The Blood Splattered Bride (1972)

A young husband's sexual fantasies frighten his new wife and cause her to seek advice from Carmilla, a descendent of Mircalla de Karnstein. Carmilla seduces the young bride and forces her to commit gory acts of mutilation. - IMDB

The Blood Spattered Bride is a 1972 Spanish horror film written and directed by Vicente Aranda, based on the vampire story, "Carmilla" by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu.  It stars Simón Andreu, Maribel Martín, and Alexandra Bastedo. The film has attained cult film status for its mix of horror, vampirism and seduction with lesbian overtones. 

I was surprised with how much I enjoyed this film.  It has some weird shit going on. It begins with a couple that has just been married and when the bride does not like the honeymoon suite at the hotel, they go instead to the groom's family mansion.  The bride has issues dealing with her husbands insatiable rough sex. She sees a strange ghostly figure roaming the woods in a wedding dress.  Could this be the woman from the portrait who murdered her husband years ago on their wedding night?  When a nude woman is found on the beach and brought home, the bride becomes alienated from her husband and drifts into the arms of this erotic stranger. 

Kill your husband.....

When I say weird shit....I mean incredibly weird shit.  The woman found on the beach nude is buried in the sand with only a snorkel to breathe and a dive mask on.  What the fuck?  Turns out she's a lesbian vampire with a deep hatred for men.  She enters the dreams of the bride where they cut out the husband's heart....then joyfully squeeze it and blood flows freely over their nice white wedding dresses.  But in spite of all the craziness it has the gorgeous cinematography and beautiful locations.  It moves slow at times and certainly isn't a rocket ride but it does keeps your attention with the imagery.

Cut out his heart....

 The movie also is a battle of the sexes....the husband versus the lesbian vampire for control of the bride. There is also a blurring of the lines between reality and fantasy.  We are never really sure what the bride is dreaming and what's real. It makes for some very visual sequences.  The performances are all wonderful and the cast is crucial in pulling this crazy film off. (Especially Maribel Martín) If you enjoy Euro-horror than you will really love this film.  I do recommend it.  Just don't watch with the kids. 

Kevin Booker

Trivia
The Anchor Bay release of the film is in English, also dubbed in English to clean up the Spanish accents of the actors attempting English throughout. It is not likely that a Spanish language version of this film exists.

The Terror (1963)

When Roger Corman completed filming The Raven in 1963, it turned out that star Boris Karloff still had two days left to go on his contract for the picture. Not wishing to waste those two days, Corman, and four other uncredited directors, improvised a script and filmed a new film; thus was born The Terror.  Corman used sets, crewmembers, and cast members from The Raven. The film itself is an interesting, but ultimately unsatisfying, trip through the familiar ideas of Corman’s Edgar Allan Poe films, with the tried and true motifs of the lonely traveler and the man with repressed guilt manifesting itself. Although it is well acted and directed, The Terror does not offer enough shocks to justify its name.

Lt. Andre Duvalier (Jack Nicholson) is a French officer separated from his regiment during the Napoleonic Wars. Alone on horseback, he encounters a mysterious woman (Sandra Knight) who gives him drink, but keeps vanishing. Duvalier traces her to the castle of Baron Victor Frederick Von Leppe (Boris Karloff) and his servant Stefan (Dick Miller). There Andre discovers the secret of the mysterious woman, bound up in an old tale of murder and vengeance which now haunts Von Leppe, and which may threaten his own existence as well.

While the script is solid, if unremarkable, the story of an old man ridden with guilt and is nothing new for a Corman film, nor is the idea of a dead spirit seeking vengeance.  Screenwriters Leo Gordon and Jack Hill use the same basic outline as Corman’s Poe adaptations, such as Fall of the House of Usher and The Pit and the Pendulum. Karloff’s character is consumed with guilt for murders twenty years in the past, and Nicholson’s character echoes the lonely travelers of Corman’s earlier films. The script, which was largely improvised, is to be commended for maintaining a fair sense of mystery for the first two-thirds. Corman and his collaborators had been making this type of film for several years, and their familiarity with the basic plot and characters is very evident.

Unfortunately, The Terror unravels in its last act. The first part of the film creates an effective mystery about who Helene/Ilsa is, and also why everyone seems to be so frightened of the old castle. Duvalier receives several different stories about the nature of the castle and Von Leppe himself.  The air of mystery and dread is somewhat deflated when, when confronted by Duvalier, Von Leppe meekly explains everything to him. Nevertheless, the story holds its own until the end when it tries to have one twist too many. A flood destroys the castle and kills Von Leppe. Helene/Ilsa’s spirit is freed while her face melts away (in a very unconvincing effect). It is a very routine and dull ending, almost exactly the same as most of Corman’s Poe adaptations, and it is a very unsatisfying resolution to the story’s ideas. This bland and un-frightening ending derails an interesting, if unoriginal, set-up and substantially weakens the film.

