Until the time of the film's release, much of the media and press had still believed that Lugosi was in the film, playing Frankenstein's creation - which led to some people feeling misled, seeing that they went to watch Lugosi in the role. In actuality, Lugosi hated the make up process required to transform him into the character. So he dropped out of the project [at least according to him], although Lugosi would play the Monster in 1943's FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN. However, many say that Lugosi [as well as the first hired director for the film, Robert Florey] were fired, as they weren't a fit for the movie. Lugosi has stated that the character of The Monster was nothing like the character he had read for in Florey's script, with that version of the monster being a sociopathic murderer without remorse or conscience.

Boris Karloff and director James Whale were hired to replace both Lugosi and Florey respectively. The script had changed quite a bit once these two were added, making the Monster more of a sympathetic figure. Jack R. Pierce created the trademark look for the Monster, which required Karloff to wear 13 pound shoes that were 4 inches high. Karloff also had to sleep with the makeup on, so the look could remain consistent. There's controversy whether the "flat head" look was either Pierce's or Whale's idea, but nothing had ever been confirmed either way.

However, everything fell into place and FRANKENSTEIN was released on December 4, 1931. It was a smash hit right out of the gate, and is considered the film to really solidify Universal Studios as the studio for quality horror cinema. And after 81 years, FRANKENSTEIN is still a great film that holds up surprisingly well and resonates quite effectively today.

PLOT
At a funeral, Dr. Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) and his hunchback assistant Fritz (Dwight Frye) are hiding, spying on the ceremony. Once it's over, Frankenstein and Fritz dig up the buried body to gather some dead tissue. The two have been doing this for a while - plundering graves and morgues in order to gather up the body parts of corpses for an experiment. As a doctor in Electrobiology and Chemical Galvanism, Frankenstein wants to prove that he can re-animate dead tissue with electricity. He and Fritz have stitched up all the dead tissue they have gathered, creating a large body that he plans to restore back to life.

Frankenstein's inner circle, including his beautiful fiancee Elizabeth (Mae Clarke), has been worried sick about him. Rather than planning for their wedding and spending time together, Frankenstein has secluded himself more and more with this experiment. After a strange letter from Frankenstein, Elizabeth and others - including Victor Moritz (John Boles) and Frankenstein's teacher and mentor, Dr. Waldman (Edward Van Sloan) - barge to an old watchtower that happens to be Frankenstein's laboratory. As Frankenstein feels threatened by their presence and worries that they'll discredit his achievements, the mad scientist decides to let them stay to watch him bring his creation to life. During a thunderstorm, Frankenstein takes the opportunity to use the lightning to charge up the dead tissue with electricity. When the body begins to move, everyone is shocked except for Frankenstein - who worries the others when he claims to be a god.

When Frankenstein learns that Fritz 's mistake had given his creation an "abnormal brain" rather than a "normal" one, the scientist succumbs to stress and exhaustion. The creature, like a child, has no idea how to adapt to this world he's been brought into, lashing out and having tantrums. It doesn't help when Fritz torments him with a whip and fire, which the Monster is highly afraid of. As Frankenstein attempts to recover and realizes what he has done, he and Dr. Waldman decide to restrain the Monster in order to destroy it. Now feeling alienated and frustrated, the Monster escapes from the restraints, leaves the laboratory, and enters town with the rest of civilization. As the Monster tries to adapt and learn through experience within a normal society, his mistakes start to haunt him as the villagers can't accept what he is - leading to a violent manhunt that doesn't have a happy ending.

REVIEW

FRANKENSTEIN was the first Universal Monsters film I had ever watched as a child. I think that's why I prefer it over DRACULA and 1941's THE WOLF MAN, although I'm not saying that FRANKENSTEIN is the best Universal Monster film that was made. Still, I had always found FRANKENSTEIN to be an appealing watch, even years ago. Not only was the look of the Monster freakin' cool, but I think even at that age I was able to understand the themes that run throughout this movie. It's one of those films that's beautiful to look at, yet the messages it's trying to express through the visual presentation resonate with me a lot more.

