movie night

Movie Night: The Mummy (1932)

Dr. K2 Comments

Released: 22 December 1932
Director: Karl Freund
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Budget: $196,000
Stars: Boris Karloff, Zita Johann, David Manners, Edward Van Sloan, and Noble Johnson

The Plot:
Mummified for attempting to resurrect his dead lover, Egyptian high priest Imhotep (Karloff) reanimates when his tomb is disturbed and sets about wooing Helen Grosvenor (Johann) under the guise of an Egyptian historian.

The Background:
In 1922, British archaeologist Howard Carter and his, benefactor Lord Carnarvon, discovered the tomb of ancient Egyptian pharaoh Tutankhamun, uncovering a cache of riches and an elaborate sarcophagus that wowed and inspired generations. Producer Carl Laemmle Jr. was also inspired by this event, and the so-called “Curse of the Pharaohs” and commissioned story editor Richard Schayer to find a novel for a Mummy-centric horror movie to mirror Universal Studios’ previous success at adapting Dracula (Stoker, 1897) and Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (Shelley, 1818). Schayer and writer Nina Wilcox Putnam discovered Alessandro Cagliostro’s Cagliostro, a nine-page treatment with some similarities to Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Ring of Toth, which was then retooled by screenwriter John L. Balderston into The Mummy. Taking inspiration from ancient, real-world figures, Balderston’s script became cinematographer Karl Freund’s first gig as a director in America and saw Boris Karloff flex his acting muscles in the title role. Still, Karloff endured a lengthy and uncomfortable make-up process as Jack Pierce transformed him into a desiccated corpse, slathering his face with cotton, collodion, and spirit gum and wrapping him in linen bandages treated with acid and burnt in an oven! While the film’s historical accuracy was debated, The Mummy was a modest box office success met with mixed reviews that has since been regarded as a classic horror for its unique blending of romanticism and horror. The film inspired a few loose sequels and spin-offs before being expertly reconfigured into a highly regarded blockbuster adventure in 1999 (which also spawned sequels and some questionable spin-offs). Although that goodwill was undone by an ill-fated remake in 2017, the visual of an undead creature wrapped in bandages has been an enduring horror figure regardless.

The Review:
The Mummy begins in 1921, where archaeologist Sir Joseph Whemple (Arthur Byron) uncovers Imhotep’s sarcophagus alongside his assistant Ralph Norton (Bramwell Fletcher). While the two are excited to examine the find, Whemble’s friend and colleague, Doctor Muller (Van Sloan), warns that the sarcophagus carries a terrible curse, which Whemble scoffs at, but Dr Muller insists is a warning of the wrath of the ancient Egyptian Gods. While the two wax philosophical, Norton opens the tomb and discovers Imhotep’s surprisingly well preserved remains, the priest having been mummified alive (rather than having his “viscera” removed) for some terrible affront, alongside the “Scroll of Thoth.” Despite Dr. Muller’s warnings, the curious Norton reads from the scroll, unintentionally awakening Imhotep, who lurches to life, swipes the scroll, and leaves Norton so out of his mind that he eventually dies laughing in a straitjacket. The film then jumps ahead some ten years to find Whemple’s son, Frank (Manners), following in his now deceased father’s footsteps, digging for ruins in Egypt alongside Professor Pearson (Leonard Mudie) but having nothing to show for it but a lot of wasted money and a few trinkets. Frustrated and disheartened, the two prepare to leave when they’re visited by the enigmatic and mysterious “Ardath Bay”, Imhotop’s dishevelled but largely human pseudonym, who points them to the long-lost tomb of Princess Ankh-es-en-Amon (Johann). Although they’re initially sceptical, the two are overjoyed when their enthusiastic (but surely underpaid and overworked) dig team uncover the tomb, though Frank is mildly scorned that their discovery is claimed by the Cairo Museum as per the terms of their contract. In contrast, Professor Pearson is overjoyed, welcoming their mysterious benefactor to the museum and holding Ardath Bay in high regard despite his odd demeanour and superstition about being touched and digging up his people’s dead.

Imhotep has little trouble using incantations to fool and manipulate the unsuspecting characters.

Whemple returns to Cairo to bask in the find and Frank is soon enamoured by the beautiful half-Egyptian Helen, a patient of Dr. Muller’s, who suddenly becomes entranced when Imhotep mutters an incantation over a cauldron to show him the reincarnation of his lost love, Ankh-es-en-Amon. Mumbling a language she couldn’t possibly know, Helen is compelled to answer Imhotep’s call, only to be stopped by a locked door and promptly faint, with little to no recollection of what happened. Transfixed by the girl, Frank promptly flirts with her with his stories of how they discovered and unwrapped Ankh-es-en-Amon’s tomb, only for Helen to react with distaste for his sacrilege and somewhat mock him for being smitten by a rotting corpse. While this is somehow enough to earn him a snog, the two are horrified to learn that a museum guard was murdered and that the Scroll of Toth (which Whemple somehow recognises despite him never seeing it) was discovered with the body. While Frank and Muller suggest burning the cursed object, they’re interrupted by Ardath Bay, who’s immediately captivated by Helen and her striking resemblance to his long-dead lover, entrancing the confused girl with the faded memories of her past life. Suspicious of Ardath Bay, Frank and the others confront and quiz him, compelling him to reveal his true identity and to demand the scroll or die (a strange demand considering he had the scroll) and showcasing his ability to hypnotise anyone with Egyptian blood as he brainwashes their Nubian servant (Johnson). Although Whemple resolves to burn the scroll, Imhotep watches from his cauldron and commands the Nubian to intercept him, murdering the old man but ultimately fooling no one with some burned newspaper. Unable to resist Imhotep, Helen returns to the museum and, while spellbound, learns of her past like in ancient Egypt.

Condemned for sacrilege, Imhotep is determined to be reunited with his long-dead love.

Back in the day, Imhotep was besotted by Ankh-es-en-Amon but heartbroken when she died of some illness. Defying the Gods and her father, “Pharoh” Amenophis (James Crane), Imhotep stole the Scroll of Thoth but was buried alive with it when his scheme to resurrect her was discovered. Though Helen’s conflicted, she begs Frank to confine her to her room, terrified of what might happen, leading Imhotep to further manipulate his underlings to reunite his love’s soul with her reincarnated body. Luckily, Boris Karloff provides an enigmatic performance as the titular mummy as this was a chore to sit through. While Imhotep gives Karloff the chance to showcase his range, he’s hardly a terrifying force, even when a decomposing figure, and comes across more like a bored narcoleptic who watches events from his cauldron and threatens people with his scarab ring. The film is more of a bizarre love story, with Imhotep professing a timeless love that he’s carried throughout a restless death and which has seemingly allowed Ankh-es-en-Amon to resurrect throughout the ages. Though Frank can’t compete with Imhotep’s lovelorn declarations, he’s at least alive and doesn’t look like a dried-out sultana so Imhotep plots to kill him, thus removing his rival and any doubt in Helen’s heart. Helen seems into both men, even though she barely knows Frank and Imhotep essentially hypnotises her to make her docile and thus vulnerable for him to kill and perform some mumbo-jumbo to return Ankh-es-en-Amon’s soul to her restored body. While Imhotep seemingly murders those in his way, he seems quite careless as he lost the Scroll of Toth and was forced to demand it. Equally, he’s held at bay (Ardath Bay, you might say…) by a protective amulet and prefers to let the Nubian do all his busy work since he must sit around mumbling incantations, spying on people, or creeping them out with his odd appearance and behaviour.

The Nitty-Gritty:
While I don’t believe for a second that the production filmed in Egypt, I was impressed by the sets and interiors, which are filled with Egyptian artifacts to sell the illusion. Many may not be historically accurate, and the flashback to 1800 BC isn’t very convincing, but there was a clear attempt to make things look a little more elaborate than most Universal Monsters movies. I also appreciated the surprising violence, with a convincing spear impalement and Imhotep describing how the slaves and soldiers present for his burial were executed, and that the film incorporated music (though sporadically) to punctuate dramatic moments. I wish I could say more about Karloff’s make-up but it’s not really that impressive as Imhotep mostly looks drawn and wrinkly. When he’s a desiccated corpse, things are more impressive, but I think a gaunt dummy would’ve been more effective than slathering Karloff in make-up and prosthetics that barely appear for that long. Rather than shambling about as a withered corpse wrapped in tattered bandages, Imhotep waltzes about in a fedora as Ardath Bay, conjuring spells and directing his minions, making him more of a warlock than a mummy. His horror comes from his supernatural abilities, which are limited to hypnotism (and further limited to only affecting those with Egyptian blood). He showcases no superhuman strength or wizardry, instead being a letch who relentlessly pursues, mesmerises, and manipulates others, meaning The Mummy is more about the fear of being controlled than the fear of some ancient creature.

In the end, the ineffectual Imhotep is undone by the Gods in anti-climactic fashion.

Confined to her room and watched like a hawk, Helen’s condition worsens the more she’s kept from Imhotep and the more he tries to reach her with his curses. Luckily, Frank is stupid enough to remove his amulet and take a nap, barely saving himself from Imhotep’s killing curse but nonetheless powerless to keep the Mummy from bewitching Helen. When Helen reaches the museum, her personality has been replaced by Ankh-es-en-Amon, though Imhotep still plans to murder Helen with the most unconvincing dagger I’ve ever seen and then reading from the Scroll of Toth to return Ankh-es-en-Amon’s soul to Helen’s body, allowing them to rekindle their love as undead mummies. Surprisingly, Ankh-es-en-Amon resists this, wishing to inhabit Helen’s young and supple body, and Helen’s personality also struggles against the Mummy, though neither can resist Imhotep’s hypnotic power. After being revived, Frank and Muller rush to Helen’s aid, only to be held back by Imhotep’s spooky scarab ring. This distraction is enough for Ankh-es-en-Amon to beg the Goddess Isis for aid. Incredibly, this works and the statue of Isis lurches to life, pointing an ankh at Imhotep that dispels his power over the Nubian and burns the Scroll of Toth. This also causes Imhotep to (somewhat) rapidly rot and turn to a mere skeleton, clattering to the floor. If you thought this was an abrupt end, the film then doubles down by suddenly cutting to black and the end credits after Frank calls to Helen to return to her body. Admittedly, it’s potentially left ambiguous whether this worked as it could’ve just as easily been Ankh-es-en-Amon who woke up, but I was so bored and annoyed by the film that I really didn’t care and was glad that it was finally over!

The Summary:
My God, this was a chore to watch. I’ve seen The Mummy before and didn’t remember it being this bad, but it really is one of the most boring Universal Monsters movies I’ve seen. I’ve never been the biggest fan of the concept, despite my love for Egyptian superstition and history, but The Mummy really impressed with its sets, attention to detail (historical accuracy be damned), and overall presentation. Sure, we never get a proper look at Cairo or any exteriors, but the interiors and artifacts and such really sold the illusion for me. It’s a shame it’s filled with a bunch of stupid-ass characters who are little more than walking clichés. Zita Johann captures the camera with her beauty, effortlessly showcasing Helen’s confusion and allure, though I would’ve liked to see more of Ankh-es-en-Amon’s personality and how it differed from Helen’s. Frank was just kind of there and I honestly got some of the male leads mixed up as I struggled to sit through this one, though it was amusing seeing them all rendered ineffectual and the day being saved by both a woman and a Goddess. Boris Karloff stole the show with his acting and range, rather than being buried under heavy make-up, but I found the titular Mummy to be a weak and ineffectual character. He wasn’t scary (unless you’re afraid of being hypnotised), he didn’t really do anything (any kills that could be attributed to him were offscreen), and he was defeated with ridiculous ease. Even if you view The Mummy as a bizarre love story rather than a horror, it falls apart under close scrutiny thanks to a questionable script, bone-headed characters, and the concept running out of steam early on. It’s such a shame as there could’ve been something really special here but there aren’t even any impressive make-up effects or chilling moments to salvage this one and it’s easily the most forgettable of the Universal Monsters movies, in my opinion, and far surpassed by the 1999 remake.

My Rating:

Rating: 1 out of 5.

Terrible

Do you think I was too harsh on The Mummy? Perhaps you’re a fan of this one; if so, why? Were you disappointed that Imhotep wasn’t more monstrous or did you enjoy seeing Boris Karloff’s range? What did you think to the presentation of the film and the depiction of ancient Egypt? Were you entranced by the love story angle or did you also find the film a slog to sit through? Which version of the Mummy is your favourite and how are you celebrating Halloween this year? Share your thoughts on The Mummy in the comments, check out my other horror reviews, and donate to my Ko-Fi if you want to see more Mummy reviews.

Movie Night: Hellboy: Director’s Cut

Dr. K2 Comments

Released: 19 October 2004
Originally Released: 2 April 2004
Director: Guillermo del Toro
Distributor: Columbia Pictures / Revolution Studios[
Budget: $60 to 66 million
Stars: Ron Perlman, Selma Blair, Doug Jones/David Hyde Pierce, Rupert Evans, Karel Roden, and John Hurt

The Plot:
Raised by the kindle Professor Trevor Bruttenholm/Broom (Hurt) to be a paranormal investigator, unruly half-man, half-demon Hellboy (Perlman) finds his dramatic life upended when immortal warlock Grigori Rasputin (Roden) conspires to bring about the apocalypse.

The Background:
After years of bringing his trademark dark, moody art style to both independent and mainstream comics, monster-loving artist and comic creator Mike Mignola got his big break in 1993 with Hellboy, a character he evolved over time into distinctively Lovecraftian comics and spin-offs. Long-time fan and celebrated auteur Guillermo del Toro campaigned for years to bring the character to the big-screen with Ron Perlman in the role, forming a close relationship with Mignola when the artist consulted on Blade II (del Toro, 2002), with production finally starting after that film’s critical and commercial success. Largely inspired by Hellboy’s debut story, del Toro tweaked both his origin and characterisation to focus on Hellboy being torn between right and wrong and add a tragic romanticism to his character. Jake Garber brought Hellboy to life with some impressive make-up and prosthetics, which required Perlman to spend at least four hours getting kitted out, while Rick Baker designed his prosthetic stone hand and the CGI was handled by Tippett Studios. David Hyde Pierce provided the voice of Abe Sapien but refused to take credit or be associated with the marketing out of respect for Doug Jones’s physical work while Spectral Motion handled the many practical effects used to bring Mignola’s distinctive art to life. Though it attracted criticism for its controversial title its $99.8 million gross made it a box office bomb, Hellboy became an instant cult classic. Reviews praised the fun action, horror-adjacent visuals, and Perlman’s engaging performance, while criticising some of the characterisations. This Director’s Cut released to home media the same year, offering a little over ten minutes of additional footage, a critically and commercially successful sequel followed four years later, but plans for further entries stalled and, much to the dismay of many, led to some comparatively inferior reboots.

The Review:
Much like Hellboy’s first story, “Seed of Destruction” (Mignola, et al, 1993), Hellboy begins near the end of the Second World War. In fact, Hellboy quite faithfully recreates and expands upon the circumstances which led to Hellboy coming to our world, with a young Professor Broom (Kevin Trainor) joining an Army regiment to intercept a Nazi ritual off the coast of Scotland. While the Army is understandably sceptical of the “parabnormal”, Professor Broom’s fears are realised when they find zealot warlock Rasputin in the midst of merging arcane magic with the Third Reich’s advanced technology alongside his lover and devout right hand, Ilsa Haupstein (Bridget Hodson), and Adolf Hitler’s top assassin, the mute, semi-undead Karl Ruprecht Kroenen (Ladislav Beran). Although Rasputin successfully opens a portal to a nightmarish realm beyond our understanding, where the Lovecraftian terror known as the Ogdru Jahad slumber, the Allies interrupt them and successfully close the portal, seemingly killing Rasputin and Kroenen in the process. However, while the portal was open long enough to bring through a tiny demon child. Though startled by the demon’s unsettling appearance, the regiment stands down when Professor Broom proves he’s just a curious and frightened little boy and he’s soon adopted by both the troop and the “unready father”, nicknamed Hellboy and spending the next sixty years secretly working to stop supernatural threats as part of the Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense (BPRD). While Professor Broom ages in that time, Hellboy is said to be barely out of his twenties and is presented as both an urban legend and unruly child who constantly yearns to be in the public eye, shaving his horns to “fit in” and being grounded whenever he breaks out of the BRPD’s super-secret facility.

Professor Broom despairs of his reckless son, who he sees as the saviour of humankind.

While Professor Broom is exasperated by Hellboy’s irresponsible nature, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director and BRPD liaison Thomas “Tom” Manning (Jeffrey Tambor) is tired of doing damage control whenever Hellboy makes headlines and eager to shut the “freak show” down. Realising that his time is running short and concerned that Rasputin and his followers are making a return, Professor Broom recruits FBI agent John Myers (Evans) to take over as Hellboy’s caretaker, confidant, and mentor, casting Myers as our audience surrogate and earning him much distrust and resentment from the unimpressed Hellboy. Presented as a cat-loving, physically imposing and nigh-superhuman figure, Hellboy is fireproof, extremely durable, and well versed in the mystic arts. While he’s a lousy shot with his massive handgun, the “Samaritan”, he loads it with special rounds and carries numerous trinkets, charms, and reliquaries to ward off curses and such. Yet, Hellboy is restless and stubborn, eager to be amongst the public and refusing backup, even from long-time allies like merman-like Abraham “Abe” Sapien (Jones/Pierce) and Agent Clay (John William Johnson), the closest he has to friends. Though deeply ashamed whenever he disappoints his father, Hellboy is snarky and constantly gives Myers a hard time for being a glorified nanny while also being recklessly confident that he can overcome any foe. To be fair, he’s usually right but Hellboy’s arrogance sees him constantly run afoul of the bestial Sammael (Brian Steele), leading to him being beaten up a fair bit, having eggs laid in his forearm, and the deaths of a BRPD squad, much to Manning’s disgust. Having known no other life than the BRPD, Hellboy sees it as “[his] job” to protect the innocent and regards any risk worthwhile to stop monsters and demons from threatening others. While he’s crushed when Abe and Clay are seriously wounded because of his actions, Hellboy lashes out at Manning and Myers, seeing them as threats to both his livelihood and his ego.

Myers makes for a dull surrogate and the chemistry between Hellboy and Liz is severely lacking.

As tough as Hellboy is, his emotions often get the better of him. Indeed, he often escapes from the BRPD to visit Elizabeth “Liz” Sherman (Blair), a troubled pyrokinetic and former BRPD agent who committing herself to an asylum. It’s obvious that Hellboy is madly in love with Liz, but he struggles to articulate these emotions and often makes a fool of himself, descending into a bitter jealousy when Myers gets close to Liz initially to convince her to return and then because he also develops feelings for her. Traumatised by her unpredictable pyrokinetic abilities, Liz chooses the discomfort and security of an asylum over the BRPD largely because it helps her control her abilities and because she wants to fit in, not be surrounded by monsters who remind her that she’s a freak. This draws her closer to the boyish, everyman Myers but she can’t help but be pulled towards Hellboy, who she largely sees as a sibling but clearly has an attraction to since he’s so devoted to her. Abe councils Hellboy, trying to help him move on and using his telepathic and empathic powers to give him advice, but Hellboy’s stubborn nature sees him desperately find the words to express his love for Liz. As awesome as Perlman’s performance is as Hellboy, Jones impresses as the unnerving Abe, who moves like liquid in water and uses his clairvoyance to offer valuable insight. Sadly, Selma Blair lets the trio down, appearing bored and delivering her lines with a distinct lack of emotion. While this does tie into her adopting a stoic guise to keep her powers under control, it makes for a distinct lack of chemistry between her and Hellboy that isn’t helped by some dodgy CGI flame effects.

Though they have their disagreements, Hellboy’s pained by his father’s death and forced to rely on others.

