.

I was listening to one of my many horror movie podcasts the other day when during a discussion of folk horror films one of the hosts mentioned such a film starring David Niven.

David Niven? Horror movie?

That’s a pairing of words I had not expected at all. This was one folk horror I had to see. Unfortunately for me in their discussion the podcast did give away the turn in the movie so it was less impactful than it might have been.

MGM

Adapted from the novel Day of the Arrow, Eye of the Devil stars David Niven as Philippe de Montfaucon the Marquis de Bellenac at an old and isolated French estate where the people hold strange rituals and customs. Philippe is called back to the estate as the grape harvest has failed for the third year in a row and he implores his wife, Catherine (Deborah Kerr) to stay behind in the city. Catherine, of course, does not stay behind but follows her husband, bringing along their two children, to the estate. Almost immediately upon arrival Catherine is terrorized by a pair of apparently psychotic siblings, Odile (Sharon Tate, here credited as ‘Introducing Sharon Tate) and Christian (David Hemmings). With her husband’s behavior growing odd and the country folk of the estate apparently intent on frightening her away, Catherine engages in an investigation to discover the truth behind those strange customs and secrets of the ancient estate.

I did not dislike this movie, but it is very hard for me to judge the film since the secret that Catherine, our true protagonist, is seeking to discover is the very thing revealed by the podcast. This is a movie whose engine turns on a single question, What is Going On, and if the answer is known ahead of time, or guessed accurately too soon, then there is little to no narrative weight or momentum keeping the viewer’s attention.

Niven and Kerr are fine in the film, turning in decent performances, but Kerr’s Catherine begins to have repeated scenes making the film feel dull and expanding the sense of its running time which is a mere 96 minutes. Sharon Tate is quite good here as the mysterious and dangerous sister. With very little dialogue Tate conveys menace with a look and her bearing.

I find it hard to recommend Eye of the Devil but it’s also hard to disentangle how much of my non-enjoyment stemmed from the ‘spoiler’ versus how much the film’s pacing simply plodded.

.

There was no way I was missing my shot at seeing Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein on the big screen, even if it wasn’t showing at an AMC theater and therefore I couldn’t use my subscription benefit.

Netflix

Frankenstein by Mary Shelley has been directly or indirectly adapted countless times and has been a staple of the silver screen for over a hundred years. (There is a silent version made by Edison, so it’s at the very start of movies.) I do not think any adaptation has retained every element of Shelley’s sprawling novel, with most productions picking and choosing the parts and themes that they most want to enhance and explore. Universal in their classic film played to the God vs. Man themes while Hammer focused on the evils of a scientist obsessed with his own pursuits.

With del Toro I went in with a fairly strong set of expectations based on the director’s body of work. This production would emphasize the creation’s humanity, shower it with sympathy, and tread on the ground questioning who is the tale’s real monster.

I was not wrong.

Frankenstein (2025) is a luscious feast for the eyes in its production. Nearly every new scene or sequence not only presents production design that dazzles and captivates and also brings in numerous beloved actors. The script, for the most part, dodges the deadly dull trap of overexplaining Victor Frankenstein’s obsession and its origins, but neither does it skate past them unmentioned.

Oscar Isaac turns in a wonderfully calculated performance which echoes without repeating the traits he employed for Ex Machina. (Another story clearly derived from Shelley’s original novel.) Jacob Elordi is sublime in his performance as the creation, certainly capturing the initial innocent, childlike nature that del Toro wanted and managing the transformation to enraged, implacable beast quite handsomely. If there is a weakness in the cast, and I realize the horror community will violently disagree with me on this point, it is Mia Goth as Elizabeth. I never believed that Elizabeth lived and breathed as a character but rather seemed to exist as a collection of traits and phrases meant to impel others along their courses. I have witnessed Goth’s performance in other projects and even when I detested the movies, I found her quite good in them. I suspect the challenges of both an accent and pseudo-period dialog sapped too much of her energy. There is a school of thought in film production that accents can get between an actor and their performance. On the other hand, I found Chistoph Waltz’s Harlander, Victor’s financier and research associate, thoroughly engrossing with more than a hint of The Bride of Frankenstein‘s Doctor Pretorious.

del Toro clearly is a fan of numerous previous productions of this tale and throughout the film makes sly references to them. I appreciate that the references are subtle enough that for the casual viewer they will pass by unnoticed. There is not ‘look at this’ in the cinematography letting you know that the decrepit mill set mirrors the windmill from Universal’s production nor when the creation is shot in the face is there a cue highlighting that this came from the Hammer films.