Just like DRACULA before it, FRANKENSTEIN is more based on the stage productions adapted from Mary Shelley's novel rather than the novel itself. The difference between the film and the novel is mainly the lack of philosophy that novel had about the Monster's creation - whether it was right or wrong and when do morals come in when man attempts to play the role of God. Also, the book had a lot of moments where Frankenstein and his creation would argue over his existence and the way the world perceives him. The film dumbs it down a bit, with the creation being nothing but a child-like brute. There's also not much time for any sort of philosophical debate about the Monster's existence. But unlike the adaptation of DRACULA, FRANKENSTEIN still manages to maintain the essence of the novel with themes that continue to be as powerful today as they were back in 1931.

One of the main themes is obviously the idea of man wanting to become God. But isn't that what every Mad Scientist story is about anyway? Frankenstein is obsessed with this idea of creating a person out of dead tissue, just to bring it back to life - as if this will make him feel like he's better than everyone else. He's corrupted by the power of this knowledge he has, believing that this is the new evolution of humanity and he's the one making it happen. While I'm glad the first act of the film plays around with this theme, I do wish it could have been explored more. That's not to say that the lack of depth hurts the film, because it doesn't. But you could do a whole lot with a theme like this. Just the simple fact that Frankenstein is trying to be God by using science, which is something religion is pretty much against, can be a topic all on its own. Also, his "Godhood" fails because his creation isn't perfect in his image [thanks to Fritz]. I also feel that Frankenstein never really gets punished for his actions of creating this Monster, besides maybe that bit of exhaustion he suffered with and getting injured while trying to stop the Monster in the film's final act. But the man pretty much gets away with it unpunished. He still goes through the wedding, which brings the entire town together in celebration. He doesn't die at the end. And he's never blamed for bringing the Monster to life when tragic things happen. The lack of morality is questionable, but it still doesn't take away from the film's enjoyment. FRANKENSTEIN is obviously meant to be a film to scare people, not exactly make them think deeper and look between the lines. But if you take the time, those issues are definitely evident.

Probably the stronger theme of the film is the idea of acceptance and tolerance. Because the Monster wasn't created by the hands of God, and because he looks different and acts different, he's treated like an outcast. And honestly, it's no fault of his own because he was forced into a cruel world that's too afraid to take the time to understand him and teach him social norms. Frankenstein is proud of his creation until he learns that the brain he asked for was bumbled by Fritz, stealing an "abnormal" brain instead. Instead of having an intelligent creation, he has to deal with one who is slow to learn and adapt, with the mental capacity of a child. Because of this, Frankenstein washes his hands of the whole matter, letting Fritz and Dr. Waldman to deal with the Monster instead. Great parenting! This is a terrible move since Fritz harrasses the Monster, abusing him with glee. Dr. Waldman wants to kill him so he can study him, which doesn't please the Monster at all. When your own creator abandons you because you aren't his perfect "child", that does a lot to someone's psyche, regardless if they have an adult brain or a child brain. Because of this neglect and lack of love and compassion, the Monster lashes out and runs away from the laboratory.

Now in the real world, the Monster begins to experience the world outside of the laboratory. The only one who embraces his presence is a little girl named Maria, who is shocked by his appearance at first but decides to befriend him anyway. This is a pivotal scene, as we finally see the Monster finally happy due to the fact that someone, a child no less, has accepted him regardless of his appearance. They play by the pond, throwing flowers into the water, as she teaches him how to make them float. Unfortunately once he runs out of flowers, he grabs Maria and throws her into the pond. She eventually drowns and is rightfully blamed for it by Maria's father and the rest of the village. However, this scene shows that the Monster didn't mean to murder Maria, as he's worried about her while she drowns, but has no idea what to do. He panics and runs away, knowing what he did was wrong. This shows that the Monster is not some killing machine who has no conscience. This Monster feels embarrassed and horrible about what he did, not understanding that his actions had consequences. Because of this, you gain a ton of sympathy for him because he didn't kill Maria out of Malice.

I always feel bad when the village have no hesitation when they grab their torches and attempt to kill the Monster. Sure, the Monster did kill Maria - accidentally. But they never blame Frankenstein for creating him. He's never really held accountable. But since the Monster is a creature created by unholy [a.k.a. scientific] means, he's pure evil and must be stopped. I find it funny that when Maria's father brought her drowned corpse to the village and blamed the Monster for her death, everyone jumped on the bandwagon, even Frankenstein. How did they even know the Monster did it? Maria's father wasn't even watching her! Shouldn't he be just as responsible? It's obvious that because the Monster is different, he's the scapegoat. Not sure if I find it fair or not, but that's what makes FRANKENSTEIN work so well. You can either watch the film for what the story tells on the surface, or you can look between the lines and debate about the moral and thematic issues that are clear to see here.