As far as I can tell, Myers has no comic book counterpart and sticks out like a sore thumb. Clay has far more charisma and already has a rapport with Hellboy and the others, so it would’ve been much more interesting to follow a day in his life for the first twenty minutes or so than be stuck with the forgettable Myers, who only exists to give Professor Broom someone to exposit to. As you’d expect, the late, great John Hurt excels as Hellboy’s strict, but fair, father figure. Commanding a wealth of paranormal knowledge and experience, Professor Broom is committed to protecting the world from supernatural threats and sees Hellboy not only as the bridge between the two worlds, but also as the saviour of humankind. This is why he’s so disappointed whenever Hellboy goes off half-cocked. Knowing that he hasn’t got much time left, Professor Broom works to ensure that Hellboy will be both cared for and helped stay on the straight and narrow. His fears about Rasputin again turn out to be true when the BRPD investigates the museum break in that kickstarts the plot, leading to Hellboy’s many run-ins with Sammael, Agent Clay’s ill-fated confrontation with Kroenen, and Professor Broom’s discovery of a message leading them to Moscow. Professor Broom is the. confronted by the mad mage and his clockwork assassin, afforded a brief glimpse of the apocalyptic future Hellboy is destined to bring about, but fearlessly defies Rasputin, ready to face his death. Naturally, Hellboy is devastated by his father’s murder, falling into a brief depression, but willingly joins the BRPD strike team, stomaching Manning’s antagonistic demeanour to get a chance to settle the score and surprisingly finding himself in the hostile director’s debt after finishing off Kroenen, the two developing a mutual respect that again dwarfs Myers’ inclusion.

Rasputin and his monstrous, nigh-immortal followers are fixated of ushering in the apocalypse.

As in “Seed of Destruction”, Hellboy’s primary antagonist is the mad warlock Rasputin, a mysterious and functionally immortal wizard granted incredible dark magic by the Ogdru Jahad. Using an ancient tome and bizarre Nazi science, Rasputin almost achieves his goal of unleashing the “Seven Gods of Chaos” before he’s stopped by the Allies. Death is a mere inconvenience for Rasputin, however, thanks to his eternally youthful and equally immortal followers, who return their master to life with a blood sacrifice and willingly follow him in resurrecting Sammael, a ferocious beast whom Rasputin empowers to resurrect twofold each time it falls. Eager to capture Hellboy, knowing that his stone hand is the key to unleashing the Ogdru Jahad, Rasputin keeps Hellboy occupied and drive him towards his elaborate mausoleum in Moscow to complete his ritual. Returning from death more powerful, and with more of the Ogdru Jahad’s influence in him, Rasputin is a malicious, cold-hearted villain who nonetheless shows respect towards Professor Broom and permits him a merciful death. Though Ilsa doesn’t get much to do beyond lusting after her master and following his every whim, Kroenen makes a hell of an impression with his wind-up body, deft skill with blades, and intimidating masked visage. A heavily scarified, zombie-like figure, Kroenen easily cuts down groups of armed foes (though largely bloodlessly) and seems to delight in murdering anyone who gets in his way, easily fooling the BRPD by playing dead and killing those closest to Hellboy. Hellboy primarily tussles with Sammael and its kin throughout the film, finding the creature ruthless and as pig-headed as him thanks to its supernatural ability to rapidly heal and resurrect upon death. A slobbering, voracious beast who pounces upon its prey, Sammael tears through the BRPD, injures Abe, and constantly dogs Hellboy in some fun, action-packed fights.

The Nitty-Gritty:
My knowledge and experience of Hellboy may be lacking since I mainly know him from the films, but as far as I’m aware Hellboy sticks somewhat close to the source material while also diverging in numerous ways. For starters, Hellboy is presented as an urban legend, one Manning is keen to keep under wraps, rather than being the “World’s Greatest Paranormal Investigator”. This acts as the backbone for much of the plot and Hellboy’s arc, with him eager to get into the spotlight and relishing showing off before the public. Secondly, Hellboy changes Hellboy’s relationship with Liz, giving him a long-standing crush on the apathetic pyromaniac and presenting a largely humorous side plot of him sabotaging Myers when he gets close to Liz. Ironically, Hellboy asks Myers for help in articulating his feelings and Myers reluctantly offers him advice, despite his own feelings for Liz. Ultimately, Professor Broom’s death gives Hellboy the courage to admit his devotion to Liz, understanding that his demonic visage reminds her that she’s different and she’s looking for someone who makes her feel normal, seemingly stepping aside in favour of Myers while still vowing to always be there for her. Thirdly, Hellboy places far greater emphasis on Hellboy’s relationship with Professor Broom, who was offed pretty quickly into “Seed of Destruction.” Here, we see the dynamics of the unlikely father/son relationship, with Professor Broom despairing of Hellboy’s reckless antics and this brutish demon reduced to an ashamed child whenever his father gives him a disapproving look. It’s a great twist and makes Professor Broom’s death even more of a blow since we see how close they are, best showcased when Professor Broom refuses to learn Hellboy’s true name from Rasputin since he already knows what to call him: son.

Despite some dodgy CGI, the practical effects and prosthetics are genuinely impressive throughout.

While Hellboy’s personality may be noticeably different from the source material, painting him as an arrogant and rowdy teenager who pointedly refuses help and must learn to grow up, Ron Perlman delivers a fantastic performance. He nails every nuance of Hellboy’s characterisation, which sees him be sarcastic, enraged, and lovelorn throughout the film. despite clearly being swamped by uncomfortable make-up and prosthetics, Perlman’s emotions still shine through, and I’ve always been a fan of his gravelly delivery. Hellboy looks incredible, sporting a sledgehammer-like stone fist and prehensile tail, crashing through walls and wrestling his foes into submission. While the CGI does the practical effects a disservice, making Hellboy and Sammael unfortunately cartoonish at times, the practical effects more than make up for it. Hellboy and Sammael demolish a subway station, crash through stone walls in a hidden cavern, and tear through the busy night-time streets, with Hellboy flipping a car to protect Myers and Sammael eventually being smushed by a subway train. Kroenen equally impressed in his appearances, slinging his blades around with superhuman dexterity and cutting foes down with a supernatural efficiency. When his true, gruesome form is revealed, it’s a hideous and wholly practical sight that makes me want to know more about this bizarre half-zombie. Practical effects also take centre stage when Hellboy resurrects the desiccated corpse of Ivan Kilimatovich (Unknown), a skeletal torso who guides them through Rasputin’s boobytrapped mausoleum. While many of the hazards contained within are equally practical, such as the heavy doors and crumbling bridge, much of the danger is lost when the obvious CGI rears its head, but it’s all good fun for the most part. The Director’s Cut largely splices deleted and slightly extended scenes back into the film, giving us a scene where Ilsa gifts Rasputin artificial eyes, showing Liz has a touch of OCD and adding a bit more depth to her time with Myers, but there’s nothing all that substantial added.

Hellboy ultimately rejects his demonic heritage to save the world and finally express his love for Liz.

Journeying to Moscow to avenge Professor Broom and stop Rasputin’s maniacal scheme, Hellboy buries the hatchet with Manning after they work together (somewhat) to finish off Kroenen, impaling him on spikes and trapping him under a giant gear. While all the BPRD agents who accompany them are lost to the mausoleum’s booby-traps, Liz destroys Sammael’s nest with a burst of unbridled fury. However, this leaves her and the others weakened, easily allowing Rasputin to capture them. Even Hellboy is rendered powerless by a heavy trap that can only be unlocked by saying his true name, which he’s compelled to do when Rasputin maliciously sucks out Liz’s soul. Defeated and disheartened, Hellboy reluctantly whispers his name (“Anung Un Rama”) and undergoes a horrific transformation, his horns growing out and a flaming crown appearing on his brow. He then willingly uses his stone hand to free the Ogdru Jahad from their crystalline prison and have them begin to manifest amidst a blood moon. However, just as he’s about to unlock the final seal, Hellboy’s brought to his senses by Myers, who begs him to remember his father’s teachings, leading him to break his horns and mortally wound Rasputin with them, having chosen to be a man rather than a demon. Though the Ogdru Jahad are prevented from invading, Rasputin’s death frees a spawn of theirs, the gigantic, tentacled Behemoth, that Hellboy tackles alone after make amends with Myers. Thankfully, Hellboy brought a grenade belt, which he uses to blow the beast to bloody chunks. Heartbroken by Liz’s death, Hellboy whispers a threat to those “on the other side” to let her go or face his wrath, prompting her swift resurrection and the two to finally embrace as lovers. Myers, having earned Hellboy’s trust, delivers the film’s closing narration about nature versus nurture, echoing Professor Broom’s opening narration, though Manning is left waiting impatiently to be rescued!

The Summary:
Although I had no idea who Hellboy was when I first saw this film, I was intrigued by the premise, its ludicrous main character, and the promise of a fun, action-packed supernatural adventure. Indeed, the only reason I am a fan of Hellboy is because of this movie, which is still a favourite of mine. Sure, I have some issues with Myers (he makes for a painfully bland audience surrogate), Linda Blair’s performance (if it’s meant to be this way, it really misses the mark), and some of the dodgy CGI, but the pros far outweigh the cons. Hellboy has a great tongue-in-cheek sense of humour that makes the title character a joy to watch since he’s such a smart ass doofus, while also delivering some decent action sequences that have stood the test of time thanks to top-notch practical effects. The make-up and prosthetics are fantastic, with Hellboy, Abe, and Sammael all having a very tangible and tactile quality to them. Little touches like Abe’s blinking, his malformed hands and gills, and Sammael’s bone-wrenching healing add so much life to these characters, to say nothing of how imposing and impressive Perlman appears under all that getup. Although Hellboy’s characterisation is noticeably different from the comics, it works really well in this context, giving him a meaningful and surprisingly emotional character arc as he learns to focus on the big picture and stop messing around while also accepting help from his allies. I loved his father/son relationship with Professor Broom, his dynamic with Manning, and even appreciated his devotion to Liz, despite their lack of chemistry. Mignola’s art and Lovecraftian inspirations were brought to life wonderfully here, with the Ogdru Jahad being horrifically bizarre, vivid colours popping when necessary and heavy, ominous shadows being used effectively where possible. It’s got some flaws, for sure, but Hellboy is still an extremely enjoyable romp that doesn’t really get talked about all that much these days, which is a shame as there’s a hell of a lot to like here.

My Rating:

Rating: 4 out of 5.

Great Stuff

Did you enjoy Hellboy’s big-screen debut? What did you think to Ron Perlman’s performance, his appearance, and the changes made to Hellboy’s character? Did you also find Myers a dull audience surrogate and the chemistry lacking between Hellboy and Liz? Were you happy with the way the film adapted elements from the comic books? Which Hellboy adaptation is your favourite? Share your thoughts on the first Hellboy movie in the comment and donate to my Ko-Fi to suggest more Hellboy content for the site.

Movie Night: Terrifier 2

Dr. K2 Comments

Released: 6 October 2022
Director: Damien Leone
Distributor: Cinedigm / Iconic Events Releasing
Budget: $250,000
Stars: David Howard Thornton, Lauren LaVera, Elliott Fullam, Sarah Voigt, Kailey Hyman, and Casey Hartnett

The Plot:
After being mysteriously resurrected, the demonic Art the Clown (Thornton) stalks grieving Sienna Shaw (LaVera) on Halloween night, unaware that Sienna may hold the key to stopping his senseless slaughter for good.

The Background:
The fear of clowns (also known as Coulrophobia) is a surprisingly common trope in both horror and everyday life thanks to fictional “Evil Clowns” like Stephen King’s Pennywise and twisted killers like John Wayne Gacy. Writer director Damien Leone tapped into this fear with his short film, The 9th Circle (2008), a which included a prototype of Art the Clown (Mike Giannelli). Despite his small role, Art proved popular enough for Leone to revisit the character in his subsequent films, Terrifier (2011) and All Hallows’ Eve (2013). Seeing Art as a chance to create a truly iconic slasher villain for a modern audiences. Terrifier made a modest profit and attracted largely positive reviews that praised David Howard Thornton’s performance as Art as much as the stunning gore. Dissatisfied with some elements of the film, Leone sought to craft a truly captivating and well-rounded protagonist for the sequel, while also expanding the scope of the franchise. Despite the discomfort of her Valkyrie costume, Lauren LaVera enjoyed her time on setand worked closely with Leone to give Art a heroic counterpart. With an increased budget thanks to a successful Indiegogo campaign, Leone worked around the COVID-19 pandemic to depict a prolonged and arduous murder scene that attracted much controversy. Despite some criticisms regarding the unnecessary brutality towards women and reports of audiences vomiting or fleeing screenings, Terrifier 2 was a critical and commercial success, with reviews praising LaVera’s nuanced and appealing protagonist as much as Thornton’s continued physical commitment to the killer clown. Sweeping the 2023 Fangoria Chainsaw Awards, Terrifier 2’s success more than justified another sequel in 2024 and unquestionably established that Leone had a franchise on his hands, for better or worse.

The Review:
Terrifier 2 picks up right where the first one ended. After terrorising Miles County, Art the Clown shot himself in the head to avoid arrest, leaving a sole survivor – the horribly mutilated Victoria Heyes (Samantha Scaffidi) – confined to a mental hospital after going mad from the experience. Despite his fatal injury, Art bursts to life and attacks coroner, Seth Bolton (Cory DuVal), slicing his throat, ripping his eye out to temporarily “replace” his own, and finally bashing his head in with a surgical mallet. Garbed in a blood-soaked clown outfit, Art retrieves his bin bag full of “toys” and heads to a laundromat to freshen up, silently giggling over the bad news in the local paper and being approached by a mysterious cherub dressed almost identically to him. This “Little Pale Girl” (Amelie McLain) appears to be an unidentified demonic spirit, one only Art or those close to him can see, and it’s implied she causes his otherwise inexplicable resurrection. The Little Pale Girl appears throughout Terrifier 2, often sporting glowing eyes and imitating voices, and is seemingly a spiritual guide to the murderous mime as she encourages and somewhat directs his actions. The film then jumps ahead to the following Halloween Eve, when the fallout from Art’s killing spree is still felt throughout Miles County. Jonathan Shaw (Fullam) is strangely obsessed with Art, who’s presumed dead but also missing, to the point where he wishes to dress up as Art for Halloween, a decision his overworked and short-tempered mother, Barbara (Voigt), vehemently shoots down. Jonathan’s macabre imagination and fascination with serial killers disturbs his older sister, Sienna, though her concerns fall on deaf ears since her mother is more concerned with work and expressing her grief by scolding her children for any right- or wrongdoings.

Alluring Sienna makes for a sympathetic, relatable, and well-rounded protagonist.

The Shaws are in turmoil following the death of their patriarch, a talented artist who once envisioned his daughter as a Valkyrie warrior before succumbing to an unnamed disease. While Sienna remembers her father fondly, spending months constructing an elaborate recreation of her father’s drawing to wear to a Halloween party and “feel close” to him, it’s heavily implied that her father underwent a dramatic character change as his disease worsened. He barely knew who he was by the end and is said to be abusive towards Sienna, which perhaps is what drove him to drown his sorrows and kill himself in a car wreck. Either way, the Shaws deal with their grief in different ways: Barbara focuses on work and has a short fuse, Jonathan veers down a more morbid path, and Sienna focuses on her costume project. Having already struggled with her mental health and still relying on pills to curb her anxiety attacks and nightmares, Sienna is barely holding together; all she has is her project and the ornate sword her father gifted to her. Well, that and her friends, Brooke (Hyman) and Allie (Hartnett), who treat her like an adopted sister. While the three are close, Sienna’s condition and trauma keeps a wedge between them. She’s easily triggered by talk of gore and Brooke later chastises her for being so uptight and doom-and-gloom all the time. Sienna’s life is made more difficult by Jonathan, who lands in hot water when visions of Art and the Little Pale Girl see him reprimanded at school, aggravating his already borderline abusive mother. Haunted by ominous dreams of Art and his “Clown Café”, Sienna’s mental state is often questioned, especially when her room spontaneously combusts, to the point where few share her concerns when she sees Art in the flesh. While the main protagonists victims of Terrifier were largely forgettable, Sienna is a far more well-rounded character. Vulnerable, beautiful, and creative, she’s determined to make an impression with her costume and goes to great lengths to try and keep Jonathan safe by the finale.

Sienna rightfully gets most of the screen time, though her friends and family do add to her plight.

After going through their father’s sketchbook, Jonathan surmises that he was aware of Art and depicted Sienna as angelic warrior to combat the evil clown. Her outfit echoes this, painting her as a Valkyrie and setting her up as a flawed and suffering representation of light versus Art’s twisted evil. Focusing on Sienna and her family strife was a fantastic idea; it removes some of the grimy “Grindhouse” atmosphere of the first film but gives us someone to sympathise with and root for. Unfortunately, Allie is just kind of…there…empathetic to Sienna’s troubles but struggling to fully relate to them. Brooke is much more outspoken and reckless, snorting coke with her boyfriend, Jeff (Charlie McElveen). Still, they exude more personality than their predecessors and we care about them by proxy since they’re close to Sienna rather than simply being throwaway victims. However, Elliott Fullam seems out of his depth, portraying Jonathan as a weird, obnoxious, conflicted brat who hyperventilates his way through most scenes and spends most of his time riling everyone up or wailing on the floor. It’s clear that he and Sienna have a bond, one that’s frayed since their father died, and they come together nicely in the end when Art kidnaps the boy to lure in his sister. To be fair, it’s no wonder Jonathan and even Sienna are messed up with a mother like Amanda. She can barely hold herself together to care for her kids and is far more likely to strike them than encourage or comfort them. Amanda’s inability to keep her cool sees her literally lose her head courtesy of Art, further scarring Jonathan when he finds the clown he’s been obsessed with stuffing mashed potatoes into the remains of his mother’s head! The Little Pale Girl callously uses Sienna’s family against her, imitating Jonathan’s voice and even assuming Amanda’s form just to trap and taunt the girl, and learning of their condition only serves to further agonise the already suffering Sienna, who’s literally put through hell in order to realise her father’s destiny for her.

Art gets a supernatural, demonic edge that makes him even more cruel and sadistic than before!

While Art was previously portrayed as a disturbing but nonetheless human figure, he’s now got one foot in the supernatural. Reborn not as a zombie or some undead spirit, Art retains the same twisted sense of humour and sadistic streak as before, but we spend more time with him between kills. We see him swiping supplies from Seth’s office, washing his clothes with mirth, constructing new weapons, and express visible disgust and frustration when his prey fights back. Art becomes fixated on Sienna, possibly because they seem to share a strange mental connection (Sienna often dreams about or has visions of Art, for example). When he finally gets his hands on Sienna, Art doesn’t rip her to pieces like his other victims; he brutally beats her and leaves her alive. Indeed, Art is far more elaborate with his kills this time, stalking and taunting them with his clown-like antics and then drawing out their deaths with a cruel malice. Art is functionally superhuman now, shrugging off gunshots, spiked implements to the head, and easily ripping off limbs and through chest cavities. He remains vulnerable, however, being slowed by weapons, bleeding, and being temporarily subdued by a sawn-off shotgun. However, he returns each time, spurred on by the Pale Little Girl, and eager for his victims to scream in agony. When Jonathan lays unconscious at his feet, for example, Art is visibly disappointed and resorts to chewing on the boy’s ankle to hear his screams. As his victims scream and bawl, Art gleefully mocks them, his silent laughter and crocodile tears mirroring the very real pain and suffering of his prey, who are forced to endure more agony than appears humanly and scientifically possible. We also get a few titbits about a possible backstory for Art: he holes up in an abandoned theme park, specifically the Terrifier fun house where it’s said the Pale Little Girl died some years prior, and it’s almost implied that he was somehow brought to life by Sienna’s father’s drawings. Naturally, Terrifier 2 doesn’t go into detail with this but the Pale Little Girl’s presence, Art’s seemingly supernatural edge, and the breadcrumbs offered by Sienna and Jonathan certainly go a long way to suggest that there’s more to Art than simply being a mute, killer clown.