Strong acting somewhat salvages the spotty script, with performances that range from solid to outstanding. It is no surprise that Boris Karloff delivers a wonderful performance as the tortured and guilt-ridden Baron Von Leppe. It seems impossible for Karloff to give a bad performance, no matter the quality of the film.  With his large, mournful eyes continually staring at the portrait of Helene, Karloff effectively demonstrates the guilt and sadness that Von Leppe harbors. He also uses a haughty, aristocratic manner of speaking, showing his character’s arrogance and power. The only weakness in his performance is during the final fight scene, in which he barely seems as if he is struggling at all with Helene.  Perhaps considering that he was 76 years old at the time, this is to be expected. Karloff commands the screen when he is present, and he lends a forceful gravitas to the role.

The 26-year-old Jack Nicholson offers a performance that is adequate and believable while at the same time almost anonymous. He delivers his lines well and looks strong, but there is absolutely no evidence that this young actor possesses any of the talent for which he will later be known. In The Terror, Andre is more of a plot device than a character, and Nicholson’s performance invests him with almost no emotional involvement. His words of comfort to Helene/Ilsa are almost robotically delivered, and when he gets angry with Von Leppe, one would not be surprised if Von Leppe yawned. Sadly, Nicholson only gives us the barest minimum of what his character requires, and nothing more.

 "You can't handle the truth! You're just not very good in this film!"

Corman’s direction of the film, like its cast, is solid but not inspiring. The opening scenes are the most effective, providing a satisfying mystery in Helene/Ilsa’s appearance, and then disappearance, in the water. He also makes effective use of The Raven’s sets, convincingly using the castle’s many rooms and secret passages as visual metaphors for Von Leppe’s moral decay. The outdoor scenes are not as effective; they were obviously filmed in Southern California, not France. The final destruction scenes are also handled capably, but there is not much inspiration or excitement in them. Overall, Corman presents his tale effectively but not memorably.

The Terror is a decent horror film that, unfortunately, makes one wish they were watching one of Corman’s earlier Poe movies. Boris Karloff offers a standout performance, and the film is professionally made, but in the end it is a film that feels that is just going through the motions of a Corman-Poe film. The Terror is definitely not a stand-out in the illustrious career of Roger Corman.

Eric Miller

The Vampire Bat (1933)

When the villagers of Klineschloss start dying of blood loss, the town fathers suspect a resurgence of vampirism. While police inspector Karl remains skeptical, scientist Dr. von Niemann cares for the vampire's victims one by one, and suspicion falls on simple-minded Herman Gleib because of his fondness for bats. A blood-thirsty mob hounds Gleib to his death, but the vampire attacks don't stop. Written by Sister Grimm - IMDB

The Vampire Bat is an American horror movie starring Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, Melvyn Douglas, and Dwight Frye.  It was directed by Frank Strayer.  This movie was turned out by Majestic Pictures and had a pre-famous Fay Wray since King Kong had not yet been released.  It also has Dwight Frye, who basically plays Renfield throughout the movie.  He's very effective and creepy, but all I kept thinking while watching the movie was....that's Renfield.  His performance is fine, it's just a carbon copy of what he did in Dracula.  He is amusing though when he gives unsuspecting people bats as gifts...he's obsessed with bats you see.  Comic relief is provided by a hypochondriac aunt of the doctor's.

Bats are furry....like cats.

This is not a horror film in the traditional sense but is instead more of a murder mystery.  It's not an awful picture and it's certainly visually inspired by the Universal horror films. The characters aren't developed at all and the ending will leave you scratching your head as to what the hell was the purpose of all this. True horror fans will appreciate this film more than a casual viewer.  It's a fun little film and it's cool to see Fay Wray with her natural brown hair color. There are three things that make "The Vampire Bat" stand out from the other poverty row films - the cast, the direction, and the comedy.

Kevin Booker

Trivia:
Filmed at night on Universal's European village set. The interior of Lionel Atwill's house is the set from The Old Dark House.

Majestic Pictures cashed in on the success of Lionel Atwill and Fay Wray, who had been a sensation in the Technicolor thriller Doctor X and had already completed Mystery of the Wax Museum, which was also being heavily promoted at the time. Majestic was able to get this film into theaters over a month before the release of the latter one. 

Goodnight, gentlemen. Don't let the vampires get you.