For a 1931 film, the make up and the effects used are very well done. Jack R. Pierce's look for the Monster is simply iconic, with the flat head and the bolts coming out of the Monster's neck. It also helps that Boris Karloff just has the perfect face for the Monster's look. The special effects include lightning, which isn't too impressive today but probably was back in 1931. Also the thrilling fire scene where the villagers set the Monster's hiding place down in flames, as the interior construction falls down on the Monster and traps him to his death is choreographed really well. The film is definitely more exciting to look at than DRACULA.

This excitement is also helped by James Whale's direction. Whale, usually known for his eccentricity and humor, gives FRANKENSTEIN a ton of atmosphere due to a German Expressionist influence, like done in the 1919 film, THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI. This is plainly seen at how some of the sets are structured, with circular stairwells and machinery only a mad scientist could appreciate and want. The laboratory, in particular, is composed and framed so well. Even the backdrops look painted on [they probably were], really giving off this surreal vibe as if this story doesn't take place in any reality we're used to. I also love that Whale really creates a lively film that's not too stagey like DRACULA is. There's more action sequences and the camera has some nice style going for it. I love the scene where the Monster enters for the first time, using close ups to show the monster's face. And the use of no music really adds to the film for me. There's something cold, yet inviting, about FRANKENSTEIN and how it's filmed. James Whale really did a wonderful job bringing the story to life here - one that still holds up better than modern adaptations of the same story.

The acting is pretty good here as well. Colin Clive is really over-the-top for most of the film as Dr. Henry Frankenstein. Usually this sort of thing would bug me if it was out of context, but I think it works here because he's how I would picture a mad scientist to behave. The "It's alive! It's alive!" scene is so great and Clive really makes it work to show how obsessed his character had become. The other actors, like Mae Clarke as Elizabeth, Edward Van Sloan as Dr. Waldman, and Dwight Frye [Renfield from DRACULA] as Fritz [not Igor] do well in their roles.

But the main star here is Boris Karloff, billed as "?" in the opening credits, as the Monster. For a character who utters no dialogue besides the occasional grunts and groans, Karloff sure makes him charismatic and sympathetic without even trying to do much. His subtlety really makes his character work, as the Monster is both scary and gentle. His fear of fire and his guilt over Maria's death is conveyed perfectly through Karloff's facial expressions, even underneath all that make up. It's no surprise Karloff would become a star after this film and would even portray the Monster a couple of more times in his career. Like Bela Lugosi's performance in DRACULA, Karloff is iconic as Frankenstein's Monster. As a matter of fact, I don't think anyone has even come close to matching Karloff in the role even after all these years. He's that good.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE THROWING PEOPLE I DON'T LIKE INTO PONDS

- Dr. Frankenstein and his assistant, Fritz, like to steal corpses from cemeteries for Frankenstein's experiment. The whole idea is pretty grave, don't you think?

- Frankenstein's Monster is afraid of fire. He must have dealt with a horrible case of chlamydia in his previous life.

- Before Dr. Waldman could dissect him, the Monster strangled the doctor to death. In this case, the Monster was a lot sharper than Waldman's scalpel.

- The Monster threw Maria into a pond after he ran out of flowers to throw. If this was during the age of To Catch A Predator, the Monster would get arrested for trying to get this girl wet...

- The Monster frightened Elizabeth prior to her wedding to Frankenstein. Those kind of screams ought to be saved for the honeymoon!

THE FINAL HOWL

FRANKENSTEIN is just a classic. It's a fun watch, it has great direction, great acting by Boris Karloff, and themes that still resonate as much today as they did back in 1931. This is everything you would want from a classic horror film from this era. James Whale's FRANKENSTEIN is probably my favorite Universal monster film that isn't a sequel of sorts. DRACULA may have gave Universal Pictures a ton of attention when it came to horror, but FRANKENSTEIN is the film that put it on the map without hesitation. There's no reason why any horror movie lover shouldn't go out of their way and watch this. Essential viewing in my opinion.



SCORE

4 Howls Outta 4