The Nitty-Gritty:
The visual and narrative upgrade from Terrifier to Terrifier 2 is both impressive and very welcome. While the first was a grimy, shocking piece of splatter-gore, the second is a far “cleaner” and more mainstream horror offering. However, while its indie, Grindhouse-inspired roots may have been downgraded, Terrifier 2 remains a disturbing and twisted watch. The increased budget clearly allowed Damien Leone to utilise better camera, better lighting, more elaborate gore effects, and far more visually interesting locations. I liked the gritty, back alley setting of the first film, but it did become stagnant at times and very much felt like Terrifier was merely an appetiser for what Leone and Thornton are truly capable of. Terrifier 2 opts for a suburban setting for a disturbing amalgamation of the suburban horror of John Carpenter’s Halloween (Carpenter, 1978) and the “Gallio” horror cinema. In Terrifier, the horror wasn’t so much the over-the-top gore but more the randomness of Art’s attacks; he seemingly picked victims at random and was unpredictable. That unpredictability is still present in Terrifier 2, only now locking yourself in your home isn’t enough. Art simply forces his way into Allie’s house, and the Shaw’s, brutalising his victims and cropping up in a laundromat and Halloween store without a care in the world. Art’s presence is unnerving even considering the spooky season since he acts so aloof; even him trying on goofy sunglasses and honking horns at Sienna is enough to rattle her. This is given a raw edge through Sienna’s visions and nightmares, where Art massacres a children’s television show as a figure of mirth warped into a violent psychopath. Just researching Art and seemingly being fascinated by his legend is enough to cause Jonathan to see the Little Pale Girl, though Terrifier 2 suggests there’s more to this and some mysterious link between the Shaws and Art since Barbara is incensed by the mere mention of him and Sienna is seemingly positioned as Art’s polar opposite.

Art gleefully subjects his victims to gruesome, brutal torture before tearing them to pieces!

Art is now obsessed with raking flesh and tends to target eyes, possibly because he’s missing one at the start. He pulls out Seth’s eye, stabs the Halloween store clerk (Johnath Davis) in the orbital area with a broken bottle, and slices a scalpel through Allie’s eye to start her torturous death. No one is spared Art’s wrath, even an exhausted laundromat patron (Thomas Smith) gets a broken mop jammed into his head just because he woke up! Art’s bag of tricks has been expanded; he carries corrosive acid that he tosses in Brooke’s face and a sawn-off shotgun to blow Amanda away. Art also brutalises the melting Brooke with a custom-made nail bat and other implements, used a tommy gun and blowtorch in Sienna’s dream, and even stabs Jeff in the dick and hacks it off to taunt Brooke! Art lashes Sienna and Jonathan with a barbed whip, slashes them with a scalpel, and hacks off the clerk’s head with a rusty hatchet! However, Allie takes the prize for the film’s most memorable and morbidly fascinating kill! When Art breaks into her house, he chases her to her bedroom and slashes her eye, then savagely descalps her with a pair of scissors before slicing into her back to expose her ribcage. He then wrenches off one arm, splits the other down the middle, and dumps bleach and acid over her as she whimpers, bleeding on the floor. Art then tears half her face off and mutilates her to the muscle and bone when Allie’s mother (Amy Russ) returns home. Despite being little more than a flayed corpse, Allie still has the strength to call for her mother, leaving the woman a screaming wreck as Art silent cackles away, Allie’s flesh still stuck in his teeth! It is, honestly, a painfully disturbing sequence of brutality that I just cannot turn away from. The sheer ruthless nature of Allie’s suffering trumps anything, even that kill, from the first movie and certainly suggests that Art exudes an aura that prolongs his victim’s suffering and empowers him, since he clearly gets off on their agony!

Although Sienna powers up and defeats Art, the demonic clown is reborn through his former victim…

After suffering a panic attack thanks to her condition and Brooke spiking her drink, Sienna heads home with Brooke and Jeff. However, Sienna forces them to redirect to the abandoned funfair when Jonathan calls for help. This is, however, a trap laid by Art and the Little Pale Girl. As Sienna searches for her brother, Art castrates Jeff in an attack that’ll make your eyes water and brutalises Brooke, ripping out and partially eating her heart. Although Sienna valiantly attacks Art, she gets cut up and beaten unconscious, though this is where Terrifier 2 loses much of its momentum as the final act descends into an extended chase and attack sequence where Sienna and Jonathan run around looking for each other. Art delights in cutting Jonathan with a scalpel, shrugs off having his own bat lodged in his skull, and maniacally whips both Shaw siblings, gouging their flesh and repeatedly throttling Sienna. Although Jonathan tries to help, Sienna ends up stabbed in the abdomen with her own sword and drops down a mysterious hole from which the screams of Art’s victims echo. Transported to the Clown Café, Sienna ultimately drowns in a glass chamber. While Art feasts on Jonathan’s ankles, Sienna hears his screams and is mysteriously resurrected by her father’s blade, which heals her stomach wound (though not her others) and allows her to claw out of whatever part of Hell spawned Art and the Little Pale Girl. Sienna attacks Art with the magical sword and fatally wounds him. Like the last film, Art offers no resistance to this; indeed, he not only joyfully offers his neck but also seems to nod in respect for Sienna’s strength. Full of righteous vengeance, Sienna hacks off Art’s head but is too traumatised and injured to stop the Little Pale Girl taking it. A mid-credits scene sees an agonised Victoria Heyes spewing vile liquids from her nether-regions. Drawn to the normally docile patient’s cries, Victoria’s nurse (Leah Voysey) finds she has written curses and a declaration of love to Art on the walls with her blood and faeces. Oh, and Victoria is also seemingly possessed by the Little Pale Girl, since she sports the same glowing eye…and chortles maniacally as she cradles Art’s newly born severed head!

The Summary:
Terrifier 2 certainly improves on many of the flaws and shortcomings of its predecessor. Not only is the scope widened, but the locations and effects greatly benefit from the additional budget, to say nothing of Rostislav Vaynshtok and Paul Wiley’s synth-style score. The greatest trump card Terrifier 2 has over the first film is in Sienna. Lauren LaVera captivates with a natural beauty, charismatic appeal, and sympathetic vulnerability. She may get the lion’s share of screen time and characterisation, but it greatly benefits the film and her friends, while less developed characters, still add to her plight. Terrifier 2 does a decent job of exploring how grief affects different people, from Amanda focusing on work and lashing out at her kids to Jonathan’s odd obsession with serial killers like Art. Sienna choses to focus on her artistic expression to remember the good times she had with her father and feel closer to him, honouring his memory with her attractive (but clearly uncomfortable) Valkyrie outfit. As a pure, almost angelic figure, she’s perfectly positioned as Art’s archenemy and opposite, being traumatised and insecure where he’s bold and colourful. While Art’s mystery is only deepened here, with supernatural and potentially demonic elements being weaved into his character and him showing a burning rage at times, he’s also more unhinged and brutal than ever! Terrifier 2 turns the dial up to twenty-one, never mind eleven (!), with its deranged and sadistic kills that border on torture porn. It’s shockingly gruesome seeing Art maim, hack, and assault his victims and the film certainly isn’t forgetting its Grindhouse roots in these long, uncomfortable sequences that will have you questioning your obsession with horror. While this is enough to satisfy me as a horror fan, and to rate Terrifier 2 as the superior compared to its sequel, everything about this film justifies this rating since its so much more polished compared to the original. Whereas Terrifier seemed like an expensive proof of concept, Terrifier 2 has an actual plot, a developed main character, and adds a touch more intrigue to its inhuman villain. It feels less like a random assortment of grimy, shocking gore and more like a more complete and nuanced movie. It’s still not for everyone, the third act drags a bit and squanders the momentum of the second half, and some may even be offended by its content, but Terrifier 2 was a far more enjoyable experience for me as a film and horror fan and I would highly recommend it to anyone looking to take a dive bomb into the more extreme end of the genre.

My Rating:

Rating: 4 out of 5.

Great Stuff

Do you think Terrifier 2 surpasses the original? What did you think to the additional supernatural elements given to Art? Were you also a fan of Sienna, her eye-catching outfit, and her position as Art’s reluctant opposite? What do you think is happening with the Little Pale Girl? Do you agree that the gore was far more brutal this time, or did you find it too unrealistic? Are you scared of clowns and, if so, why? Which of the Terrifier films is your favourite and how are you celebrating horror this month? Share your thoughts about Terrifier 2 in the comments, support me on Ko-Fi, and check out my other horror content!

Movie Night [00-Heaven]: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service

Dr. K1 Comment

October 5th is officially recognised as “Global James Bond Day” so I’m dedicating some time to revisiting some firsts in the long-running franchise.

Released: 19 December 1969
Director: Peter R. Hunt
Distributor: United Artists
Budget: $7 million
Stars: George Lazenby, Diana Rigg, Telly Savalas, Gabriele Ferzetti/David de Keyser, and Ilse Steppat

The Plot:
While posing as a genealogist to uncover terrorist mastermind Ernst Stavro Blofeld’s (Savalas) mad plot to cause bacteriological warfare through brainwashed agents, British secret agent James Bond/007 (Lazenby) reluctantly romances and falls for the reckless Contessa Teresa “Tracy” di Vicenzo (Rigg).

The Background:
Created by former Navy intelligence officer Ian Fleming. MI6 super spy James Bond was famously brought to life by Sean Connery, beginning a long-running cinematic franchise. However, Connery’s decision to retire from the role sent producers Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman’s plans for the sixth 007 film out of whack as much as the ongoing rights issues regarding Blofeld and the Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion (SPECTRE). When their top choice to replace Connery, Roger Moore, became unavailable, the producers cast Australian model George Lazenby, who had little acting experience. Director Peter R. Hunt also chose to recast Blofeld with Telly Savalas, seeking a more physical presence for the villain, while Diana Rigg became the latest “Bond Girl” after producers were impressed with her work on The Avengers (1961 to 1969). Although the tabloids claimed Rigg despised Lazenby, the actor later quashed these rumours, though he did refuse to return as 007 out of fears of being typecast. Largely filmed in Switzerland, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service became as famous for its ski sequences as its tragic ending, which saw Hunt purposely wear Lazenby down to force the required emotion from him. Despite its $82 million box office being one of the highest of 1969, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service made considerably less than the previous Bond movies and critics loathed Lazenby’s portrayal and unfairly compared him to Connery. While this led to the producers desperately offering Connery an unprecedented deal to return in the following movie, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is now generally seen as an under-rated entry in the franchise, one praised for its visual beauty and stirring performances.

The Review:
On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (OHMSS) features the one and only appearance of George Lazenby as the world-famous super spy. Amusingly, the film sets a tone for subsequent newcomers to the role by largely obscuring Lazenby’s features in the traditional pre-title sequence and slowly introducing his new interpretation of Bond. This is all done with a mixture of brutal action, intrigue, and tongue-in-cheek humour as Bond comments on his inability to get the girl. Once the titles are done, OHMSS apes Bond’s first appearance in these films by sitting him at a poker table and piling up the winnings with casual confidence. Once again, Bond runs into the alluring woman from the opening, whom he saved from an apparent suicide attempt, only to get the cold shoulder even after he bails her out from her poor card playing. Though she agrees to meet him in her hotel room, Bond is once again jumped from behind and gets into another fist fight. When Bond returns to his room and finds the woman, the stubborn Tracy, she denies any knowledge of his attackers and spends the night with him, only to disappear in the morning and for Bond to be coerced into a car. Thus, our introduction to this new Bond is somewhat inconsistent. On the one hand, he has the same look, penchant for cigarettes and fine dining, and card skills as his predecessor and is pretty good in a fight. On the other hand, he’s constantly being jumped at random, keeps getting the brush off from Tracy (who seems to resent his interference), and has no choice but to go along when he’s kidnapped as he’s powerless to do much else. Sure, Sean Connery was in similar positions, but I think it might’ve helped if the opening established Bond was following Tracy as part of his investigation into SPECTRE.

Newcomer Lazenby is as ill-suited to the role as Bond is at impersonating Sir Hillary.

Bond is taken to meet Tracy’s father, Marc-Ange Draco (Ferzetti/de Keyser), a charismatic mob boss who despairs of his wayward daughter and wishes Bond to “dominate her” to set her straight, even offering him £1 million if he woos and marries her. Though he’s attracted to Tracy, Bond rejects the offer, aghast at being tied down or compromising himself, but changes his mind when Draco agrees to offer information on the whereabouts of Blofeld, SPECTRE’s elusive mastermind. Thus, Bond sets to work cooling Tracy’s cold heart but is angered when he returns to London and his cantankerous superior, “M” (Bernard Lee), relieves him of the Blofeld mission. Although ready to quit in protest, Bond’s granted two weeks leave thanks to the intervention of Miss Moneypenny (Lois Maxwell) and heads to Portugal for Draco’s birthday. There, Tracy is incensed to learn that her father is using her as a bartering tool and angrily forces Draco to give Bond the information so he won’t be obligated to waste time with her. However, this is merely a front for the feelings Tracy has developed for the suave secret agent and, having grown fond of her as well, Bond smooths things over and the two properly fall for one another. However, this romance takes a noticeable backseat when Draco points Bond to a law firm, which he swiftly breaks into to discover that Blofeld is posing as Count Balthazar de Bleuchamp and has established a restricted clinical allergy research institute in the Swiss Alps. Bringing his evidence to M, Bond is swiftly allowed to meet with and assume the identity of Sir Hilary Bray (George Baker), a genealogist who’s been asked to verify Blofeld’s ancestry. Adopting an exaggerated accent, ill-fitting clothes, and glasses, Bond is taken to Piz Gloria by Blofeld’s number two, the grim-faced but accommodating Irma Bunt (Ilse Steppat), and a curious game of cat-and-mouse begins.

Womanising Bond falls for headstrong Tracy, who loses her edge after having her heart melted by 007.

Unfortunately, this is where OHMSS really falls apart for me. It’s ludicrous to think that Blofeld wouldn’t immediately recognise Bond, whose disguise is somehow worse than the Japanese cosplay he adopted in the previous film, especially after they’ve already met. It’s pretty obvious that Blofeld is aware of the deception from the start and simply plays along to prove his superiority over Bond, or perhaps because he finds it amusing, genuinely believing he has a legitimate claim to being Count Balthazar de Bleuchamp since he has (presumably forged) documentation and has cut off his ear lobes to match the Bleuchamp bloodline. While Bond is as well versed in many subjects as ever, he spends some time with Sir Hillary to learn about genealogy and mimic his mannerisms, appearing to be a meek intellectual who, while exceedingly polite, has little interest in the beautiful women being treated for allergies at Piz Gloria. However, since his disguise is little more than a pipe and a kilt, Bond naturally catches the eye of the patients, who are incredibly horny. Thus, while Bunt enforces strict rules within the clinic, both Bond and the girls sneak out for a few bunk ups, though this seems to merely be a passing distraction for Bond. It also proves to be his undoing, as Bunt surprises him and Blofeld chastises his lustful ways since it was just one of many signs that “Sir Hillary” wasn’t who he claimed to be. Bond’s far more capable when it comes to escaping Blofeld’s compound, skiing to safety only to be relentlessly hounded in Lauterbrunnen. This is when Tracy finally returns, rescuing Bond, and he spontaneously decides he’s so in love with her that he wants to marry her and give up his violent lifestyle and womanising ways.

Blofeld and his operation have undergone a significant facelift but are still bent on chaos.

After finally being revealed as a scheming, disfigured criminal mastermind in the previous film, Blofeld has spent the last two years transforming into the fetching, silver-tongued director of a special clinic for those suffering from crippling allergies. Charismatic and sophisticated, Blofeld charms his patients and commends their progress and is so confident in his allure that he even tries to seduce Tracy after kidnapping her from an avalanche. To the outside world, Blofeld is a reclusive and private individual whose clinic is so restricted that unauthorised visitors are shot at and turned away on sight. Oddly, it seems Blofeld has the perfect setup at Piz Gloria but he draws undue attention to himself by claiming to be Count Balthazar de Bleuchamp, something which has little relevance to his true, mad plot. While Blofeld has successfully cured or aided his patients’ allergies using hypnosis, he’s also been brainwashing them into being his unsuspecting “Angels of Death”, charging them with unleashing a biological agent that will render all plant and animal life impotent. Blofeld’s endgame is to hold the world to ransom, threatening famine and extinction unless he’s given amnesty for his crimes and the title of Count Balthazar de Bleuchamp. While we don’t get to see this chemical agent in action, Blofeld provides a small sample to the United Nations and keeps Bond prisoner to verify his threat, confident that his demands will be met before a cure is inevitably found. So horrifying is Blofeld’s threat that the world’s governments agree to roll over, pointedly refusing Bond’s demands to launch a strike on Piz Gloria and cut Blofeld off from commanding his Angels of Death. Thus, Bond turns to his future father-in-law, Draco, who happily agrees to lead an assault on Piz Gloria to both rescue Tracy (though their haphazard gunfire says otherwise) and stop Blofeld’s mad scheme.

The Nitty-Gritty:
I’ve always found OHMSS to be a particularly dull Bond movie, and Lazenby’s mediocre turn as the character is only part of it. The film lacks a punchy title song, preferring excerpts of Louis Armstrong’s “We Have All the Time in the World”, a fittingly smoochy and emotional tune that hits doubly hard during the tragic finale.  Additionally, Bond noticeably lacks any fun gadgets; “Q” (Desmond Llewelyn) is merely a cameo and the best we get is a massive safe picking machine, a deconstructed sniper rifle, and a bog-standard printer/copier. I am a fan of the romance angle, though, of Bond learning there’s more to life than random hook ups and his staunch commitment to Queen and Country. However, the execution is lacking. I liked that Tracy initially appeared forthright and almost dismissive of Bond, barely caring that he was getting roughed up or giving him the time of day. However, Draco is right when he notices that Tracy “likes [him]” but is hiding behind a stubborn façade as Tracy falls for Bond like any other woman. She even acknowledges that Bond is unlikely to return those feelings, and yet helps him Lauterbrunnen and is so delighted by his proposal that she cries tears of happiness every time he’s around. The shadow of Tracy’s former, headstrong self resurfaces when she’s held captive by Blofeld as she attempts to disarm him with her beauty and even puts up a decent fight against his men, but she loses so much of her edge so quickly that it’s hard to see why Bond falls for her as she simply becomes another pretty girl who’s besotted by him. I also rate OHMSS poorly because it’s such a slog, churning along at a snail’s pace and placing so much focus on Bond’s ridiculous infiltration of Piz Gloria that wouldn’t have fooled a blind man!

A beautiful, but largely dull movie best known for its snowy locations and ski-chase sequences.

Still, there are some positives to OHMSS. The film is very beautiful, with the snowy Swiss Alps providing a gorgeous backdrop for Blofeld’s compound. While his facility isn’t as memorable as a hollowed-out volcano launch base, it is very slick and futuristic, forcing Bond to find ways to escape his confinement and brainwashing the girls to follow Blofeld’s commands. Bond gets into a lot of scuffles in OHMSS, generally emerging unscathed after summarily drowning his foes, flinging them off the Swiss Alps or tumbling into a wood chipper, and constantly lashing out to catch his capturers off-guard. Naturally, most chases occur either in the snow or down the dangerous Swiss Alps, with the finest rear projection money selling the illusion that the actors are in the thick of it. All joking aside, the skiing sequences are really fun. It is bizarre that Blofeld’s henchman can’t hit their target when there’s no cover around, but then they are rocketing down a mountain at high speed so I’ll forgive it. Seeing them careen off the side is quite harrowing, and watching Blofeld set off an avalanche to bury his hated foe made for an exciting sequence (though it’s a little unbelievable that Bond survived). There are also a couple of car chases here, but the big action set piece comes when Bond and Draco assault Blofeld’s lair. Strangely, considering how fortified the compound appears, Blofeld has no anti-aircraft guns and is initially easily deceived by Draco’s claims to be on a mercy mission. His men are thus ill-equipped against a full-scale assault, easily being gunned down and blown over balconies when Bond attacks. OHMSS utilises some impressive miniatures to showcase Piz Gloria’s destruction, though there’s a painfully noticeable delay (even by Bond movie standards) between Draco’s wristwatch, the bomb timer, and Bond and Blofeld escaping the compound before it blows.