 

Mama (2013)

The 2008 financial collapse also affected, it seems, the spirit world. In Andrés Mushietti's interesting ghost story Mama, we begin just as an investment banker who has just lost everything in the collapse (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) and has murdered his wife, takes his two young daughters Victoria (Megan Charpentier) and Lilly (Isabelle Nélisse) to an abandoned house deep in the woods of southern Virginia. He plans to kill the two girls (and probably himself too) but a powerful witch kills him first, and protects the two young girls. Finally, the investment banker’s brother  Jeffrey (also played by Coster-Waldau) tracks the girls down, and decides to raise them with his bass playing girlfriend Annabel (Jessica Chastain), who at first doesn’t particularly care for the idea. Mama, however, comes with the girls, and will eliminate anyone who stands between her and “her” girls.

Mama is a skillfully made ghost story, if a fairly conventional one. The most effective choice made in the film is the decision to desaturize the color to a degree where sometimes it seems like we are viewing a black and white film. It lends the film an aura of deadness, which is the feeling that pervades through this film. Every thing in the film appears to be dead or dying. The color, or lack color, keeps a feeling of sadness and hopelessness running throughout the whole film. There is only bleakness and unhappiness. In addition, the movie, for the most part, is very quiet. It almost seems like there is nothing left alive in the film except whatever character is on the screen. This enhances the atmosphere tremendously, and only accentuates the feeling of death permeating the film.

Mama herself (Javier Botet) is an interesting character. She looks terrifying, and possesses all the expected powers of a vengeful ghost. However, she has a sad and tragic history that can help one, if not approve of her actions, at least understand them. However, the most interesting idea in the film is the idea of two young girls who are raised almost feral children. Victoria and Lilly, when their uncle finally finds them, behave almost as animals. The film shows them slowly breaking down their defenses in a very believable manner. If the idea of feral children suddenly thrust back into modern life were explored a bit more deeply, I believe it would've been a more interesting film. Nevertheless, the two young actresses do a wonderful job playing the two feral girls.

"Make sure to brush your teeth before you go to bed girls!"

Most of the rest of the cast is very solid as well. Jessica Chastain is very good at Annabel, a young woman who plays bass in a rock band, and really does not want to be raising two little girls. Early on, she does a marvelous job of seeming to just "go through the motions" of taking care of the kids. She often seems more like a bored babysitter then a new parent. When she learns to love the two girls, her performance becomes a bit more conventional, but it is still very good. Coster-Waldau is also good as Jeffrey. He seems truly concerned about his young nieces, and he also does a very good job of seeming clueless of anything going on around him. The only real disappointing performance is that of Daniel Kash as Dr. Dreyfuss, a therapist who try to help Annabel and Jeffrey with the girls. It is hard to tell if it is the way to character is written, or if it is Kash's performance, but too often he seems like nothing more than a scheming bad guy rather than a therapist whose motivations are conflicted.

So we have here a film that is well-made, and mostly very well performed. Nevertheless, it is far from a perfect film. The characters in it constantly are forced into doing "horror movie dumb" things. Far too often, characters are doing things by themselves when they should have someone with them, or they are exploring dark forests or abandoned buildings in the middle of the night. It seems that a more clever script could get the characters the information they need without making them look like idiots.
The biggest problem with this film is that it is not terribly frightening. It has some good jump scares, and Mama is a fairly frightening character. However, all the expected "ghost stories" elements are here. There does not seem to be that much that is fresh. The one fresh idea, that of feral children being raised by a ghost, does not last very long into the film. Before long, the storyline moves towards a standard plot of a mother (or in this case a prospective aunt) taking care of her helpless daughters. SPOILER ALERT: at the end of the film, a nice nuclear family has been established, with Annabel, Jeffrey and Victoria together, while the spirit of Lilly moves onto the next world in the form of a moth. For a film that is supposed to be terrifying, it is much too happy an ending.

The family united.

Overall, Mama is a good but not great horror film that is entertaining but not particularly memorable. Perhaps it's PG-13 rating prevents it from going as far as it needs to to become a truly terrifying movie. It is a quality ghost story, but it does not stand on the same level with a movie such as The Blair Witch Project or the original The Haunting.

Eric Miller

Frankenstein Unbound (1990)

What if Mary Shelley was not a novelist, but an historian? What if Victor Frankenstein was a real person and not merely a character? What if a 21st Century scientist created a monster worse than Frankenstein? These questions are addressed in Roger Corman’s 1990 film, Frankenstein Unbound, an adaptation of noted sci-fi author Brian Aldiss’s novel of the same name. The film marks horror legend Corman’s return to the director’s chair after a nearly twenty year absence, but unfortunately, this is not a triumphant return, but a film with a reach that far exceeds its grasp. It grapples with some profound and disturbing themes, but it does so in a silly and unconvincing manner. Despite some solid moments and a few strong performances, Frankenstein Unbound is ultimately unsatisfying.