Blofeld spitefully returns to deliver a tragic blow to Bond in the shocking finale.

Having narrowly escaped, Blofeld stumbles down the mountainside with Bond in hot pursuit. Any sense of poise, composure, and authority is evaporated once Blofeld speeds off in a bobsleigh, desperately taking pot shots at Bond and comically fumbling with a grenade! Desperate to get his man, Bond doesn’t let a little thing like being blown from his bobsleigh slow him down and gets into a clumsy fist fight with the SPECTRE head that ends with Blofeld seemingly killed by a branch. Seemingly victorious, Bond makes good on his promise and marries Tracy before friends and family. Though obviously heartbroken, even Miss Moneypenny is pleased for Bond and the ceremony allows former enemies M and Draco to reminisce on previous encounters between their organisations. Elated to have found a woman worth settling down for, Bond and Tracy drive towards a seemingly happy future, already planning to build a family together. However, their overly decorated wedding car draws much attention and Bond realises that he never bought his wife a gift, or flowers, so he pulls over to strip the vehicle and share a sweet moment with Tracy. Unfortunately for him, Blofeld not only survived their anti-climatic battle but returns with a vengeance, barrelling towards them at high speed (comically sporting a neck brace) alongside Bunt. Bond barely has time to flinch before Bunt unloads with a machine gun but is determined to chase after the villain. However, Bond’s horrified to see that Tracy has been killed by a bullet to the forehead. As a passing motorist stops by, Bond cradles his dead wife, barely holding back tears, and briefly taking solace in denial before succumbing to a grief that would come to define much of his later characterisation.

The Summary:
I’ve never been a fan of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and have long held the belief that the film would’ve struggled to impress me even if Sean Connery or Roger Moore had been in the role. Connery being Bond would’ve made things simpler, for sure, but I doubt even his magnetic presence would help with the uneven tone, slow pacing, and more ridiculous elements. As I understand it, many consider George Lazenby to be an under-rated Bond actor, though I disagree. He barely has the look, certainly doesn’t have the acting chops or screen presence, and is as thoroughly unconvincing as Bond as Bond is at impersonating Sir Hillary. Lazenby’s flaws are only exacerbated whenever he shares the screen with the charismatic Draco, the stunning Tracy, or the captivating Blofeld. While it annoys me that Blofeld is no longer scarred or a devious psychopath, Telly Savalas oozes charm and commands the screen, easily overshadowing Bond and yet portraying Blofeld so differently that he may as well have been a different villain. I did like the concept behind Tracy and her romance with Bond, but it was a mistake to make this a glorified side-plot and for her to disappear for the middle portion of the film. It might’ve been better to have her infiltrate Blofeld’s compound under the guise of needing treatment, or for her to have attended Blofeld’s facility and need to be freed from his control…anything to get her involved in the second act and avoid the nonsense Sir Hillary aspect. Admittedly, it was amusing seeing Bond work his way through the Angels of Death, but also a shitty move considering he was supposed to be in love with Tracy. The skiing sequences and explosive finale were decent, but the bobsleigh chase was laughable and OHMSS greatly suffers from a lack of memorable gadgets. The only reason anyone remembers it is the tragic and dramatic ending, which shows Bond at his most vulnerable and hits like a blow to the gut. However, this isn’t enough to elevate OHMSS, which remains one of my least favourite Bond movies and a mere footnote in the character’s history, which is a shame considering how relevant its finale was to future interpretations of the character.

My Rating:

Rating: 2 out of 5.

Could Be Better

Do you think I’m being too harsh on On Her Majesty’s Secret Service or do you agree that it’s one of the weaker Bond movies? Are you a fan of George Lazenby or do you agree that he was miscast? What did you think to Telly Savalas’s less monstrous version of Blofeld? Were you left devastated by the ending? Which Bond actor, film, story, villain, or moment is your favourite? How are you celebrating James Bond this month? Whatever you think about On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, or James Bond in general, feel free to leave a comment below, check out my other James Bond reviews, and donate to my Ko-Fi to suggest more 007 content for the site.

Movie Night: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein

Dr. KLeave a comment

Released: 4 November 1994
Director: Kenneth Branagh
Distributor: TriStar Pictures / Sony Pictures Releasing
Budget: $45 million
Stars: Kenneth Branagh, Robert De Niro, Helena Bonham Carter, Aidan Quinn, and Ian Holm

The Plot:
Obsessed with preventing death, eccentric scientist Victor Frankenstein (Branagh) patches together a monstrous being (De Niro), who embarks on malicious crusade when its creator rejects it.

The Background:
In a bid to tell a story that spoke to “the mysterious fears of our nature” while snowed in in Geneva, eighteen year old Mary Shelley dreamed up Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus in 1818, attracting much controversy for its blasphemous content and producing a celebrated piece of literary fiction. Following a short silent film in 1910, Frankenstein saw considerable success on the stage and silver screen thanks to James Whales’ 1931 horror classic and Boris Karloff’s iconic performance. Following numerous additional reinterpretations, and the incredible critical and commercial success of Bram Stoker’s Dracula (Coppola, 1992), director Francis Ford Coppola wanted to helm a more faithful adaptation of the book before moving into a producer role. Coppola’s first mandate was that Robert De Niro be cast as the tragic creature and that Kenneth Branagh should direct. Next, Frank Darabont was drafted to rewrite Steph Lady’s initial script, though he later lamented that Branagh had heavily altered his vision for the film. Alongside a far more fantastical depiction of the Monster’s reanimation, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein presented a dramatically different version of the creature, one far closer to Shelley’s text than other adaptations. With a box office of $112 million, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was a modest financial success met with mostly mixed reviews that criticised the manic pace and surprisingly bland execution, while praising De Niro’s heart wrenching performance and the intriguing exploration of Victor’s haunting obsessions.

The Review:
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein immediately gets off on the right food by establishing a framing narrative the echoes the original text, beginning by following Captain Robert Walton as he leads his crew in a desperate bid to find a path through the ice to the North Pole. Unfortunately, the journey is so perilous and difficult that his crew are close to breaking point. Even when the ship gets trapped in ice, Captain Walton refuses to turn back, having spent his entire fortune funding the trip and being driven by an obsession with etching his name in history, no matter the cost. As the crew frantically try to free the ship and entertain thoughts of mutiny, they’re startled by an inhuman howl and amazed when a dishevelled cloaked figure appears from the storm, babbling about some “thing” out on the ice. Captain Walton takes the exhausted stranger in and cares for him, curious about what’s waiting in the frigid wasteland, only to be introduced to the manic, wild-eyed rantings of Victor Frankenstein, who begs Captain Walton to give up his crusade due to the danger of the mysterious thing pursuing him. When Captain Walton refuses, scoffing and enraged at the idea of being denied his destiny, Frankenstein is distraught to see the stubborn captain shares his madness and, in a bid to convince him to turn back before he destroys himself and his crew, tells Captain Walton his life story. This is related through the remainder of the film, with some correspondence between Frankenstein and his adopted sister, Elizabeth (Carter), and excerpts from Frankenstein’s journal mirroring the epistolary nature of the novel, and being bookended by Captain Walton’s reaction to Frankenstein’s crazed story of scientific obsession turned to destruction.

Obsessed with defeating death, Frankenstein employs immoral and outlawed sciences to create life.

Frankenstein met Elizabeth when they were children (Rory Jennings and Hannah Taylor-Gordon) and spent his whole life caring for her as though she were his own, as instructed by his beloved mother, Caroline (Cherie Lunghi), and expert surgeon father, Baron Alphonse Frankenstein (Holm). Even from an early age, Frankenstein hungered for knowledge and conducted many eccentric experiments using ancient tomes, mostly concerning the transfer and nature of energy, to the amazement of his family. Unfortunately, Frankenstein’s youth was marred by tragedy as his mother died giving birth to his younger brother, William/Willie (Charles Wyn-Davies/Ryan Smith), an event that traumatised Frankenstein and began his obsession with defeating death. Upon arriving at the University of Ingolstadt to follow in his father’s footsteps, Frankenstein immediately gains notoriety for studying and championing unconventional texts and authors long considered heretics or sorcerers, angering his more rational and scientifically minded tutors, who believe their focus should be on saving lives using the scientific method. Obstinate and arrogant, Frankenstein secretly continues his experiments alongside his enthusiastic (if medically conventional) friend Henry Clerval (Tom Hulce), but his outbursts attract the curiosity of Professor Waldman (John Cleese), who touted similar beliefs in the past and was tarnished because of it. Frequent discussions and experiments with Professor Waldman further Frankenstein’s obsession with preventing or reversing death, discovering that the applying electricity to key areas of the body can reanimate corpses, though even Professor Walden refuses to share his notes and divulge how close he came before giving up his crusade. Frankenstein, however, is undeterred and only redoubles his efforts after his mentor is senselessly murdered trying to prevent an outbreak of cholera. Despite Clerval’s objections, Frankenstein studies Professor Walden’s notes and arrogantly believes he can succeed where his mentor failed by acquiring the right “raw materials” for his “reanimate”, locking himself in his attic laboratory and ignoring his friends and loved ones as he works himself to exhaustion stitching together a monstrosity that he believes will be both smarter, stronger, and superior to man.

Frankenstein’s work sees him shun those closest to him, including his devoted adopted sister and lover.

Frankenstein’s fixation on overcoming death sees him become a recluse; he locks Clerval out and stops writing letters to his family and Elizabeth, who’s particularly distraught as the two became so close over the years that they couldn’t deny their feelings and vowed to be married once Frankenstein finished his studies. While it is admittedly quite disturbing to see these “siblings” suddenly lustful for each other, no one bats an eyelid at their romance because it’s been obvious to everyone, especially nursemaid Justine Moritz (Trevyn McDowell), who’s been in love when Frankenstein since they were children, that that two have always cared deeply for one another, Elizabeth is besotted by Frankenstein, eagerly anticipating consummating their relationship on their wedding night and desiring to bring new life to their family home through their children. Encouraged by Justine, Elizabeth travels to Ingolstadt to be with her lover, concerned for his welfare, only to find him a physical and emotional wreck living in squalor. Erratic and fixated on his work, Frankenstein shuns Elizabeth and sends her away, breaking her heart. However, when he’s discovered in a feverish stupor by Clerval, Frankenstein is nursed back to health by his friend and his love, reconciling with Elizabeth and suddenly vowing to give up his bizarre and secretive experiments. Frankenstein returns to his family home in Geneva, ready to commit himself to medical science alongside Clerval, and joyously announcing his engagement to his father, who celebrates the union as a blessed event. However, Frankenstein remains tight-lipped about his dark days isolated in his lab and refuses to speak of what transpired there, taking solace in his newfound happiness. Elizabeth and Alphonse are left devastated when Frankenstein’s past comes back to haunt him, however, as poor little Willie is brutally murdered on the family grounds and poor Justine is unfairly and unlawful lynched as the primary suspect, thrown off the prison roof and hanged by the bloodthirsty local despite the true culprit being a hideous creature of Frankenstein’s own making.

Robert De Niro disappears behind the creature’s monstrous make-up.

Following Professor Walden’s notes, Frankenstein cobbles together a brutish patchwork creature from bits and pieces of others, including the man who killed his mentor and Professor Walden’s brain. Using a bizarre contraption filled with amniotic fluid and powered by electric eels, Frankenstein maniacally sees his experiment through and is initially overjoyed when his creature comes to life. However, he immediately regrets his actions, echoing Professor Walden’s own conclusions, when the Monster appears ungainly, deformed, and brain damaged. Believing the creature to be dead, a remorseful Frankenstein forgets the entire thing, unaware that his creature stumbled through Ingolstadt in a daze before being driven to the countryside by paranoid locals who, upon seeing the monstrous visage, assumed it was the cause of the cholera outbreak. While in the woods, the Monster shelters in the barn of a kindly family of farmers, who are struggling to survive due to the bitter winter cold. Touched by their kindness towards each other and their plight, the creature secretly helps harvest their crops and learns (or, as it later says, remembers) how to read and write by observing them. When the creature defends the family’s blind grandfather (Richard Briers), it’s welcomed by the grateful old man, who shows compassion, only for the rest of the family to misread the situation and drive the Monster away before fleeing. Learning of its origins from Frankenstein’s journal, the enraged creature hunts down its creator and confronts him on “the sea of ice”, desperate to learn the purpose of its existence. Though a deeply sympathetic and pitiable creature, it’s hard to feel too bad for Frankenstein’s being when it delights in detailing how it crushed the life from Willie and set Justine up for her execution. It vows to indulge its insatiable rage if Frankenstein refuses to build it a mate, promising to disappear from the world if it has a companion to ease its suffering, and is presented as the personification of Frankenstein’s folly.

The Nitty-Gritty:
It’s been a while since I read the book, but Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is certainly the most accurate adaptation of the text I’ve ever seen. It has the framing narrative, showcases his family life, details his studies, and presents the Monster as being intelligent and articulate, all things largely ignored in the 1931 version. Frankenstein has always been a favourite of mine, largely because of this movie, which I believe was my first exposure to the story. It’s amusing to watch in some ways, however, since Frankenstein’s rantings about hair and fingernails regrowing after death have long been proven to have nothing to do with the body still being alive. Similarly, his experiments with electricity are shown to literally reanimate a frog when we know that any convulsions and movements are due to the electrical current. Frankenstein does touch upon some valid aspects of medicine in his rantings, however, like organ transfers, very much making him ahead of his time (and thus a heretic to the God-fearing scientific community). I’ve always found it odd, though, that Frankenstein stitches together his creation. Professor Walden’s notes state that the right “raw materials” may result in success, though it’s not clear what makes any of the body parts Frankenstein gets more “right” than others except when he harvests “the very finest brain” from his mentor. It seems like it’d be much easier to simply zap Professor Walden’s body to bring him back but, instead, Frankenstein cobbles together a creature he feels will be the perfect lifeform, only to be disgusted and ashamed of his feeble creation once he realises he’s made a massive mistake. I really enjoyed that we got to see the Monster learning from the family and the exploration of how its mind works. Many of its memories and abilities are presented as “trace memories”, as though each body part remembers something different from its previous life and the creature can use that knowledge to learnt to speak and play the flute while also being a completely unique personality, one driven by incredible love and equally powerful rage.

A visually memorable, gory, and faithful adaptation of the thought-provoking text.

It’s astounding to me that Robert De Niro, of all people, was cast as the creature but he does an excellent job depicting the Monster’s confusion, anguish, and hatred. Initially a mindless, wailing creature acting on instinct, the Monster comes to realise it is a living thing (in a sense) and has been abandoned by its creator. Its conversation with Frankenstein echoes the bitter resentment a man may have towards God and Frankenstein’s blunt, clinical answers about the creature’s purpose and origin speak to the disappointment one might feel upon asking God, “Why am I here?” Rather than being a bulky, block-headed giant lumbering about with bolts through it sneck, the Monster is a patchwork of skin and body parts, with De Niro’s eyes conveying the bulk of the emotion as the impressive make-up distorts his features. Instead of channelling a lightning bolt into his creation, Frankenstein constructs an elaborate and frankly ridiculous contraption that uses special chemicals, electrodes, and electric eels in an unsettlingly sexualised sack to birth his creature, somewhat overcomplicating the process but providing some unique visuals, if nothing else. The creature is depicted as being incredibly unstable, boasting superhuman strength and agility and seemingly impervious to the cold, and flip-flopping between loving and gentle and abhorrently brutal as it relishes killing Willie and tormenting Frankenstein. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein gets very gory, with death, especially, depicted as a messy and traumatising affair. Caroline and Professor Walden’s deaths are particularly gruesome, leaving the Frankenstein’s covered in blood, and Justine’s is notably harrowing given the senselessness of it all. Things come to a head when the Monster, enraged when Frankenstein breaks his vow, makes good on its promise and brutally murders Elizabeth on their wedding night, ripping out her heart and mangling her corpse with glass and fire. It’s no wonder that Frankenstein is so obsessed with defeating death considering these experiences, but his obsession is tainted by arrogance and a God complex that makes him foolhardy and stubborn, refusing to entertain any notions contrary to his or apply his admittedly keen mind towards perfecting surgeries and medicines to achieve his goal.

Frankenstein’s obsession ends in heartbreak and death when his creation demands recompense.

Although Frankenstein reluctantly agrees to create a mate for the Monster, desperate to atone for his mistakes and to give his creation some peace, he backs out on the deal when the experiment again alienates him from Elizabeth. Marshalling his family guards, Frankenstein abandons his work to marry Elizabeth, only to be devastated and horrified when the Monster tears out her heart in recompense. With his lover dead and his father dying of a broken heart following Willie’s murder, a grieving Frankenstein shuns Clerval’s objections and frantically stitches Elizabeth’s disfigured head to Justine’s corpse and recreates his experiment, desperate to be reunited with his love and lost to his insane obsession once more. Even when the confused, clearly disfigured and inept Elizabeth returns to life, Frankenstein refuses to realise what he’s done, begging her to say his name, slipping on her wedding gown and ring, and dancing with her with manic joy even as she flops around like a lifeless puppet. Frankenstein’s bliss is shattered when the Monster appears and claims Elizabeth for itself, her being drawn to the monstrous being on some primal instinct. While Frankenstein is elated when she finally chokes out his name, Elizabeth is horrified when she catches sight of her mangled reflection and incensed when the two fight over her, eventually choosing to immolate herself, taking Frankenstein’s home with her. Returning to Captain Walden, we learn that Frankenstein pursued his creature for months, always being drawn north, intent on killing the beast. However, Frankenstein succumbs to pneumonia and dies, much to the despair of his creation, who weeps for its “father”. Taking pity on the Monster, Captain Walden organises a funeral, only for the ice to crack and the Monster to choose to die alongside his father rather than return to the world of man. Finally, after seeing how destructive obsession can be and touched by Frankenstein’s story, Captain Walden agrees to abandon his crusade before he’s destroyed in the same way.

The Summary:
I’ve always had a soft spot for Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein as it was my introduction to the story and sparked a lifelong fondness for the text, its stirring themes, and its complex, monstrous creature. However, it’s not a film I watch all that often as it is quite long and it does have some flaws. While Kenneth Branagh did an excellent job conveying Frankenstein’s obsession and mania, I think it was quite self-indulgent to cast himself in the movie. I’m not always convinced by Helena Bonham Carter or her relationship with Frankenstein, which is a bit questionable in this day and age, and the film overly complicates iconic moments like the construction and birth of the Monster, seemingly to be more grounded and realistic despite how fantastical the story is. Robert De Niro did a surprisingly great job as the Monster, however. I never would’ve pegged him for a role like this, but he showcases an unexpected emotional depth that perfectly captures the creature’s intense love and blinding fury, presenting a very different and much more accurate portrayal of the creature that challenges the popular depiction of it as a mindless, lumbering giant. This is a very beautiful film, with some fantastic sets and costumes, that really captures the period setting. It’ll always be weird to seeing the bizarre equipment used to bring the creature to life but it’s certainly memorable, and doubly unsettling when viewed as an allegory for birth. Frankenstein’s obsessions are very relatable, as is the Monster’s rage, and both are flawed, justified characters in different ways that really make you think about the nature of “good” and “evil”. The creature is like the personification of karma, relentlessly causing death and torment for its creator, literally destroying Frankenstein’s entire family for revenge. Had Frankenstein embraced and nurtured his creation, or simply destroyed it, much of the anguish he suffers could’ve been avoided but Frankenstein’s arrogance and superiority complex constantly prove his undoing. Ultimately, I can understand why many dislike Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein as it’s not the easiest film to watch, but it’s always been a not-so-guilty pleasure of mine and it remains as evocative today as it did when I was a teenager, so I have a lot of fondness for this flawed creation.

My Rating:

Rating: 3 out of 5.

Pretty Good

Are you also a fan of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein or did you find it too much of a slog to sit through? What did you think to the cast and their performances and were you surprised to see Robert De Niro in such a role? Did you like how different the creature’s make-up effects were? Do you consider this the most faithful adaptation of the text? How are you celebrating horror this year? Leave your thoughts on Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein in the comments, check out my other horror reviews, and donate to my Ko-Fi to suggest more Frankenstein content.

Movie Night: Frankenstein (1931)

Dr. K4 Comments

Released: 21 November 1931
Director: James Whale
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Budget: $262,007
Stars: Colin Clive, Boris Karloff/?, Mae Clarke, Dwight Frye, and Edward Van Sloan

The Plot:
Obsessed with playing God, eccentric scientist Henry Frankenstein (Clive) cobbles together a monstrous being (Karloff/?) whose child-like nature sees it embark on a rampage.

The Background:
“I busied myself to think of a story […] One which would speak to the mysterious fears of our nature, and awaken thrilling horror…” And so it was that Mary Shelley, while effectively snowed in in Geneva, thought up the concept for Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus at just eighteen years old. First published anonymously in 1818, what began as a ghost story that attracted much controversy due to Shelley’s gender and its blasphemous content, evolved into a celebrated piece of literary fiction whose scientific, gothic, and religious themes have been discussed endlessly for over two hundred years. Frankenstein was first adapted into a short silent film in 1910 but saw considerable success on the British stage, courtesy of Peggy Webling, despite numerous changes to the source material. Following their surprising success with Dracula (Browning, 1931), Universal Studios gave producer Carl Laemmle Jr. the go-ahead to produce more horror movies, with them acquiring the rights to the Frankenstein stage play. Though Laemmle Jr. initially planned to play the Monster, Dracula star Bela Lugosi was approached for the role but (in)famously turned it down as the initial script had stripped the creature of all nuance and humanity. Instead, the Monster was famously embodied by Boris Karloff, who endured long, painful hours in make-up to bring the creature to (un)life with a look that was noticeably removed from the book. Though subjected to rigorous censorship demands, Frankenstein was a remarkable box office hit at the time thanks, in part, to clever marketing. Despite its many differences from the book, Frankenstein was widely praised for Karloff’s captivating performance and as one of the best films of its year. The film stood the test of time as a horror classic, popularising this interpretation of the Monster for generations and leading to numerous sequels and reinterpretations of the text.

The Review:
Surprisingly, I do have some experience with Shelley’s Frankenstein, having studied it at secondary school and during my undergraduate years, if only briefly. Although I’ve read and written about the text before, it has been a while since I revisited the book and most of my experiences come from the movies, as with all the Universal Monsters characters. Still, I remember enough to know that Frankenstein is a very loose adaptation, missing many details and supplanting them with others, though some of the missing material was utilised in the sequel, Bride of Frankenstein (Whale, 1935), so literary purists may have a better time watching both back-to-back. The first and most obvious change is that Frankenstein is named “Henry” here, with his title given to his cantankerous father, Baron Frankenstein (Frederick Kerr) and his original first name given to his friend, Victor Moritz (John Boles), who’s essentially an adaptation of the book’s Henry Clerval. Frankenstein also has a simple-minded, hunchbacked assistant in the movie (named Fritz (Frye) rather than the more mainstream “Igor”) rather than working alone, the Monster is deathly afraid of fire and never speaks, and many events are shuffled around. This is largely because, like Dracula, Frankenstein is based more on the stage play than the text, but it does mean the movie hits differently and explores alternate, if tangentially similar, themes regarding science, playing God, and the nature of man. The very fact that Frankenstein deals with such issues, no doubt shocking to a God-fearing world, potentially explains why the film opens with star Edward Van Sloan warning audiences to turn away if they’re shocked by such content. Indeed, the horror of Frankenstein, at the time, was just as much about a man playing God as it was the titular (or not so titular) Monster, since the idea that anyone but God can create life would’ve been deeply blasphemous and the fear of the unknown (in this case, science) would’ve made the subject matter particularly upsetting, I’m sure.

Despite warnings from his friends and loves ones, Frankenstein creates monstrous life with science.

Anyway, in Frankenstein, Henry comes from a wealthy family with a great deal of influence on a small village in the Bavarian Alps. While the curmudgeonly Baron Frankenstein despairs of his son’s bizarre experiments and decision to isolate himself in an ominous stone tower laboratory with Fritz, Henry’s correspondence to his fiancée, Elizabeth Lavenza (Clarke), tells of his need for privacy and solitude. This is primarily because he and Fritz are sneaking out at night and digging up bodies, selecting organs and body parts for a patchwork man Henry aims to bring to life through the awesome power of electricity. While they scavenge everything they need for the body, Henry’s frustrated that the recently deceased can’t provide a viable brain, so he has Fritz steal a preserved brain from his old mentor, Doctor Waldman (Van Sloan), not realising that it’s a “criminal brain” seemingly hardwired for evil (that’s also further damaged by the clumsy Fritz). Concerned for her love’s welfare, Elizabeth politely shrugs off Victor’s advances and convinces him to ask Dr. Waldman for advice, with the three braving a horrific thunderstorm to visit Henry. Though frustrated by their interference, Henry invites them to witness his crowning achievement when Victor (fully aware of his intentions) accuses him of being mad. While Henry denies this claim, it’s obvious that he is a little bonkers, as seen in his exuberant and iconic cry of “It’s alive!!”, his claims to “be God”, and his initial denial regarding his creation once it comes to life. Ecstatic to have brought the creature to life, Henry insists that the childlike being needs time to adjust rather than rejecting it on first sight as in the novel. This is despite the protests of Dr. Waldman, who correctly warns that the “Monster” is an abomination to God and a threat to all due to its capacity for evil and its unpredictable nature.

Thanks to its unnatural origin, Frankenstein’s Monster is confused and quick to wild emotions.

Despite his efforts to teach the Monster, Frankenstein is forced to agree when the creature flies into a rage at the sight of fire and acts like a wild animal while chained in the basement, murdering Fritz, attacking Dr. Waldman, and almost throttling Henry before Dr. Waldman subdues it with what’s supposed to be a lethal injection. During Henry’s recuperation, his madness lifts and he returns to a normal life, finally marrying Elizabeth (to the joy of his father and the village). Ever the curious scientist, Dr. Waldman leads the vivisection on the Monster, becoming its second victim when it reanimates and strangles him to death. Though initially oblivious to the threat, Henry (and the entire village) are alerted of a wicked murderer after learning that local girl Maria (Marilyn Harris) has been drowned, Dr. Waldman killed, and after Elizabeth is attacked. Much of this is similar to the book, such as the Monster stumbling across a little girl, murdering a child, and going on a bit of a killing spree, but it’s framed as the actions of a confused and misunderstood creature rather than acts of wickedness. While the film goes to great lengths to assert that Frankenstein’s experiments are immoral and inhuman, the tone is awkwardly balanced between Henry’s madness, the darker sequences, and some strange comedic moments. These largely involve the blustering Baron Frankenstein, who’s convinced his son’s having an affair, demands that he forget his experiments, and constantly rambles about his grandmother’s wine. The Baron has no patience for Burgomaster Herr Vogel (Lionel Belmore) or the expectant masses…until Henry snaps out of his obsession and returns to the real world, and then the Baron’s all smiles and jokes. Elizabeth is the quintessential supporting fiancée, deeply devoted to Henry despite him isolating himself and Victor being right there, and far more suitable. Victor is basically a blank slate, shouting accusations at Frankenstein and offering little else, and honestly his role could’ve easily been merged into Dr. Waldman’s to speed things up.

Madness and science birth a confused and potentially dangerous abomination.

As ever, “Frankenstein” is both the Monster and the creator as Henry brings the wretch to life and is the subject of the film but does so through abhorrent acts like grave robbing and stealing. The Monster is seemingly a mishmash of different parts and pieces, with no true personality of its own, but it does retain rudimentary memories. These initially encourage Frankenstein as the Monster’s capable of stumbling about and obeying basic instructions, but his enthusiasm quickly dies when he sees how savage the Monster becomes when confronted by fire. The Monster’s rage is only fuelled when Fritz beats it and Henry gives up on it, reluctantly agreeing to kill the creature only to find Fritz strung up. Depicted as simple-minded but incredibly strong, the Monster easily overpowers two or three men at once and gleefully throttles Dr. Waldman, perhaps out of sheer muscle memory from its “criminal brain” or perhaps because it recognises the threat those around him pose to its existence. Indeed, when the Monster stumbles upon Maria, it sits and plays, laughing and seemingly content. However, it misunderstands the girl’s game of tossing flowers into the river and chucks her in for a laugh, drowning her despite her landing in the shallow end and unintentionally whipping the villagers into a lynch mob. It’s not clear why the Monster pays a visit to Elizabeth, especially as it seemed to be wandering at random, but she’s horrified by its grotesque appearance, and it attacks her when she tries to flee. Luckily for her, it leaves her alive, which only motivates Frankenstein to join the mob. Although the Monster looks nothing like Shelley’s descriptions, its design is certainly iconic and striking. A tall, lurching, shambling wretch with its eyes largely rolled back, two bolts in its neck, and misshapen skin, the Monster is an unnatural man-thing that mocks the beauty of natural life. Yet, interestingly, Henry isn’t immediately disgusted by it and the Monster is shown only to be confused and scared, lashing out accordingly and in need of guidance rather than persecution.

The Nitty-Gritty:
Frankenstein was certainly ambitious for the time. Boris Karloff’s make-up looks both impressive and extremely uncomfortable, with the actor perfectly stomping about and making stiff, jerky movements to show the creature is unnatural and undead. Although the film lacks a score to emphasis dramatic moments, there’s some great use of sound during the thunderstorm, which delivers the film’s most impressive moment. Sure, it’s weird that Henry’s visitors aren’t drenched when they enter the laboratory and his whole setup takes a lot of liberties with the source material, but Frankenstein’s laboratory is the quintessential “mad scientist” setup and a wonderful way to show the awesome and seemingly unknowable power of nature (in this case, lightning). Baron Frankenstein’s residence also impressed in its opulence, and I liked that Frankenstein incorporated many different locations, though some sets were a bit too obvious (which is to be expected). The film utilised a decent miniature to depict the windmill and its destruction and I was impressed by how often flaming torches appeared onscreen, and how fast and loose everyone played with getting up close to them! While the Monster’s jerky movements made his “fight scenes” a joke, I did like seeing these normal guys and scientists struggling to subdue the savage Monster, who easily overpowered them and left a decent body count in its wake. It’s a shame that we don’t get to see the Monster learning to speak or being more than a near-mindless creature, but the intention seems to be to emphasise that Henry came so close to playing God but screwed it up because man isn’t meant to meddle in such things. It’s always amused me as it surely would’ve been easier for Frankenstein to reanimate a fresh body than to stitch together a grotesque behemoth, and he arguably pays the price for that approach since the Monster is as much a victim of its disparate pieces as it is the situation it finds itself in.

A dramatic showdown between man and creation ends this startling loose adaptation.

Upon discovering Maria’s dirty, drowned body, her shellshocked father (Michael Mark) carries her through the village and to the Burgomaster to warn of a murderer and immediately incites a lynch mob. The seething masses are only further incited when Dr. Waldman is found dead and Elizabeth is attacked, for the village holds the Frankensteins in high regard and is outraged at such an act. Frankenstein joins the search, which is split between different areas of the village and the surrounding grounds, with Henry venturing into the jagged mountains alongside rabid dogs and villagers wielding flaming torches. Unaware that his Monster is to blame for the deaths (since Henry believes the creature perished from Dr. Waldman’s serum), Henry is stunned when the Monster attacks him in the wastelands. The scuffle is brief and one-sided, with Frankenstein easily bested and hauled to a nearby dilapidated windmill with the mob in hot pursuit. Desperate to escape to the high ground, the Monster tangles with Frankenstein when he wakes, with Henry proving no match for his creation and being tossed from top floor. Luckily for him, the slow-moving windmill blades break his fall, leaving Frankenstein a gravely injured (but inconceivably alive) wreck on the ground. While some villagers carry Henry home, the others set the windmill on fire, sending the trapped Monster into a frenzy and seemingly causing its destruction when it’s consumed by the fire. In the aftermath, Frankenstein recovers at home alongside Elizabeth and his father celebrates with another shot of the family wine, toasting his family house and blissfully unaware that the rampage was caused by another “son of the house of Frankenstein”. It’s obviously a very different ending from the book, with the entire sub-plot and bookend of Captain Robert Walton dropped, Elizabeth and Henry surviving the events, and the omission of the Monster’s bride and vengeance upon Frankenstein’s family. Still, the Monster does seemingly perish in a fire like in the book and I don’t expect filmmakers from 1931 to try and bring the Arctic to life.

The Summary:
Since the stage play that Frankenstein is more directly adapted from has essentially been lost to the mists of time, it can be difficult to reconcile how loose an adaptation the film is from the source material. The film omits and changes many elements from the book, distilling the key events and themes to a feature-film length and losing much of the complex charm and horror of Shelley’s book. Yet, these elements are still present and, even in this modern day, there’s still a chilling message about man’s arrogance in using science to play God. While Henry Frankenstein insists that he’s the model of sanity, he is out in the dead of night digging up corpses, isolating himself from friends and family, and practically frothing at the mouth when his Monster comes to life. Though he lacks much of the nuance of the source material, Frankenstein is depicted as an egotistical and obsessed scientist who claws back some sympathy after initially appearing somewhat unlikeable, ultimately paying for his arrogance not with his life, but with a traumatic experience. Frankenstein’s lasting legacy is, without a doubt, the design and portrayal of the Monster. Boris Karloff gives a remarkable physical performance, lumbering about, throwing clubbing blows, and growling at his prey as the Monster struggles to adapt to its newfound unlife. The visual of the Monster, with its cuboid head, large suit, and metal bolts, is enduring and iconic and is so burned into the cultural consciousness that I’d wager most people don’t realise that the Monster looks nothing like that in the book. Frankenstein also impresses in its ambition, featuring many different locations and sets, some superb set design, and a surprisingly high body count (including a child, no less!) The film distils the book’s warnings about meddling in the unknown into a far more simplistic message about reaping what you sow, but it’s still a decent watch, despite some unavoidable flaws, that no doubt galvanised this version of Frankenstein’s Monster into the cultural zeitgeist.

My Rating:

Rating: 2 out of 5.

Could Be Better

Are you a fan of Frankenstein’s big-screen debut? What did you think to the changes to the source material and which parts did you miss the most? Did you also find Baron Frankenstein a bizarre character? What did you think to Boris Karloff’s performance and the dramatic redesign of the Monster? Where do you stand on who should or shouldn’t be called “Frankenstein”? Which adaptation of Frankenstein, or Universal Monsters movie, is your favourite? How are you celebrating Halloween this year? Share your opinions on Frankenstein in the comments, check out my other horror reviews, and donate to my Ko-Fi if you want to see more Frankenstein content.

Movie Night: Terrifier

Dr. K2 Comments

Released: 15 May 2018
Director: Damien Leone
Distributor: Epic Pictures Releasing
Budget: $35 to 55 million
Stars: David Howard Thornton, Samantha Scaffidi, Jenna Kanell, Catherine Corcoran, and Matt McAllister

The Plot:
After being creeped out by a lewd, mute clown named Art (Thornton) on Halloween night, Tara Heyes (Kanell) and her best friend, Dawn Emerso (Corcoran), are hounded and brutalised by the sadistic killer.

The Background:
Coulrophobia (or the fear of clowns) is a common trope not just in horror, but in everyday life. Personally, I’ve never found clowns to be scary but the media is full of examples of “Evil Clowns”, with two of the most notable being the Joker and Stephen King’s It. It’s this fear that writer director Damien Leone tapped into when he made his directorial debut with The 9th Circle (2008), a short film that introduced the first prototype of Art the Clown (Mike Giannelli). Though only a supporting character, Art proved popular with audiences and Leone revisited the character in his next short film, Terrifier (2011), and the feature-length anthology All Hallows’ Eve (2013). Afterwards, Leone decided to make an entire film focusing on the character, one that would pay homage not just to slasher film icons and franchises, but to Giallo and splatterpunk cinema. Primarily geared towards showcasing gory, practical effects at the expense of characterisation, Leone put a lot of care into his kill scenes, ensuring Catherine Corcoran’s safety in what became one of the film’s most notorious moments. Seeking to create a truly iconic slasher villain for a new millennium, Leone recast Mike Giannelli as Art the Clown after being impressed by David Howard Thornton’s physical awareness and penchant for improvisation. After premiering at the 2016 Telluride Horror Show, Terrifier released in a handful of cinemas and made a modest profit considering its low budget. Reviews were largely positive, praising the performances and the jaw-dropping gore, However, while Thornton’s portrayal of Art was lauded, some felt the film didn’t quite live up to its potential, a sentiment Leone agreed with and aimed to address in the sequel. Indeed, Terrifier impressed enough not just to earn a critically and commercially successful sequel in 2022, but to kick-off a whole new slasher franchise (for better or worse).

The Review:
Terrifier establishes a few things right from the opening sequence, in which shots of Art applying his makeup and getting dressed for a jaunt on the streets are interspersed with talk show host Monica Brown (Katie Maguire) interviewing a severely disfigured woman. This sets the stage for how creepy and off-kilter Art is; he seemingly purposely adopts a clown-like guise to unsettle his victims and disguise his cruel intentions. These shots of Art getting ready and hauling his bin bag full of tricks echo the opening of A Nightmare on Elm Street (Craven, 1984), a clear influence given the reference to “Craven’s” Halloween supplies and Art’s depiction as a silent version of Freddy Kruger (Robert Englund). Next, this opening establishes that the film isn’t going to be pulling any punches as Monica’s guest is horrendously disfigured after surviving an attack from Art a year previously, to the point where she chooses to isolate since her appearance is so horrifying. Finally, this opening shows that there’s a mean streak in Terrifier that extends beyond its mysterious and silent killer. While Monica appears sympathetic and attentive on-air, she ridicules her guest to her boyfriend after the cameras stop rolling. The embodiment of beauty and drive, Monica arrogantly dismisses her guest’s suffering and expresses disgust and even fear at even being sat with her. Luckily, it turns out Monica was right to be afraid as her guest pounces on her, brutally maiming Monica’s face and cackling like a witch as she lays a bloody, equally disfigured mess on the floor. Therefore, within around ten minutes, we learn everything we need to know about Terrifier: it’s going to be an unsettling spectacle of gore and depravity featuring somewhat unlikeable characters being torn apart in ways that may shock and disgust.

Fun loving Dawn and sensible Tara run afoul of a cruel-hearted and vicious killer clown.