Dr. Joe Buchanan (John Hurt) is a 21st Century scientist who is trying to create a perfect weapon. His experiments lead to a side-effect of time shifts that appear in the form of menacing clouds. One afternoon, Buchanan is caught up in one of these clouds, and he and his super-intelligent car are transported back in time to 19th Century Switzerland. There, he discovers that Victor Frankenstein (Raul Julia) and his creature were not fictional characters, but real people about whom the young Mary Shelley (Bridget Fonda) wrote. Soon, however, Buchanan and the creature are transported ahead in time to the decaying remains of a post-nuclear war earth. Buchanan must now face not only Frankenstein’s monster, but also an even greater monster of his own creation: the destruction of humanity.

Even though the film is an overall disappointment, it does have several positive aspects. The script is a clever re-examination of Mary Shelley’s novel, and it is a thoughtful commentary on the responsibility creators have to their progeny. It incorporates several details of the novel Frankenstein into the film, and it provides a wonderful portrait of the creature. He can speak, and he questions his own existence in an almost childlike manner. He is not as intelligent as in Shelley’s novel, and he allows himself at one point to be used as Dr. Frankenstein’s thug, but his constant questioning of “who made you?” to many characters is very poignantly written.

Additionally, Nick Brimble (aided by some well imagined, if not so well executed, makeup) offers a sensitive portrayal of the monster. He can be very terrifying, ripping Elizabeth’s chest open at one point, but at the same time he can seem very, as he says, “alone and miserable.” He moves very unsteadily, almost like a toddler who is just learning how to walk. He also speaks in a plaintive, mournful voice that always suggests sadness and a desire to be accepted.

"Who made you?"

Raul Julia also delivers a strong performance as Dr. Frankenstein. While he seems a bit old to be playing a Swiss medical student, he invests the role with a serious intensity and arrogance that is completely believable. When, near the end, he shouts “I am a scientist, I cannot sin!” he convinces us that he believes completely what he is saying. Like many screen Frankensteins before and after, Julia portrays the good doctor as a man whose obsession makes him completely oblivious to consequences, but who maintains an honest curiosity about science and the world.

Sadly, the rest of the cast is not as strong as Brimble and Julia. Bridget Fonda is not terribly convincing as Mary Shelley; she doesn’t even attempt an English accent. INXS singer Michael Hutchence is flat as Percy Shelley, and even though Jason Patric offers a good interpretation of Lord Byron, his appearance is all too brief. Also flat is Catherine Rabett as Elizabeth, Frankenstein’s love interest. She is rarely seen, and in the brief appearances that she does make, she does little more than say her lines and look pretty. We have to take it on faith that she and Victor are passionately in love, because there is little evidence of this in Rabbett’s performance.

Surprisingly, the most disappointing performance in the film comes from John Hurt. He is certainly energetic, but his interpretation does not seem appropriate for his character. Buchanan is a man who, through his own irresponsibility, is hurtled back through time, makes the astounding discovery that Victor Frankenstein and his creature were real, and gets to sleep with a legend of English literature. One would imagine such a person to react with horror, awe, humility, or many other related feelings. Hurt, however, plays Buchanan with the bemused smirk of a person walking through a well done amusement park. Up until the end of the film, he seems very jolly and not very upset with suddenly finding himself in the early 19th Century. He also somehow possesses sizeable savoir-faire with the world of the past. Near the end of the film, he seems upset and humbled, yet even then he doesn’t seem terribly upset with the destruction of the world. The way Hurt plays him, Buchanan almost seems like an audience member watching the film rather than the film’s key character. This inappropriate performance significantly lowers the emotional power of the film.

"Wow, what a cool place! Next week, we'll go to Disney World; Orlando is much warmer than Switzerland!"

Another problem in Frankenstein Unbound is that the script is hazy on what exactly is “unbound.” After Buchanan has killed the monster with an unconvincing laser light show, he wanders out into the devastated world of the future. We hear the late monster’s voice saying he cannot be killed, that he is unbound. Presumably, this means that once evil is released into the world, it cannot be put back. However, this is not made clear and, as it is presented, the “unbound” concept is somewhat confusing. It weakens the horrific nature of the film.

Roger Corman’s direction in this film is competent, but there is nothing terribly special about it. He includes some blurry dream sequences that try to tell Buchanan the nature of the evil he has wrought, but they seem more silly than profound. Additionally, his handling of the 19th Century scenes doesn’t effectively recreate the time and place. Despite the Swiss setting, all of the characters speak not only English, but, inexplicably, English with an American accent. There is very little attention paid to historical detail. This sloppiness greatly diminishes any wonder the audience should have in seeing Buchanan meet many notable historical and fictional characters. Overall, it seems more like a cheap TV-movie effort than the return of a genre icon.

Corman handles the horror elements of the film in a somewhat better fashion. The Creature’s pursuit and murder of Elizabeth is especially well portrayed. No matter how fast Elizabeth moves her carriage, the Creature is faster, and, with an unsettling glee, the Creature rips her chest open. The most chilling moment of this scene comes after Buchanan and Frankenstein find Elizabeth’s body, and Frankenstein muses aloud about the improvements he has made to human abilities in the Creature. Scenes such as this and the sequence when Frankenstein attempts to revive the dead Elizabeth (an idea also used in 1994’s Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein) are the best scenes in the film, and Corman directs them with flair.

Some weak effects and makeup hamper Corman’s direction. The makeup for the Creature (and later Elizabeth) is very well designed, with metal plates protruding out of the Creature’s head. However, it isn’t done very well. It looks too much like just a great deal of makeup and is not very believable. The effects in the film are also disappointing. They look dated even by 1990s standards, and images such as the menacing clouds appear almost cartoon-like. Overall, the entire film feels cheap; even the beautiful Italian scenery cannot make up for the low production values.

Frankenstein Unbound is a great idea for a film that is, sadly, not executed well. Most of the cast is solid, and much of the script is worthwhile, but the lead character is poorly portrayed, and the script is too confusing to be satisfying. Corman directs the film in a capable fashion, but the film is not impressive. It is sad that Corman’s return to the director’s chair could not be stronger.

Eric Miller

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994)

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the 1994 companion piece to Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992), is directed by star Kenneth Branagh, and co-produced by Francis Ford Coppola and James V. Hart (the director and screenwriter, respectively, of Bram Stoker’s Dracula). While it is hampered somewhat by an uneven performance by Kenneth Branagh, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is nevertheless a solid film that explores Mary Shelley’s original themes in a way that no other previous version has done.

The story of the film is told through an extended flashback. Swiss medical student Victor Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh) is obsessed with defeating death. Prowling graves and hospitals, he assembles a human body and manages to bring it to life. His creature (Robert DeNiro) is intelligent but horrible to look at, and society cruelly shuns him. His sadness turns to anger, and he soon becomes violent, seeking revenge against the creator that brought him to life with no concern for the consequences.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is extremely faithful to its source material, a quality it shares with Bram Stoker's Dracula. It does shorten some of the events of the novel, such as the trial of Justine Moritz (Trevyn McDowell), a servant of the Frankenstein family whom the Creature frames for a murder, and the death of Henry Clerval (Tom Hulce), Frankenstein’s best friend. It also adds a significant event near the end of the film (which will be discussed later in the review).  Nevertheless, this is the first movie version that actually recounts the same story that Mary Shelley originally wrote in 1818, including the framing device of Captain Walton’s expedition to the North Pole. Walton (Aidan Quinn) provides us with a character that finally offers the Creature some sympathy; unlike most of humanity, he treats the Creature as a person, not a monster. He also takes the tragic lessons of the story to heart, learning that sometimes actions can have terrible consequences. This framing device respects Mary Shelley’s structure, and adds dimensions to the story that previous versions have lacked.

While many versions of this story portray the Creature as a sad, pathetic wretch, or a violent, unstoppable killing machine, this film is different. In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, the Creature turns to evil because of his complete rejection by society, not because of a defective brain. This seemingly minor detail, taken directly from the original novel, allows the film to explore the true tragedy of Frankenstein's monster. The Creature is extremely intelligent, but his horrible appearance causes people to fear and torment him. The fact that his tormented and pitiable existence is caused by Frankenstein's disregard for the consequences of the things that he does, is probably the most important theme in the film.  As in the novel, Frankenstein has fantastic ideas and theories, but cares little about their cost.  He obsessively creates his Creature, but once his Creature is alive, writes that it is “pitiful” and leaves it to die. 

"You talkin' to me?"

This lack of concern for consequences is evident throughout the film. While he is in medical school, he points out to everyone that Professor Waldman (John Cleese) had once experimented with reanimating the dead. This effectively puts Waldman’s reputation in serious jeopardy, which Frankenstein uses as leverage to elicit Waldman's assistance in his own experiments. Later, he brings a frog back to life, and cheers his success. He merrily leaves, letting the frog writhe in pain. This aspect of Frankenstein's personality, however, is best illustrated by the films major departure from the original novel. After the Creature has killed Elizabeth, a despondent and guilt-ridden Frankenstein uses his equipment to bring her back to life.  Tellingly, Frankenstein doesn’t ask her how she feels, but rather asks her again and again to say his name. This sequence, Frankenstein pathetically begging the reanimated Elizabeth to speak his name indicates that, despite the horrific events of the film, Frankenstein still cares only for himself. He brings Elizabeth back to life for himself, regardless of Elizabeth's feelings on the matter. Elizabeth promptly kills herself rather than live as a reanimated Creature, demonstrating rather graphically that disregard for consequences can lead to destruction and pain.