As a long-time horror fan, I’m here for it. I’ve become largely desensitised to a lot of horror and much prefer it when movies don’t hold back. And Terrifier certainly isn’t holding back at times. Unfortunately, it does suffer from an uneven pace and comes across more like an extended proof of concept for what Damien Leone and his instantly iconic killer are capable of. Although the film’s set on Halloween night, the spooky season is primarily used to semi-explain Art’s clown-like appearance. It is the perfect excuse for Tara and Dawn to hit the town and get wasted, however. Clearly long-time friends, these two are an incorrigible duo, teasing each other and having a fun rapport. Dawn is the more promiscuous and reckless of the two, joking about her sexual lusts, drunkenly accosting Mike the Exterminator (McAllister) to let Tara pee, and insisting on a selfie with Art when they spot him leering at them in a pizzeria. While Tara is instantly creeped out by Art, Dawn brushes off her worries and chastises her for being a buzzkill, lamenting that Tara always has to be the “good girl” and overthink things. Rattled by the encounter in the pizzeria, Tara’s anxiety only increases when they find Dawn’s tyres slashed. Luckily, Tara calls her sister, college student Victoria (Scaffidi), who heads out to pick them up, and Tara convinces Mike to let her pee inside the house he’s spraying for rats. Unfortunately, Tara’s concerns about Art catch up to them when he attacks and subdues them both. Strapped and bound to a chair, Tara can only watch helplessly as Dawn is strung upside down and sawed in two from her crotch to her head with a rusty hacksaw! Though Tara shows some fighting spirit and manages to escape and even attack Art, she’s slowed by a severe injury to her ankle and unceremoniously executed by multiple gunshots when Art surprises her with a pistol.

In a film full of underdeveloped characters, Victoria might be the least fleshed out of them all.

Thus, Leone pays homage to Psycho (Hitchcock, 1960) by spending a good half-hour or so building up Tara as the film’s plucky, underdog “Final Girl” only to abruptly kill her off and switch the focus to her sister, Victoria. It takes Victoria some time to reach Tara’s destination and, when she does, she’s too late to help and is distraught to see Dawn’s remains and her sister’s mutilated corpse set up to taunt her. A college student studying for her midterms, Victoria drops everything to help her sister but is extremely out of her depth when confronted by Art, who delights in mocking and tormenting her. When Victoria stumbles upon what she believes is her sister’s injured body, her first thought is to call for help, but she’s horrified when it turns out to be Art in disguise, having ripped the scalp and much of the torso off a deluded resident (Pooya Mohseni). This disturbed but ultimately harmless lady shared a moment with Tara and tried to offer Art a mother’s comfort to spare her baby, a simple child’s doll, only to be left a gory mess. After Art relentlessly shreds her body with a cat-o’nine-tails, Victoria is saved by Mike, who survived a mallet to the face and gets her to safety, finally calling the cops. However, Mike gets his head literally caved in when Art renews his attack, leaving Victoria to desperately try and escape the building and the crazed maniac pursuing her. Although Tara’s characterisation is pretty paper-thin (she’s a fun loving but ultimately sensible young girl), I think it’s a lot better than Victoria’s. We don’t learn much about Victoria except that she’s studying for her midterms (we don’t even know what her major is) and that she’s loyal to her sister. Beyond that, she’s just a vessel to follow and witness and react to Art’s brutality and honestly has less appeal than Tara because at least she was dressed in the Halloween spirit. Horror films, especially slashers, aren’t generally known for their compelling victims but the “Final Girl” is usually more well-rounded and memorable. Sadly, Victoria and her fellow victims are simply window dressing in Art’s first outing, failing to really make much impact until the film’s twist is revealed.

Art’s cruelty and unpredictability make him an especially dangerous and bloodthirsty killer.

Therefore, Terrifier lives and dies through the depiction of its mean-spirited killer. Art barely tries to mask his creepiness, sporting a leering grin, crooked nose, and mangled teeth and setting people on edge simply by walking into a room. To make matters worse, he follows this with some truly disturbing physicality, beaming at Tara with an upsetting sneer and creeping her out by presenting her with a ring. While Steve (Gino Cafarelli) from the pizzeria is aggravated by Art’s nonchalant stare and refusal to speak, he’s incensed to find the clown defecated all over the toilets and throws him out, much to Art’s feigned chagrin. Of course, the slighted Art has the last laugh, hacking Steve’s head off with a hatchet and leaving it burning on the counter like a jack-o-lantern for Steve’s fellow employee (or possible his brother?) Ramone (Erick Zamora) to find. Lugging a bin bag full of hacksaws, knives, ammo, and other implements, Art’s unpredictability is as shocking as his brutality. You never know what weapon he’s going to whip out next or what he’ll do with it, leading to him hacking Ramone’s hand in two with a clever, sawing through and then ripping off another exterminator’s (Michael Leavy) head, and drawing a pistol to repeatedly blast Tara in the face. We learn nothing about Art except that he’s on a killing spree and that he relishes in torturing and maiming his victims. He never utters a single word, not even a cry or breath, though his visible frustration at being out of bullets and his agony when stabbed or beaten is clear thanks to Thornton’s masterful physical performance. What really seals it, however, is that Art will silent cackle when assaulting his victims, toying with them and mocking their suffering while delighting in the arterial spray and steaming organs spilling to the floor. At one point, it seems Art is subdued by a mother’s touch, however this proves only a temporary reprieve and Art is truly depicted as a chaotic force without mercy who tortures and kills for the sheer fun of it.

The Nitty-Gritty:
I can respect this approach. Although horror is full of iconic killers, many lose much of their mystique when too much of their backstory is revealed, humanising them and making them sympathetic. There is absolutely nothing sympathetic about Art, who gleefully mocks his prey, smears his faeces over walls, and chortles manically (but silently) when sawing Dawn in half. Still, there’s something to be said about giving some hint about who Art is and what drives him. He’s clearly mortal, since he bleeds and reacts to pain, and clearly a nomad, holing up in whatever filthy squalor he finds and seemingly targeting people at random. He’s capable of anger, since he flips Victoria off when she stabs him and spitefully maims anyone who dares to fight back. He also appears inhumanly strong, taking a beating from Tara and manhandling his victims at times. Despite appearing a very childish and immature figure, Art is cold, calculating, and vindictive, slashing Dawn’s tyres and drugging Tara and even texting Victoria to lure her into the building. Consequently, Terrifier presents what little narrative it has as a series of random and shocking events that could’ve happened to anyone. This is where the film’s true horror lies as while Art’s murderous acts are enough to traumatised unsuspecting audiences, they’re so over the top that they’re less scary and more disgusting. While none of the actors give particularly stirring or award-winning performances, they’re depicted as normal, everyday folk who unwittingly attract a depraved serial killer and I think the random nature of this is far more (dare I say it…) terrifying than all the hacksaws and knives. The idea that you, or anyone, could just be walking the streets and be set upon by such a crazed maniac is unsettling, to say the least, and Art only serves to heighten this fear by brutalising his victims in ways that would make Ed Gein blush.

Terrifier supplants characterisation with shocking splattergore and unapologetic brutality.

Yes, you shouldn’t really go into Terrifier expecting some game-changing plot or emotionally charged characters. I like the three female leads but there isn’t much to them and, let’s not mince words, it’s clear that Terrifier is simply an excuse to show off incredible and revolting gore and unsettling practical effects. Things start strong with Monica’s host appearing more like a mincemeat skeleton than a person, sporting an emaciated grin and one barely functional eye. She leaves Monica in an even worse state, clawing at her face and leaving her a gibbering mess of bloody, meaty chunks, and Tara is repeatedly stabbed in the ankle, hobbling her to keep her from running at full speed. While we only see Steve’s burning head, we get to watch Art hack up Ramone on the pizzeria floor and see in gory detail when he crushes Mike’s had under his heel. Tara’s death is easily the film’s weakest and least creative kill, but there’s something shocking about the cold-hearted nature of her being mercilessly shot to death. The other exterminator, Will, gets a more spectacular end as he’s stabbed in the skull before he can even react and then has his head partially sawn off before Art nonchalantly kicks it away. The doll-pampering resident pays for her kindness by getting scalped and having most of her skin torn off; Art then parades around in her flesh, clearly enjoying his new look. However, it’s Dawn’s death that’s the showstopper. Strung upside down by chains and hanging completely nude, she’s sawn in half and we (like Tara) are forced to watch as her guts spill to the floor and Art silently cackles maniacally. It’s a truly sadistic and brutal moment made more uncomfortable by where he starts sawing, and the sheer shock of the sequence is enough to keep you from questioning how a simple hacksaw easily cuts through flesh, bone, and muscle.

Art somehow reanimates after blowing his brains out and Victoria’s left a mangled mess.

Although Tara fights back, she lets rage cloud her judgement and is caught off-guard when Art pulls out a pistol, leaving her writhing helplessly on the floor as he blasts her face full of bullets. When Victoria arrives, she discovers a full-blown massacre, with bodies strewn everywhere and Art relentlessly pursuing her. Unprepared and overwhelmed, the grief-stricken Victoria can only run, scream, and cower as Art targets her next. Though she exhibits some of the same fighting spirit as her sister, Victoria’s ultimately more reliant on Mike to help fend off the psychotic clown. Unfortunately, Art quickly recovers from Mike’s attack, kicking and finally crushing Mike’s skull with his oversized clown shoes. Victoria manages to squeeze through a locked door to safety, only to be mercilessly taunted by Art as he swipes at her and blows a clown horn in her face. Although she appears to have escaped him, Victoria is blindsided when Art suddenly drives Mike’s van through the doors and into her, knocking her unconscious. Luckily, Mike got through to the cops and a couple of officers (Jason Leavy and Steven Della Salla) show up to apprehend Art. Clearly frustrated at being interrupted, Art toys with the cops and then whips out his gun. However, rather than fire at the cops, he instead shoots himself in the head rather than be arrested. Art’s mangled body and those of his victims are then bagged and taken to the county coroner, Seth Bolton (Cory Duval), who begrudgingly agrees to process the corpses in return for a bacon sandwich. However, after unzipping Art’s body bag, Seth’s perplexed by a sudden and mysterious power outage. Though he shrugs it off, he’s horrified when Art suddenly springs to life, a disgusting grin on his face, and starts choking him. This cliff-hanger ending then cuts to a hospital, where Victoria was taken after surviving Art’s assault. Unfortunately, Art decided to eat her face, leaving her with a mangled and hideously disfigured visage and revealing that she was the mutilated guest who attacked Monica at the start of the film…!

The Summary:
Terrifier is, perhaps, the most notable independent horror of the last ten years. Shot and styled very much like a “Grindhouse” picture, the film wears its influences on its sleave and is very much a celebration of the splatterpunk and slasher genres. While this is a positive, it also works against it, particularly in the characterisation of its leads. Damien Leone has since stated dissatisfaction with these elements and I’m forced to agree. While I didn’t mind Tara, Victoria was essentially a blank slate and many performances were questionable, at best. It’s irrelevant, in many ways, however, since Terrifier is just an excuse to show off some depraved gore and showcase its sadistic serial killer. Accordingly, it’s no surprise that David Howard Thornton steals the show as he throws his all into Art, embodying the character with manic glee and showcasing a range of emotions simply through body language and facial expression. Art’s unlike many horror icons as he’s silent but entirely expressive, cruel and vicious and yet wholly unpredictable and spontaneous. His entire visage is his gimmick rather than any one weapon and he kills simply for the thrill, and the mindlessness of his character and actions add not only to Terrifier’s allure and mystery, but its horror. It’s increasingly all-too-easy to imagine some sick fuck stalking the streets, accosting young women and engaging in deplorable acts and the random nature of Art’s killing spree is just as unsettling as his gore-drenched kills. And damn, does Terrifier deliver on the gore! Leone’s twisted imagination is a joy to see; even if the effects stretch the limits of physics and logic at times, it all comes together as a celebration of the genre. However, I do feel Terrifier was lacking in some regards that keep it from being a true classic. It certainly gave the genre a kick up the ass and it’s worth a watch, but Terrifier views more as an extended pitch for a bigger, more refined movie, especially in retrospect having seen the sequels. I’m therefore not as impressed or awed by the film as I would like as it’s lacking in some basic filmmaking areas, resulting in a special effects and physical acting showcase whose soul appeal are the disturbing gore and instantly iconic serial killer.

My Rating:

Rating: 3 out of 5.

Pretty Good

Did you get a kick out of Terrifier? What did you think to Art and David Howard Thornton’s performance? Were you also disappointed that his victims were largely forgettable? Did the gore make up for these moments or did you find it a bit too depraved and over the top? If not, which of Art’s sickening acts was your favourite and what did you think to these effects? Would you have liked to learn more about Art or do you think it’s better he stayed mysterious? Which of the Terrifier films is your favourite and how are you celebrating horror this month? Share your thoughts about Terrifier down in the comments, support me on Ko-Fi, and go check out my other horror content!

Movie Night [00-Heaven]: Dr. No

Dr. K1 Comment

To celebrate the release of this movie, the first of many filmic outings for James Bond, October 5th is officially recognised as “Global James Bond Day”. Today, 007 is one of the most recognised and popular movie icons of all time so I’m dedicating some time to revisiting some firsts in the long-running franchise.

Released: 5 October 1962
Director: Terence Young
Distributor: United Artists
Budget: $1.1 million
Stars: Sean Connery, Joseph Wiseman, Jack Lord, John Kitzmiller, and Ursula Andress

The Plot:
After an MI6 liaison is murdered in Jamaica, suave spy James Bond/007 (Connery) discovers a plot by malformed mad scientist Doctor Julius No (Wiseman) to disrupt an American rocket on behalf of the Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion (SPECTRE).

The Background:
Super spy James Bond was the brainchild of writer Ian Fleming in 1953, heavily inspired by Fleming’s years as a Navy intelligence officer. 007 first came to life not through Sean Connery’s immortal and iconic performance or even the bizarre comedy loosely based on Fleming’s first Bond book, but a one-hour CBS television adaptation of that same book that was heavily altered for American audiences. Bond was next adapted into a South African radio drama in 1958 and Fleming’s books became a long-running series of comic strips starting in 1957, before Casino Royale (1953) finally came to the big screen in 1967 after years of Development Hell and rights disputes. Though initially reluctant, Fleming eventually sold the rights to all his Bond novels (except Casino Royale and, most infamously, 1961’s Thunderball) to producer Harry Saltzman. Saltzman partnered with Albert R. “Cubby” Broccoli to spearhead an adaptation of the 1958 novel of the same name, bringing in director Terence Young to define the onscreen portrayal of the super spy for decades to come. Though hampered by a paltry budget, Young chose to innovate and spend what little money had had wisely, while the script included many alterations from the source material, including painting Dr. No as an agent of SPECTRE. While the producers initially envisioned Cary Grant as Bond, Richard Johnson claimed to have been tapped for the role, and Rod Taylor rejected the pitch, former bodybuilder Sean Connery impressed with his devil-may-care attitude and cemented his career (for better or worse) with his now-iconic performance. Although Dr. No received a mixed reaction at the time, it proved a box office success that kick-started a cinematic franchise, with each subsequent film out-performing the last at the box office. In the years since its release, Dr. No has been critically re-evaluated in a more positive light, with the film named as one of the top 100 British films of all time and praised for delivering some of the most memorable moments in the series.

The Review:
I think it’s only fair to start off by admitting that I’ve never been a fan of Dr. No. While it’s easy to explain away a lot of its flaws by pointing to the era it was made and it being the first of a series, so many of the recognisable Bond elements hadn’t been refined yet (even if they make their debut here), I’ve just never been a fan of the pacing and plot. Indeed, one thing I often joke about is that, even now, I don’t really know what Dr. No is about or what the titular mad scientist is  after. Therefore, I went into this viewing really trying to pay attention and grasp what the plot was and what was happening. Surprisingly, Dr. No’s stakes are surprisingly low; the world isn’t at stake here. In fact, no nations, cities, or lives seem to be at risk at all, save those who venture to Dr. No’s private island, Crab Key, uninvited or those who stand in his way. The film’s events kick off when John Strangways (Timothy Moxon/Robert Rietti), a keen fisherman, poker player, and head of MI6’s Kingston station, and his secretary, Mary Trueblood (Dolores Keator), are murdered by, of all things, three assassins posing as blind beggars. After a few hours trying to re-establish contact with Strangways, the cantankerous and officious head of MI6, “M” (Bernard Lee), pulls Bond from a game of Baccarat and orders him to find out what happened, advising him to liaise with his Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) counterpart, Felix Leiter (Lord), and to not waste any time. Though Bond happily takes the assignment, he drags his feet a little by flirting with M’s secretary, Miss Moneypenny (Lois Maxwell), and hooking up with the alluring Sylvia Trench (Eunice Gayson), firmly establishing that, while Bond is loyal to King and Country, he’s got a soft (well, more accurately a hard) spot for the ladies and the finer things in life, such as a good smoke and a stiff drink.

While Connery mesmerises as Bond, 007’s painfully mundane in his first outing.

Sean Connery immediately embodies the now-world famous super spy with a relaxed, confident poise and charm. He greets every situation, even admonishments from M, with a wry smile and a biting wit, seemingly fearless and maintaining his composure even when he’s being followed or clearly duped by enemy agents. While this is Bond’s first screen outing, it’s clearly not his first assignment as he’s been licensed to kill for some time (though M’s dialogue suggests Bond may only be a year or so into this career as a 00 agent) and is generally hyper aware of his surroundings. Even when he’s welcomed by Chief Secretary Pleydell-Smith (Louis Blaazer) and given lodgings at Government House, Bond checks for bugs and preps his room to alert him to intruders. Unlike later Bond movies, 007 is rather ill-equipped; Major Boothroyd (Peter Burton) simply furnishes him with the standard issue Walther PPK in place of his unreliable Beretta M1934 and that’s it. Not that Bond really needs any gadgets here, just a rental car and a working telephone suffice for most of the film. Bond’s first official big screen adventure is much more of an investigative thriller than anything else. Bond wanders about Kingston meeting with those who knew or saw Strangways last, piecing together what happened, knocking back vodka martinis (“Shaken, not stirred”) and other vices as he goes. After a brief misunderstanding, Bond meets with Leiter, visits a few more locations, and eventually suspects Professor R. J. Dent (Anthony Dawson), a geologist and one of the last people to see Strangways alive. Bond’s investigation alerts him to Crab Key, a forbidden island owned by the mysterious Dr. No, which Strangways regularly visited. It’s all very mundane and dull, sadly, with only Connery’s magnetic screen presence holding my interest as Bond simply stumbles upon breadcrumbs to discover that Dr. No obviously had something to do with Strangways disappearing.

Sadly, scene-staler Quarrel meets a toasty end when he insists on aiding Bond.

Bond’s eventually aided by Leiter, though Felix at first suspects 007 of being corrupt since Bond willingly allows obvious enemy plants to drive him around and lure him into bed. Bond does this in hopes of questioning and/or boning said agents, though his investigation is often frustrated since many of his would-be assassins choose death by cyanide over talking. Leiter reveals that he worked closely with Strangways to discover the source of a radio jamming signal that has been disrupting America’s space exploration rockets. Leiter’s also instrumental in cooling tensions between Bond and Quarrel (Kitzmiller), a Cayman Islander whose boat Strangways took to Crab Key and collect samples. Initially giving Bond the brushoff, Quarrel confronts him and knifepoint and the two scuffle until Leiter intervenes and they all get on the same page. While Leiter isn’t that interesting, simply being a friendly face to give Bond some intel and call out his womanising ways, Quarrel is quite an enjoyable addition, being an upbeat and friendly seaman who affectionately calls Bond “Cap’n”. Rather than rely on sea chats or coordinates, Quarrel follows his instincts but is extremely hesitant to go to Crab Key due to rumours of a fire-breathing “dragon” dwelling there. While Bond initially gives Quarrel the option of staying behind, his patience with these stories grows thin, especially when they bump into the beautiful Honey Ryder (Andress) and she echoes Quarrel’s fears. Still, Quarrel proves useful to Bond’s investigation and subdues Annabel Chung (Marguerite LeWars) when she spies on the trio. Bond seems genuinely distraught when Quarrel meets his horrifying (and ridiculously abrupt) end at the hands of Dr. No’s “dragon” (an armoured tank with a flamethrower) and adds the seaman’s name to the list of people he wishes to avenge.