The presentation of these themes is made possible by the wonderful depiction of the relationship between Frankenstein and his Creature. The two characters are portrayed as intellectual equals, and their scenes together for the most part present a more philosophical, rather than a visceral, horror. The Creature chillingly describes to Frankenstein how he killed his younger brother, and points out his selfishness. When the two encounter each other on the “sea of ice,” the Creature's intelligence is made clear not only to the audience, but to Frankenstein as well. The Creature asks Frankenstein “Who am I?” and even asks if he (the Creature) has a soul. Frankenstein responds with sadness and, for once, a desire to make amends. The Creature both loathes and is in awe Frankenstein, and Frankenstein is at once afraid of the Creature and pities him. It is an odd relationship, sophisticated and complex. At the very end of the film, Frankenstein dies in his sleep. The Creature soon appears, and weeps at his bedside. Captain Walton asks the Creature why he is crying, and the Creature mournfully responds, “He was my father.” Despite the strangeness of the relationship, the bonds between Frankenstein and his Creature are undeniable.

The cast in this film ranges from brilliant to satisfactory.  Unsurprisingly, Robert DeNiro gives the best performance in the film, aided greatly by convincing make-up that makes him actually look like a collection of body parts sewn together. Playing the Creature initially as a child (much like Boris Karloff), DeNiro beautifully portrays his innocence and initial fear.  In DeNiro’s hands, the Creature seems almost embarrassed to be seen, and ashamed of his own appearance.  Frankenstein has given him uneven legs, which DeNiro demonstrates by walking with a subtle limp. When the family for whom he has been secretly gathering food throws him out of their house, the Creature cries in pain and sorrow.  It is a heart-wrenching scene.  His plaintive mourning and tears can break the heart. Conversely, DeNiro also vividly portrays the Creature’s violent and frightening nature.  Wearing an old jacket of Frankenstein’s, he cocks his head to one side radiating subtle threat. With an unsettling smirk, he chillingly and almost casually describes the way he killed Frankenstein’s younger brother, and when he rips Elizabeth’s heart right out of her chest before Frankenstein and shouts “I keep my promises!”, he is genuinely frightening. DeNiro offers a layered and magnificent performance that nearly equals (but does not surpass) that of Boris Karloff.

DeNiro’s outstanding performance is complemented by a solid supporting cast. Helena Bonham Carter is good as Elizabeth.  While the script makes her little more than a love interest, Carter is able to imbue Elizabeth with a lively energy and intelligence that gives the audience the impression that she is a fully realized character.  Playing Elizabeth as fun-loving but serious when she needs to be, she is not subservient help-mate to Frankenstein. Henry Clerval, played by Tom Hulce, is an intelligent but bumbling young man who has the thankless task of being Frankenstein’s conscience. However, despite the almost cliché role, and Tom Hulce does it very well. Finally, John Cleese is brilliant in his brief role as Waldman.  Bravely offering no hints of the comic brilliance that he is known for, Cleese makes Waldman seem even more grave and sincere. This group of actors provides capable support to DeNiro's wonderful performance.

Sadly, Kenneth Branagh, who plays Frankenstein himself, gives the weakest performance in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.  While he has more than a few effective moments (especially during the imaginative creation scene), he fails to appear authentic throughout much of the film.  When DeNiro weeps, it is a plaintive outburst of honest pain.  When Branagh weeps, however, it is just an actor dutifully performing a crying scene.   While Branagh is an effective actor when paired with DeNiro or Carter for their extended scenes, when left to his own devices he appears too earnest, bordering on being “goody-goody”. For example, when, at his mother’s grave, he vows that he will “stop this [death],” with such a flair for over-dramatics the sense it not of a man on a noble if misguided mission, but more “ho-hum.” He doesn’t seem obsessed with defeating death; rather it seems like the idea just radomly occurred to him. During the first half of the film, he appears so jolly and at peace with himself that his later sad and depressed scenes are not believable. Never really inhabiting Frankenstein the way that DeNiro completely inhabits the Creature, there is always the impression of watching Kenneth Branagh perform Frankenstein, rather than of watching Frankenstein himself.

Branagh’s direction, thankfully, is better than his acting.  Branagh effectively creates a believable 18th Century atmosphere through effective use of different locations and costumes. The sprawling staircase in Frankenstein's home suggests impressive power and wealth, while the strange, theatrical classroom, with all seats circled around the instructor, indicates the powers of orthodoxy with which Frankenstein has to contend. Branagh often uses swooping camera shots to impart a sense of Frankenstein’s obsessive desire to create new life, and the fast moving camerawork subtly show us that Frankenstein is working at a frantic pace, cutting important corners. This is especially evident in the creation scene, which is the best moment in the film.  The Creature is in a metal vat with tubes attached that send electric eels into it to supply electricity.  At the proper moment, Frankenstein sets the machine to work, and then stands on top of it bare-chested screaming “Live, live, LIVE!!”  The vat shakes and the electricity crackles; it is an impressive sight to see.  At first, it appears that the experiment was a failure, but, in the only homage to the 1931 classic, Frankenstein sees the Creature’s hand move and exclaims “It’s alive.  It’s alive!”  Branagh’s direction imparts an almost operatic sense to the Creature’s creation. Also adept at visually expressing Frankenstein’s growing madness, Branagh again uses his creativity behind the camera to say what the dialogue does not.  After Frankenstein has brought the dead Elizabeth back to life, he takes her in his arms and tries to dance with her. While he is dancing, music from an earlier dance scene returns, and flashes of the dance that the couple has previously shared are spliced in, effectively showing us how mad and pathetic Frankenstein has become.  Additionally, Branagh, while telling a story that is tragic and, in many ways, intellectual, isn’t afraid to let this film's horror shine through. When the Creature jumps on to Elizabeth and menacingly tells her “Don’t bother to scream,” and then rips her heart out, we see it in all its gory glory. Branagh recognizes that this is a horror story, and doesn’t hesitate to show that to us.

Don't bother to scream

While this film has a solid cast, quality direction, and an intelligent, well-written story, in the end, it feels a bit hollow failing to connect emotionally with the audience. The film seems removed from its characters, failing to evoke any kind of emotional attachment, despite exploring some genuinely disturbing and thought-provoking themes. Most notably, we are never truly made to truly identify with Frankenstein. We don’t care very much what happens to Frankenstein because we don’t identify with him. His character is far too mercurial, jumping from one mood to the next, with little time for understanding. The only constant to his character is a lack of concern for consequences, which is not enough to build a three dimensional character upon. Partly because of Branagh’s performance and partly because of the script, the lack of focus distances us from Frankenstein, ruining any chance that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein could become the definitive version of Frankenstein.

Nevertheless, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a solid retelling of the classic story.  It is visually effective and boasts a solid cast. Even with its flaws, it effectively presents us with an authentic adaptation of Mary Shelley's ideas and themes, making it a subtle and entertaining film.

Eric Miller

The Ghost Walks (1934)

On a stormy night, a theatrical producer, his secretary, and playwright Prescott Ames are stranded when their car skids off the road and gets stuck. The three take refuge in the nearby home of Dr. Kent, a friend of Ames. One of Kent's patients, who is staying at the house, is acting strangely, and the others in the house tell the newcomers that she is behaving this way because it is the anniversary of her husband's murder. At dinner, the group begins exchanging accusations about the murder, when suddenly the lights go out, and soon afterwards comes the first in a series of mysterious and fearful events. Written by Snow Leopard

The Ghost Walks is a 1934 horror film, directed by Frank R. Strayer.  It stars John Miljan, June Collyer, Richard Carle and Johnny Arthur.  This is a neat little film if you're a fan of old movies from the 30's.  There's not really any supernatural forces at work here but is instead more of a whodunit movie.  The stand outs are easily Carle and Arthur.  Carle plays the theater producer who is constantly firing his obviously gay assistant, played by Arthur.  They are the comedy relief and steal the film.  

Once the lights go out we get a bit of a twist in the story which in turn is followed by even more twists.  The story is routine at times but the unpredictability of the film keeps the viewer's attention.  Director Frank R. Strayer was an experienced craftsman in the Poverty row side of the film industry and this is one of his better offerings.  The largely unknown cast make the most of their characters.  They are given some pretty clever lines and they deliver.

It's not a classic of the genre but it's a nice little movie.  It clocks in at a little over an hour and is worth your time if you run across a copy. 

My assistant might like to try that on.

Kevin Booker

Frankenstein Created Woman (1967)

Baron Frankenstein has acquired the dead body of a young maiden, Christina, and all it lacks is the spark of life. He captures the soul of a recently executed young man and installs it in the young woman. With the memories from the young man still intact, she starts to kill the people whose false accusations led to the young man's execution. Written by Mattias Thuresson - IMDB

Frankenstein Created Woman is a Hammer Horror film directed by Terence Fisher. It stars Peter Cushing as Baron Frankenstein and Susan Denberg as his latest creation. It is the fourth film in Hammer's Frankenstein series.