Dr. No is sadly absent for most of the film and his scheme is very vaguely defined.

As if Dr. No wasn’t disappointing enough, the titular scientist is quite a letdown as well. Like Honey, Dr. No doesn’t fully appear until the final act, which is pretty incredible considering his unique affliction and his admittedly captivating screen presence. While I appreciate the fear and awe given to Dr. No throughout the film, with the locals scared of Crab Key and Dent terrified of his master’s reprisals, I think the film suffers from not including him at least once before Bond reaches Crab Key. A mysterious and isolated figure, Dr. No initially appears as a disembodied voice reprimanding Dent and ordering him to kill Bond using a tarantula (an effective means, to be sure!) Dr. No has agents all over Kingston, it seems, with him sending a driver (Reginald Carter) to try and kill Bond soon after he lands, placing Miss Taro (Zena Marshall) as a double agent, and employing some goons to try and run Bond off the road. Despite Dr. No voicing an explicit desire to have Bond killed, he does a complete 180 once Bond arrives on Crab Key. His loyal soldiers give Bond, Quarrel, and Honey multiple chances to surrender peaceful and end up roasting Quarrel alive when they disobey, but Dr. No treats Bond and Honey as distinguished guests and has them decontaminated and confined to a room that’s more deluxe suite than a dungeon. Dr. No is impressed by Bond’s repeated interference (even though I’m not sure what Bond did to cost him time and money…) and believes him an intellectual equal, only to be angered by Bond’s dismissive and condescending attitude. Although Dr. No claims his genius is as formidable as his physical strength thanks to his painfully limited artificial hands, he’s clearly a madman. So much so that neither the East or the West wished to employ his services and even SPECTRE seems somewhat embarrassed by him. This could be because Dr. No uses his vast and overly complicated nuclear-powered facility to disrupt Cape Canaveral simply for his own self-gratification as he issues no threats and demands no ransom, seemingly embodying only the “Revenge” aspect of SPECTRE as he wishes to prove himself superior to those who mocked and dismissed him.

The Nitty-Gritty:
Dr. No is obviously the blueprint which all future Bond movies were based, establishing many of the tropes, elements, and recurring themes for the series. Accordingly, we get out first gun barrel sequence (with stuntman Bob Simmons as Bond), first utterance of “Bond… James Bond”, and our first title sequence (though there’s no cold open here). Unfortunately, Dr. No fails to impress with its opening titles, which are simply a mess of colours, dancing girls, and “007” plastered over the screen while Monty Norman’s “James Bond Theme” blares. Bond’s iconic overture oddly crops up when he’s doing such exciting tasks as… walking, searching his room, or using the telephone. Rather than have an artist or group write a unique song for the film as would later become a key component of the franchise, Dr. No repeatedly falls back on renditions of “Under the Mango Tree”, a tune I’d happily never have to listen to again after sitting through this snore fest. The basic frameworks of future Bond films are established here, however, meaning it’s perfectly natural for M to simply show up to give Bond his mission and Miss Moneypenny to give Bond someone to flirt with in MI6 headquarters. Long-time Bond fans may be surprised that Desmond Llewelyn isn’t playing “Q” here (though Major Boothroyd is the same character). Consequently, there’s no visit to Q-Branch, no Aston Martin, and Bond’s even light on the quips, only dropping a couple of deadpan comments after outwitting his would-be assassins. Bond is a largely apathetic character, seemingly bored with the routine aspects of his job and preferring to be in the field, where he does his own thing regardless of his orders. This sees him getting a dressing down for carrying a Berretta and taking many detours in his investigation to get his end away or have a drink or smoke. Indeed, both M and Leiter comment on Bond’s lackadaisical attitude, though his methods always return to his primary mission one way or another.

While Bond’s women are attractive, it would’ve been nice to expand Honey’s role.

Despite getting second billing alongside Sean Connery, Ursula Andress only appears in the third act and has such a small role that it’s barely worth discussing. Of course, she makes a lasting impression on both audiences and Bond with her dramatic emergence from the sea, clad in a sultry bikini and inspecting her coveted seashells, but it might’ve been nice to include her a bit sooner to break up the monotony of watching Bond mingle around rooms. Though initially appearing naïve and almost childlike in her demeanour, Honey’s actually a well-travelled young lady, an accomplished diver, and has experienced by heartache (she believes Dr. No murdered her father) and strife. As a child, she was sexually assaulted (or possibly raped) and took her revenge by killing her attacker with a black widow spider (though oddly reacts in horror when Bond offs one of Dr. No’s henchmen). Still, she plays basically no role in the finale, with Bond successfully convincing Dr. No to send her away for their parlay and is simply there to have a pretty face onscreen at the tail end of the film. She’s nice on the eyes, for sure, and somewhat aids Bond with her familiarity with Crab Key, but her demeanour is a bit odd and it’s difficult to really care that much about her since she appears so late in the film. Similarly, while Sylvia gets a lot of play at the start of the film, she’s simply an attractive Baccarat player Bond seduces with his card game rather than an undercover SPECTRE agent like Miss Taro, Pleydell-Smith’s secretary. Indeed, it’s possible Sylvia and Taro would’ve been combined into one character in a later Bond film (and, truthfully, that would’ve made more sense here) to give Bond a tertiary threat while playing detective. Though she acts coy about listening into Bond’s meeting and the conveniently missing files on Dr. No, Miss Taro tries to lure Bond into a trap and then uses her body to distract him, only for him to effortlessly see through her ruse and simply use her for his own gratification (and to lure Dent into outing himself as another of Dr. No’s agents).

While I’m still not sure what Dr. No’s endgame was, he’s ultimately foiled by Bond.

After knobbing around Kingston for a few days, dodging death every other night and following leads on Strangways, Bond becomes very suspicious of Crab Key and its mysterious Dr. No. After using Miss Taro and easily fooling Dent, Bond decides he has enough evidence to visit Crab Key, convincing Quarrel to give him a lift and having Leiter on standby with the Marines. After Quarrel’s killed, Bond and Honey are welcomed as Dr. No’s distinguished guests, furnished with a luxurious room, drugged coffee, and a fine dinner. Dr. No’s patience and reverence for Bond quickly grows thin when 007 insults him and refuses to join SPECTRE, however, leading to Bond being beaten and tossed into a cell. Despite the electrified grate, and his injuries, Bond easily escapes through the facility’s massive ventilation shafts, kills one of Dr. No’s technicians (Anthony Chinn), and assumes his role in the control room. There, himself and his underlings protected from the radiation that cost him his hands, Dr. No directs a test on his nuclear reactor, apparently to disrupt America’s latest rocket launch. Despite his genius, Dr. No’s so distracted by his monitors that he fails to notice Bond overloading the reactor until its too late. With the facility in meltdown and his minions fleeing for their lives, Dr. No awkwardly confronts Bond on the gantry. Rather than treating us to a slugfest where the underdog 007 must use his wit and wiles to compensate for the crushing power of Dr. No’s prosthetic hands as the environment goes up in flames around them, this final battle is merely a clumsy scuffle on a small platform descending into a cool pool and Dr. No’s superior strength fails him as his crappy plastic hands can’t grip for shit. With everyone more concerned with escaping, Bond easily convinces Dr. No’s panicked employees to point him in Honey’s direction, and he rescues her from…being slowly drowned, I guess? The two then commandeer a convenient boat and drift away from Crab Key just as Dr. No’s facility explodes, ending whatever vague threat he posed. Though Leiter comes by to tug the two to safety, Bond opts to release his line so he and Honey can canoodle in their boat during the credits.

The Summary:
I was honestly dreading watching Dr. No again as, like I say, I’ve never been a fan of it. I want to respect it for laying the foundation for one of my favourite cinematic franchises, and that (alongside Sean Connery’s magnetic performance) is what gives it its second star, but this is always a tough watch for me. There’s so much working against it, from the dull opening titles, the Bond theme blaring in the most mundane scenes, and the dull focus on Bond’s investigation rather than action, women, or suspense. I understand that this was a different time and there was only so much the filmmakers could do (painfully obvious during Bond’s big car chase…), and that Dr. No is more of an investigative thriller than a bombastic action movie, but my lord is this painfully slow to watch. Bond meanders from scene to scene, easily piecing together clues when you’d think Dr. No would want to cover his tracks, and happy to waste his time bedding and toying with Dr. No’s obvious agents rather than getting to business. Dr. No is painfully absent throughout, meaning his motivations and character are poorly developed, to say the least. SPECTRE is little more than a name drop, Dr. No is simply a maniacal cripple childishly lashing out at a world that rejected him, and his plan is painfully ill defined. I still have no idea what the stakes are or why I should care about Dr. No’s plot when he makes no demands and seems to just be messing with America for shits and giggles, and we’re even robbed of him matching wits (and brawn) with Bond since Dr. No prefers to let his underlings or spiders do the work rather than just bloody shoot him! Ursula Andress may be gorgeous and have captivated a generation, but Honey Ryder shows up far too late to be that interesting. Had she been featured throughout, or perhaps been Dr. No’s unwilling concubine, then maybe I would care but, as is, she’s just kind of there. Sean Connery, Joseph Wiseman, and John Kitzmiller are the stars of this show but even they can’t keep me from tuning out every time I watch Dr. No and I’m honestly surprised we got a Bond franchise after this tedious slog of a movie.

My Rating:

Rating: 2 out of 5.

Could Be Better

Am I being too harsh on Dr. No? Where would you rank it against the other James Bond films? Were you impressed by Sean Connery’s first outing as 007? What did you think to the focus on his investigation and the film’s slower pace? Do you agree that Dr. No and Honey Ryder should’ve shown up sooner? Were you disappointed when Quarrel got roasted? Can you tell me what Dr. No’s plan was, because I still don’t know… Which Bond actor, film, story, villain, or moment is your favourite? How are you celebrating Global James Bond Day today? Whatever your thoughts on Dr. No, or James Bond in general, leave a comment below, check out my other James Bond reviews, and suggest some 007 content you’d like me to cover by donating to my Ko-Fi.

Movie Night: Bram Stoker’s Dracula

Dr. K1 Comment

Released: 13 December 1992
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Distributor: Columbia Pictures
Budget: $40 million
Stars: Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Keanu Reeves, Richard E. Grant, Billy Campbell, and Anthony Hopkins

The Plot:
Having renounced God after the suicide of his love, ruthless vampire Count Vlad Dracula (Oldman) travels to London to seduce her lookalike, Mina Harker (Ryder), indulging his bloodlust and inspiring a rag-tag band of would-be vampire killers to stand against him.

The Background:
Inspired by Irish folklore and age-old vampire myths, Bram Stoker’s Lord of Vampires undeniably popularised the vampire as we know it today and inspired many critical and academic discussions. About thirty years after the book was published, World War I infantryman Bela Lugosi first embodied the role of Dracula for a stage production, eventually transitioning to the silver screen for Tod Browning’s horror classic before the legendary Christopher Lee made the role his own in 1958. After decades of reinterpretations and filmic appearances, Dracula lived again in 1992 thanks to the efforts of star Winona Ryder, who brought James V. Hart’s screenplay to director Francis Ford Coppola as a project for them both. Attracted to the haunting, disturbing sensual nature of the material, Coppola agreed and Gary Oldman jumped at the chance to work with the prolific director, who spared no expensive crafting the film’s ornate costumes. Veteran production artist Mentor Huebner and even comic book writer and artist Mike Mignola worked on the film’s extensive storyboards while hair and makeup designer Michèle Burke crafted Oldman’s signature look. After Christian Slater turned down the Jonathan Harker role, Keanu Reeves stepped in, though his hard work to convey a British accent drew much criticism. Oldman apparently lost himself in the sexuality and intensity of the role so completely that fell out with Ryder for a while and Coppola’s eccentric demands drew some criticism at the time. Finally, Coppola also insisted on utilising practical, in-camera, and old-school special effects technique utilising forced perspectives, miniature effects, and matte paintings. Opening at number one at the US box office and with a final gross of over $215 million, the award winning Bram Stoker’s Dracula was largely praised as a visual masterpiece. While many criticised some of the performances and its overly dramatic elements, just as many praised it as a tragic, alluring mixture of romance and horror, lauding Oldman’s performance and the tangible nature of its presentation.

The Review:
Bram Stoker’s Dracula mixes folklore, fiction, and history to present the titular Lord of Vampires as having started life as a Vlad III Drăculea, a warrior for the Romanian Orthodox Church, a commander and soldier so ruthless and bloodthirsty that he single-handedly slaughtered many in the Ottoman Empire and impaled their bodies and heads on pikes as a way to destroy their moral. Back in 1492, Dracula’s campaign against the Turks was seen as a righteous one, fought to defend his church in the name of almighty God, who Dracula praised and devoted himself to above all else save his beloved wife, Elisabeta (Ryder). However, while Dracula was successful in slaughtering his enemies, Elisabeta took her life after receiving false reports of his death, unable to face living life without her husband. Upon discovering this, and learning that Elisabeta’s suicide had damned her soul, Dracula cursed and renounced God, desecrating the chapel and drinking a strange blood spewing from its altar. In the process, Dracula became the first vampire, an undead thing with powers over the elements (he conjures great storms and winds), dominion over the “children of the night” (wolves, rats, and such), and the ability to transform into a monstrous bat-like form, mist, and rats. Contrary to most popular depictions, Dracula is merely weakened by sunlight, though he does draw strength from the cursed soil of his homeland, Transylvania, and renew himself by drinking the blood of his victims. Yet, Dracula spends four centuries isolated in his decrepit, ominous castle on the outskirts of a nearby village with only his lustful, ravenous concubines (Florina Kendrick, Michaela Bercu, and Monica Bellucci) for company, presumably terrorising and feeding upon the locals whenever the thirst or fancy takes over. When the film jumps ahead to 1897, however, visits to Transylvanian to liaise with the mysterious Count have driven solicitor R. M. Renfield (Tom Waits) insane, leaving him in the care of Doctor Jack Seward (Grant), who’s both disgusted and amazed by Renfield’s hunger for flies and mad rantings about his “master”.

When Dracula pays a visit to London, he terrorises the aristocracy with his perverse lusts.

Since Dracula wishes to purchase properties around London and represents a substantial investment, Renfield’s duties are passed to fresh-faced, well-spoken, and somewhat frigid solicitor Jonathan Harker (Reeves). Though his fiancée, Wilhelmina “Mina” Murray, is saddened to hear he will be gone for some time, eager to consummate their marriage, she recognises that this is a big opportunity for Harker and takes solace in his frequent correspondence. Though well-mannered and good-natured, Harker is unnerved by Transylvania, where wolves freely wander, darkness looms ominously, and his client is prone to bizarre outbursts. Dracula treats Harker as a guest, welcoming and feeding him and expressing his desire to be amongst civilisation once more, but is erratic and eccentric, lamenting his cursed family bloodline, driven to a frenzy by the sight and smell of blood, and generally testing Harker’s civil nature. While I love Keanu Reeves, he is dreadful in this role, delivering perhaps the worst British accent I’ve ever heard and appearing lost and confused. This is a case where it might’ve been better to let him use his natural accent, if only to make his line readings less awkward, but that wouldn’t have helped with his awful haircut/wig and robotic tone. Harker’s effectively held prisoner in Dracula’s castle, feasted upon by his brides for at least a month before he finds the willpower and courage to escape and being left severely traumatised. While pining for her love, Mina takes solace in the courtship of her dear friend, the promiscuous Lucy Westenra (Sadie Frost), giggling over sex acts while Lucy flits between her suitors, Dr. Seward, wealthy Lord Arthur Holmwood (Cary Elwes), and gunslinger Quincey P. Morris (Campbell). Though she settles on Holmwood (presumably for the financial security, accustomed as she is to such a lifestyle), the other two continue to hang around and curry her favour, forming first a dysfunctional friendship and then a rag-tag group of vampire hunters when the peculiar Professor Abraham Van Helsing (Hopkins) alerts them to the vampire’s threat.

While Mina succumbs to Dracula’s charm and Harker’s tortured, Van Helsing offers his expertise.

Betrayed by his faith, Dracula is presented as a far more tragic and sympathetic figure. Upon seeing Mina’s photograph, Dracula alters his plans for London to include seeing his reincarnated love, mercilessly slaughtering the crew of the Demeter to restore his youth. Unlike other adaptations of Dracula, where he integrates into London society and socialises with Dr. Seward and the others, Dracula is a largely enigmatic figure once he reaches Ol’ Blighty. Appearing as a peculiar foreign prince, Dracula stalks Mina through the streets, using his hypnotic and persuasive powers to entrance her and slowly unearth her forgotten memories of their past life and love. Though initially rude towards him, Mina comes to be captivated by Dracula and begins a love affair in Jonathan’s absence, naturally unaware that her handsome prince has been feeding upon Lucy in the night as a wolf-beast. However, when she receives word of Jonathan’s condition, Mina goes to him, encouraged by her sick friend, to rekindle their love and get married, though it’s obvious that her feelings have changed and that her thoughts constantly drift to her passionate and mysterious prince. When Lucy’s condition worsens and defies Dr. Seward’s expertise, he calls Van Helsing for aid, only for the outlandishly blunt priest to conclude that she’s been targeted by Nosferatu, a subject he’s well versed on. Although Van Helsing tries to stave off the infection with a questionable blood transfusion, Mina’s beset by a fever, constantly wandering off in a daze, and undergoes radical personality changes, resembling Dracula’s ever-horny, ever-hungry brides and quickly making believers out of Lucy’s bemused suitors.

Dracula is depicted as a demonic, yet ferociously tragic and aggressively sexual romantic figure.

Jonathan’s return to London confirms Van Helsing’s worst fears, that Dracula himself is amongst them, and he leads the fledgling vampire to hunters to “where the basturd sleeps” so they can destroy Dracula’s cursed soil. However, Dracula is agonised when Mina breaks off their tryst, conjuring violent winds and fully transforming Mina into a vampire out of spite. This process sees her rise as an undead seductress with the same unnerving taste for children as Dracula’s concubines. While Dr. Seward, Quincey, and Holmwood falter against Lucy’s monstrously sexual transformation, Van Helsing leads the charge, wielding a holy cross and easily placing Lucy into a vulnerable slumber so she can be staked and decapitated. While Jonathan is startled about how blasé Van Helsing is about this, he eagerly joins their cause to deal a measure of revenge against Dracula, who murders Renfield for running his mouth to Mina before appearing before her, all pretence dropped. Although Mina is horrified and angered to learn that her lover murdered her best friend, she cannot deny her feelings for him or the strength of her vague memories and begs to be with him, forever. While elated to hear this and desperate to inflict his curse upon her to be reunited with his lost love, Dracula hesitates at the last second, unable to bring himself to watch her suffer from eternal torment as he has. However, horny little minx that she is, Mina refuses to listen and gladly, hungrily drinks his blood in an explicitly sexual act that sees her undergo a similar transformation to Mina. This means that she constantly interferes with the hunters’ attempts to intercept and destroy Dracula when he flees to Transylvania, attempting to seduce Van Helsing and even holding her husband at bay with a rifle to defend her dying love, having willingly sacrificed her humanity for some real passion in her life.

The Nitty-Gritty:
Since I haven’t read the original book, I’m not really qualified to comment on how accurate an adaptation Bram Stoker’s Dracula is. However, from what I’ve heard, it’s one of the most faithful retellings and I did like that the film incorporated voice overs and diary entries to mimic the book’s epistolary nature. Dracula is undeniably a vastly different character to other, more popular depictions, appearing as a once proud and seemingly noble (if ruthless) soldier who slaughtered armies in the name of his God. He cherished Elisabeta more than anything in the world and felt betrayed when the church turned on him after his many years of faithful service, renouncing God since he’d forever be denied his love even in death due to her damning her soul through suicide. His quest to London thus becomes a desperate desire to reunite with Elisabeta, who’s seemingly been reincarnated in Mina, and he wastes no time in captivating and wooing her. Whereas Jonathan is reluctant to give in to carnal desires, Dracula is an extremely passionate man whose romantic way with words entrance Mina as much as his hypnotic gaze and the shadows of her former life. While he’s overjoyed to reunite with his love, Dracula hesitates to subject her to his curse, knowing it cannot be undone and will lead to eternal earthly damnation for them both. Interestingly, he doesn’t spare this same concern for his other concubines or show mercy to the children he regularly feasts on, but these are apparently secondary concerns for the lovelorn Mina, who’s so desperate to get laid that she gleefully renounces her humanity. And make no mistake about it, Bram Stoker’s Dracula is the horniest, sexiest adaptation of the text you’ll ever see! Lucy is super horny for all her suitors, Dracula’s many attacks are framed as blatantly sexual acts, the vampire brides all exude succubus energy, and then there’s the scene where Mina drinks Dracula’s blood and he reacts with orgasmic pleasure!

Despite some impressive visuals, the monster designs are questionable, at best.

Bram Stoker’s Dracula may also be the most visually impressive version of the book. It’s clear that the filmmakers spared no expensive on the elaborate costumes and sets, with the woman, especially, being strapped into extravagant gowns and the men all dressed in their finest regalia. While I dig Dracula’s beehive hairdo and opulent robes, I do question the design of his blood red armour, which seems awfully devilish for a man of God and also looks far too much like heavy leather for my tastes. The film uses practical effects and traditional optical trickery to fantastic effect to overlay miniatures with backgrounds and diary entries and project Dracula’s gaze into the storm clouds. The film is surprisingly sparing with the gore, but it makes quite an impression when it does appear, with arterial spray drenching drapes, Lucy spewing up blood when Van Helsing shoves a cross in her face, and heads flying after being severed by the vampire hunters. Dracula has quite a few forms here, though some are better than others. His aged, withered appearance is one of my favourites, though his youthful guise makes the girls wet and his unnerving mist proves suitably deadly to the rabid Renfield. Sadly, Dracula’s monstrous forms leave a lot to be desired, his man-bat form is the superior of the two, but even this looks awkward and uncomfortable, especially as his arms are literally bent-back wings. His wolf-man form is even worse, however, appearing very fake and shaggy looking, with only the facial prosthetics and his unsettling sexual attack saving it from being ludicrous. Dracula’s decaying appearing in the finale is far more striking, as is his mysterious horseman and the techniques used to show him and his concubines moving with unnatural grace. Unfortunately, little of this keeps the film from being an absolute slog to sit through. At just over two hours long, Bram Stoker’s Dracula sure does drag things out, inflating its runtime with bizarre editing choices and unnecessary cutaways and perhaps sticking a little too close to the text for its own good.

Thankfully, the entranced Mina ends Dracula’s torment, and mine, by ending this dull movie.

Thanks to Jonathan, Van Helsing and the others destroy all but one of Dracula’s boxes of earth. When his seduction of Mina is interrupted, Dracula’s forced to flee to Transylvania in his last box, his powers fading and his appearance quickly degenerating, to regain his strength. Van Helsing leads his group in intercepting Dracula, bizarrely taking Mina with them despite her being less of a liability in London. While Harker and the others try to cut off the gypsy slaves transporting Dracula’s carriage, Van Helsing and Mina head directly for his castle, with the eccentric vampire expert desperately fending off the brides with his flaming torch and subduing Mina with a communion wafer when they try to seduce and bite him. When the brides kill their horses, Van Helsing takes a swift revenge and claims their heads before joining up with the others at Dracula’s castle. Although Quincey is fatally stabbed in the hectic fracas, he does stab the decaying Dracula through the heart and Harker gets a measure of revenge by slitting the Count’s throat. However, Mina stops them from finishing off the monstrous abomination and Harker and Van Helsing reluctantly allow her to get Dracula into the chapel where he once turned his back on God. There, the demonic Dracula shares a kiss with his beloved and is amazed when the chapel undergoes a supernatural restoration; the candles ignite and the cross he disgraced repairs itself, restoring Dracula to his youth. However, he’s still mortally wounded and, with his dying breath, Dracula begs Mina to bring him peace. Although she’s heartbroken, Mina agrees to end his suffering and stake shim through the heart before decapitating him, undoing the curse inflicted upon her and seemingly allowing Dracula to reunite with Elisabeta in the afterlife.

The Summary:
I’m going to be honest and say I’ve never liked Bram Stoker’s Dracula. I never watch it because I remember it being a long, boring, overly stylised affair with some atrocious performances. And that isn’t just a knock against Keanu Reeves, either, as Winona Ryder and Sadie Frost are just as bad with their accents and delivery. Hell, even Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins are hamming it up, though I at least give them credit for bringing a Shakespearean gravitas to this tediously dull movie. While I’m sure Bram Stoker’s Dracula is exceedingly faithful to the book, there’s something to be said for condensing the text when making an adaptation. For example, did we really need Dr. Seward, Holmwood, and Quincey all in the film? I feel it would’ve been far simpler to combine them into Dr. Seward for the sake of brevity. Additionally, we spend way too long in Dracula’s castle with him, Harker, and the brides. Like, I get it; Dracula’s manipulated Harker and imprisoned him there, but this sequence goes on for what feels like an age and yet the Demeter scenes are a glorified montage? I did like how tragic and human Dracula is, with him depicted as a disgraced former believer who’s spent centuries yearning for his lost love and yet hesitates to afflict her with his curse as it’s been such a tortured unlife for him. Paradoxically, Dracula is still a monstrous fiend who feasts upon innocent souls (and children) to prolong his life and make others suffer for his own amusement. While the film is undeniably beautiful and the old-school filmmaking techniques are appreciated, giving the film a tangible quality that makes it seem like a big-budget stage play, Dracula’s monstrous forms leave a lot to be desired. His man-bat form is a major disappointment and the man-wolf effects are laughable, though it is intriguing how sexually aggressive the film is, explicitly depicted Dracula’s attacks as sexual misdeeds. It may be the most faithful adaptation of Stoker’s text, but Bram Stoker’s Dracula is just too tedious for me to rate much higher. I dreaded revisiting it for this review and hoped my opinion would’ve changed, but it’s just as dull and painful to sit through as ever, despite its strong visuals and atmosphere.

My Rating:

Rating: 2 out of 5.

Could Be Better

Are you a fan of Bram Stoker’s Dracula? If you’ve read the book, how faithful is this adaptation and would you say it stuck too close to the text in some areas? Do you agree that the film is too long or were you captivated by the gothic atmosphere? What did you think to Gary Oldman’s performance and Keanu Reeves’s atrocious accent? Which adaptation of Dracula is your favourite and how are you celebrating Halloween this year? Tell me I’m wrong about Bram Stoker’s Dracula in the comments, read my other horror reviews, and donate to my Ko-Fi if you want to see more Dracula content.

Movie Night: Dracula (1931)

Dr. K5 Comments

Released: 14 February 1931
Director: Tod Browning
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Budget: $341,191
Stars: Bela Lugosi, Helen Chandler, David Manners, Dwight Frye, and Edward Van Sloan

The Plot:
When R.M. Renfield (Frye) travels to Transylvania to oversee the purchase of a London abbey to the enigmatic Count Dracula (Lugosi), he unwittingly facilitates the malicious vampire lord’s trip to London, where he terrorises beautiful maiden Mina Harker (Chandler).

The Background:
In 1897, the literary world was introduced to Count Dracula, Lord of Vampires, courtesy of Irish author Bram Stoker. Inspired by Irish folklore and long-standing vampire myths, Dracula undeniably popularised many characteristics of vampires that are still used to this day. Dracula also inspired many critical and academic discussions regarding its narrative and subtext, becoming a literary classic, and was said to be a big hit at the time, despite its controversial content. About thirty years later, Dracula was adapted for the stage, with former World War I infantryman Bela Lugosi first assuming the role that would make (and haunt) his career. Though the production was a hit, Lugosi wasn’t the first choice for the role when Universal Pictures began producing a feature film adaptation and only got the part after accepting a significantly lower salary. Although Browning’s film was the first official film adaptation of Stoker’s novel, Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror (Murnau, 1922) owed its existence to Dracula, to the point that Stoker’s widow sued the filmmakers and ordered all copies to be destroyed. After acquiring the rights to the property, Universal Pictures funded what was said to be a disorganised shoot, with Lugosi alienating some cast members and Dracula stage veteran Edward Van Sloan expressing displeasure with the film. Despite some apprehension surrounding the film, Dracula was bolstered by reports of audience members fainting and it was well received by critics. Of course, nowadays, Dracula is regarded as a classic of the silver screen, with Lugosi’s portrayal being the quintessential standard of all subsequent screen Draculas. Its success not only led to additional big-screen outings for the count and a slew of horror releases from Universal Pictures, but also defined the titular character for generations.

The Review:
I think it’s important to preface this review by saying that I’ve never gotten around to reading Stoker’s Dracula. My experience with the Lord of Vampires is all based on movies and other media rather than books, so I can’t speak to Dracula’s status as an adaptation. If I had to guess, it seems it’s more an adaptation of the original stage production than the epistolary text, but I’m sure a lot of the most prominent elements of the book are represented here. Dracula is initially the story of Renfield, a painfully polite and well-to-do Englishman who travels to a morbidly superstitious town in Transylvania to oversee the sale of Carfax Abbey. Respectful and courteous to the locals, Renfield insists on meeting a midnight carriage, as arranged by his client, Count Dracula, only to be warned off by villagers. In a lengthy, awkward opening scene with many obvious insert shots, the locals react with horror at Renfield’s plan to meet Count Dracula and insist he carry a crucifix to ward off the vampires they believe live in the ominous, gothic castle. Undeterred by superstition and enthusiastic about closing the deal, Renfield maintains his composure even when Dracula’s carriage driver vanishes, his luggage is left behind, and the enigmatic count appears to pass through an enormous spider’s web. Renfield enjoys Dracula’s hospitality, complimenting his home despite it being quite dilapidated and eagerly partaking of his food and wine, only to be duped by the charismatic vampire, who easily hypnotises him with his alluring glare and then samples his blood to turn Renfield from a chirpy and pleasant solicitor into a grinning, cackling nutjob with a taste for insects and an unwavering devotion to his “master”. With Renfield’s help, Dracula not only legally secures Carfax Abbey, but also loads crates of his home soil onto the Vesta, ensuring he can maintain his full strength on the journey to London and while hobnobbing about the city as an eccentric aristocrat.

Vampire lord Dracula corrupts Renfield and heads to London to target an innocent young lady.

Once Dracula enslaves Renfield, the film juggles between the alluring count and Doctor John Seward (Herbert Bunston) and his inner circle. A renowned physician, Dr. Seward operates the sanatorium that sits alongside Carfax Abbey and where Renfield is committed after being discovered as the crazed sole survivor of the Vesta. Dr. Seward lives with his beautiful daughter, Mina, who’s engaged to his protégé, Jonathan Harker (Manners) and best friends with Lucy Weston (Frances Dade). The four are rarely seen apart, enjoying the opera together when they’re first introduced to Count Dracula, who shuns Harker and takes a shine to Lucy. Captivated by the count’s charisma, Lucy jokes to Mina of her attraction to him but quickly becomes his next victim when he enters her room and feast on her blood. Despite Dr. Seward’s best efforts, Lucy dies and Mina is left devastated, haunted by terrifying nightmares of wolves and bats. As Renfield keeps mysteriously leaving his cell, perplexing bumbling attendant Martin (Charles K. Gerrard), and ranting about all kinds of nonsense, Dr. Seward has his colleague, polymath Professor Abraham Van Helsing (Van Sloan), analyse the madman’s blood. Van Helsing concludes that Renfield has been bitten by a vampire and constantly exposits folklore about Nosferatu, who assume various animal forms, drink blood, and cast no reflection. While Harker is sceptical, Mina takes them to heart and they’re seemingly proven true when Renfield reacts violently to wolfsbane, a vampire repellent. During a tense meeting with Dracula, Van Helsing reveals that the count has no reflection and deduces that he’s their vampire, though Dr. Seward and the others are only convinced to do something other than just stand around discussing the threat after Dracula easily coaxes Mina into the garden for another suck session, eventually leading Van Helsing to give her wolfsbane for her protection.

Despite his allure and incredible powers, Dracula is surprisingly vulnerable if you know his weaknesses.

Of course, the main draw of Dracula is the titular count, played masterfully by the magnetic Bela Lugosi. A charming, gracious man with a silver tongue, Dracula oozes charisma but is as unnerving as he is appealing thanks to his raspy accent and peculiar behaviour. Dracula relishes the sound of wolves, the sight and taste of blood, and particularly enjoys getting close to his quarry, captivating with his steely gaze and wooing with his words. Van Helsing instantly distrusts Dracula and they have some tense face-offs, with the professor’s willpower resisting the count’s hypnotism and his knowledge of vampires giving the protagonists the edge. Since Dracula is vulnerable to sunlight and needs Transylvanian soil to maintain his strength, he rests in a coffin of dirt during the day but easily enters Dr. Seward’s residence by becoming the fakest bat you’ve ever seen. Dracula showcases superhuman strength but his greatest assets are his charming personality and alluring gaze, though his brides (Cornelia Thaw, Dorothy Tree, and Geraldine Dvorak) flinch at his command and he clearly instils fear in the locals. This fear isn’t felt by Dr. Seward and the others since they see him as a polite, if eccentric, foreign count, and isn’t felt by Van Helsing, who’s clearly wise to the vampire’s tricks. Unfortunately, many of these are kept offscreen, merely told by Harker and Renfield, because of the limitations of the time. I was also a bit unclear about what Dracula’s endgame was. He buys Carfax Abbey and targets Dr. Seward and his wards, but I’m not sure why? I guess to spread his wings beyond his stuffy old castle but it’s not clear why he targets Mina beyond enjoying torturing Harker and turning something innocent into an abomination, as he did Renfield, who spends the film conflicted and wrestling with his loyalties and his wish to die without blood on his hands. Lugosi plays the role so well that it’s easy to forget these criticisms, but it was frustrating seeing everyone just standing around or him just glaring at people or randomly being inserted into shots to show him lurking on the grounds.

The Nitty-Gritty:
I usually cut black and white films a lot of slack. It was a different time with many limitations compared to today, where almost anything is possible in cinema. Therefore, I can forgive the obvious sets and painted backgrounds, and the slight imperfections in the camera movements and film quality. This extends to the few special effects, such as cutting to Renfield’s reaction rather than showing Dracula pass through the web, having Harker describe the wolf running across their grounds, and Renfield’s mad rant about the “thousands … millions!” of rats promised to him by his master. Dracula’s bat form is silly, for sure, but the effort put into Lugosi’s costume and lighting his eyes is impressive, even if his close-ups often feel awkward and out of place. Dracula gets ambitious by using a passable model ship for the Vesta’s trip (though some water effects over Lugosi would’ve helped sell the sequence) but strangely relies on voice overs to describe the massacre Dracula leaves on the ship. I did like how theatrical the whole production was, which isn’t surprising considering the time period and Lugosi’s experience portraying the role on stage, with the actors (especially Dwight Frye) largely overacting and chewing the scenery. I do feel Dracula suffers from a lack of music, though, as the film basically has no soundtrack and some scenes would’ve greatly benefitted from some ominous tunes. Dracula, especially, needed a haunting theme accompanying him and some ambient music would’ve really helped to liven up the film’s many dull exposition scenes.

Dracula’s brief and confusing rampage is easily ended when Van Helsing stakes him in his sleep…

Despite Van Helsing’s best efforts, Mina falls under Dracula’s spell, confessing to Harker that she’s becoming a creature of the night and breaking off their engagement. While Van Helsing is unflinching against Dracula’s threats, Mina’s maid (Joan Standing) is easily coerced into removing the wolfsbane from the entranced girl and spiriting her away. Luckily for her, Harker and Van Helsing spot Renfield fleeing to Carfax Abbey (although, honestly, where else would Dracula be?) and they pursue the crazed lunatic. This leads to a tragic end for Renfield as Dracula is incensed that his witless minion has betrayed his location (though…again…that should be the first place anyone would look!) and, despite Renfield begging to be tortured or punished, the sad fool is nonchalantly tossed down a flight of stairs to his death. While you might expect a tense showdown between Dracula and Harker, or perhaps a battle of wits between the count and Van Helsing, with the two perhaps buying time to expose Dracula to the rising sun and turn him to ash, the finale is far more disappointing. Dracula flees into Carfax Abbey with Mina in his arms and Harker and Van Helsing muddle about in search of him, knowing full well that he must rest in his coffin to avoid the rising sun. Van Helsing also knows that the only way to kill a vampire is with a wooden stake through the heart, so he improvises such an implement from the dilapidated abbey and the two stumble upon a coffin. While Mina isn’t inside, Dracula is, already fast sleep despite mere minutes passing, allowing Van Helsing to easily stake him to death with no resistance or the count’s death even being shown onscreen. Harker then finds Mina, who conveniently returns to normal, and the film abruptly and anticlimactically ends with the firm belief that Count Dracula has been destroyed forever.

The Summary:
Dracula’s never really been a favourite of mine. Out of all the classic gothic horror novels and all the Universal Monsters films, I can think of at least three others I’d rather watch or read than this one. Dracula lives and dies by the allure of its main star, the enigmatic Bela Lugosi, who brings an unmistakable gravitas to the role (and the screen) every time he appears. The man embodied the role so perfectly that it set the standard not just for future portrayals of Dracula, but most vampire characters (especially their leaders). Charming, sophisticated, and with a glare that can chill to the bone, Lugosi’s Dracula commands the screen and effortlessly woos all around him. Except, of course, for Van Helsing, played with stoic confidence by Edward Van Sloan as the natural foil to the malicious count. Honestly, I wish we’d gotten more interactions between these two in a battle of wits and wills as Van Helsing employed his vast knowledge to reveal Dracula’s true nature. Instead, we get a lot of sitting and standing around as characters describe stuff I would’ve loved to see, reiterate the plot or discuss vampire lore, or wonder what’s to do in their quirky, oh-so-British way. Dracula is visually impressive at times, especially the Castle Dracula set, though obviously its effects and techniques are painfully dated these days. The film touches upon the fear of the unknown, of being preyed upon by a conniving and manipulative, lustful predator, and Dracula’s tortured immortality but never fully commits. Similarly, the film’s ending seems to be very different and far less grandiose than the book’s, which definitely hurts it as it just…ends, leaving you unfulfilled. Ultimately, no one (least of all me) is denying the cultural significance of Dracula, but I absolutely feel it’s lacking in ways other Universal Monsters movies aren’t. Watch it to witness history but don’t expect much to hold your attention, especially if Lugosi isn’t on the screen.

My Rating:

Rating: 2 out of 5.

Could Be Better

Are you a fan of the 1931 big-screen adaptation of Dracula? If you’ve read the book, what did you think to the changes it made and the elements it brought to life? Do you agree that the film drags in the middle or were you as captivated by the narrative as Mina was by Dracula? What did you think to Bela Lugosi’s performance and would you agree that he’s the standard all Draculas should be compared to? Which adaptation of Dracula, or Universal Monsters movie, is your favourite? How are you celebrating Halloween this year? Let me know your thoughts on Dracula down in the comments, go read my other horror reviews, and donate to my Ko-Fi if you want to see more Dracula content.