Here we have another fine entry in Hammer's Frankenstein series.  It tries something unique as far as Frankenstein films go.  Instead of creating a monster from dead bodies, the good doctor instead isolates the soul from one body and transfers it to another.  The film is excellent in every way....from the plot, the acting and to the atmosphere.  It provides the typical Hammer style which most horror fans have grown to love.  It also solidifies Fisher as Hammer's most important director and Cushing as a true horror icon. A perfect follow up to the not so good "Evil Of Frankenstein".

In this film Frankenstein is actually portrayed as sort of a good guy.  His deeds don't seem near as horrible as the three rich lads that kill the owner of the local tavern.  It's more a tale of revenge as opposed to monster runs wild. Cushing's performance shows that his character is even more cocky and sure of his genius and skills than he was in previous films.  He's the sarcastic Baron that we all know and love. His character also shows that his main goal is the forward movement of science.  In the beginning of the film he's more than willing to commit suicide by freezing himself to conduct his experiments. A man willing to do this to himself certainly isn't concerned with how he uses others to complete his work.

The cast around Cushing is good as well.  Thorley Walters is wonderful as Hertz, the absent minded and somewhat dim witted doctor that assists Frankenstein.  He is supposedly a doctor as well but is mesmerized by the genius of the Baron.  Susan Denberg performance is also memorable as Christina.  Creepiness abounds as she talks to a severed head to determine who she should kill next.  She changes from deformed innocent lass to killer. Plus she was also a Playboy model with makes her easy on the eyes.

Who dies next Hanz?

 The movie has a few small flaws but nothing to damage my overall feelings on the film.  It's not as visual as most Hammer films are.  It could be because cinematographer Arthur Grant was working on his first horror film for Hammer and was not as familiar with the visual style that came before him. It is certainly unconventional as far as most "Frankenstein" films go but Cushing and Fisher make this film work.

Kevin Booker

 Trivia:

 Susan Denberg is dubbed.  

We are never told in which Country the film is set, however the Coat of Arms on the coach is that of the Canton of Berne in Switzerland. 

Double-billed with "The Mummy's Shroud." 

Frankenstein's Daughter (1958)

 

Frankenstein's Daughter was produced by Marc Frederic and directed by Richard E. Cunha.  They gloriously made a very distinct film.  Donald Murphy stars as Oliver Frank...the grandson of Victor Frankenstein.  He lives in a house with Dr. Carter Morton (Felix Locher) and his niece Trudy (Sandra Knight).  Dr. Frank is not happy with just helping Dr. Morton....he has his own little experiments happening on the side.

This movie has Dr. Frank up to some zany shit.  He starts out by giving a mysterious potion to Trudy because he's pissed off that she won't give in to his advances.  She transforms into a bushy eyed monster that runs around town scaring folks while in her bathing suit.  But that's not his main goal.  His main goal is to bring to life a female monster because...."The brain of a female is conditioned to a man's world, therefore it takes orders."   Oh and he succeeds.  The monster awakens, tears the door down and goes out and kills someone.  But it's nice enough to knock when it comes back to the lab.  Regardless of looks, we know it's female because it has lipstick smeared across it's face. 

I'm conditioned to take orders.

Not only do we have terror galore but we get a party scene to cheer things up with Harold Lloyd Jr (backed by Paige Cavanaugh) and they sing "Special Date" and "Daddy Bird".  "Shaba-labba-lop, bobba-lobba lobba-lop"  Not only do we have some rocking tunes, we also have a playmate in this film.  Suzie (played by February 1957 Playmate, Sally Todd).  She's pissed because Trudy stole her boyfriend and goes off on a date with Dr. Frank.  But when she won't spread for the good doctor, she hops out of the car.  Mistake....Frank runs her over for monster parts.

This is not the playmate.

This a bad movie....but it falls into the category of drink some beers and laugh out loud bad.

Kevin Booker

Trivia:
The full monster make-up was actually being worn by a man, Harry Wilson. Because of this, makeup creator Harry Thomas did not realize that the creature was supposed to be female. All he could do at the last minute was apply lipstick to the creature.

Director Richard E. Cunha recently recalled that, upon seeing the make-up for the title creature just before filming, he was so disappointed he left the set and broke down in tears. 

The exteriors of the house were shot at the home of producer Marc Frederic.

This film is listed among The 100 Most Amusingly Bad Movies Ever Made in Golden Raspberry Award founder John Wilson's book THE OFFICIAL RAZZIE® MOVIE GUIDE.

Completed in May 1958, the last Frankenstein film made during the 1950's.