There are elements eliminated entirely from Shelley’s text. William is no longer a child of six or seven to be murdered by the creation as a revenge plot but is now an adult and is complicit in Victor’s crimes against nature. Elizabeth’s close, though not by blood, relation has been eliminated so any romance between her and Victor no longer carries the aroma of incest.

This is a lovely film, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It needs to be seen in a theater if you can swing it, but at the very least on Netflix next month. Should it come to an AMC in the next couple of weeks I may venture forth for a second in-theater viewing.

However, I wonder if anyone is ever going to do a production that depicts the creation as the monster it is in the text. A vain, narcissistic incel that believes its own pain and agony justifies murderous rage upon innocent victims.

.

Please note that this review is for the Argentinian horror film Terrified and not 2016 American slasher Terrifier.

Aura Films

As part of their year-long film festival of Neo-noir and foreign horror movies, yesterday Film Geeks San Diego presented Terrified by Argentinian writer/director Demian Rugna. Expanded from a short film inspired by the director’s nightmare of something under the bed, Terrified follows a sequence of seemingly unconnected supernatural occurrences in a quiet neighborhood of an Argentinian city. Told from different points of view and from different points within the story’s timeline, though without chapter markers as in the recent Weapons, Terrified skillfully weaves the separate threads together with the use of a team of paranormal investigators, experienced and mature persons who turn out to be wholly unprepared for the nature and scope of the neighborhood’s troubles. The film ends with only vague answers to the hauntings and deaths, making the supernatural threats more intense by not giving the audience a pat reason and set of rules that would return balance to the universe.

I quite enjoyed Terrified, finding it a film that, while it presented truly horrifying images and sequences, at its heart it has a connection with humanity and community. The festival actually presented a double feature of Argentinian horror movies yesterday. The second feature was a zombie comedy. However, because it was shot on consumer-grade video with handheld cameras, it threatened to ignite a migraine, and I left shortly after it started.

Terrified is currently available on streaming and video on demand.

.

In preparation for this week’s episode of The Evolution of Horror podcast, last night I watched The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll, released in the United States as House of Fright.

Hammer Studios

Yet another adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s novella The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, this Hammer Studios production is not very memorable. It has the same core elements of nearly every other adaptation: Dr. Henry Jekyll develops a ‘scientific’ method, in this case an injection, for separating out elements of the human mind often labeled good and evil. Experimenting on himself, he releases Hyde, and a battle ensues between the two personalities for control of the corporal body that they share, ending tragically for the good doctor.

The production reflects that distinctive Hammer look with vibrant colors that pop off the screen and a collection, particularly in the opening scene’s supporting characters, of idiosyncratic personalities.

Paul Massie plays Jekyll/Hyde, and in a twist, it is the good doctor that is presented as more hirsute and Hyde as clean shaven. Dawn Addams is Kitty, Jekyll’s wife, who is carrying on an affair with Paul Allen (I seriously could not hear that name without thinking of Microsoft), played by Christopher Lee, who was the film’s only real saving grace. Most cinematic productions of this story make a meal of the transformation in the same way most directors lavish money, time, and creativity on the creation sequence in any Frankenstein movie, but not here. I suspect this was due to a lack of funds; Hammer productions were often resource and time strapped. Here, Jekyll would find some reason to hide his face from the camera, slumping on the desk, turning away, and so on; the camera would move away and then back again to reveal Massie now presenting as Hyde or vice versa.

I can’t say this movie was very engaging. Certainly, my mind wandered, and I found myself just longing for scenes with either Christopher Lee because he always brought his best game, or Dawn Addams because she was a very attractive redhead with a most charming smile.

Overall, I am glad to have seen another Hammer film, but it is not one I shall be revisiting.

.

I reviewed Saint Maud in 2021 when it became available on the Paramount+ streaming network, and you can find that review here. I enjoyed the feature, finding it compelling and a terrifying gaze into a broken mind. This rewatch was prompted by the podcast Random Number Generator Horror Podcast Number 9 when for this week’s show they rolled ‘religion’ as the scare and ‘2010s’ for the style and settled on Saint Maud as the subject that fit those parameters.

A24 studios

Saint Maud is the story of Maud (Morfydd Clark), a palliative caregiver, newly converted and deeply committed to her faith, convinced that God speaks to her through her physical pain and that he has some terribly important role for her to play in life. When she is assigned to a dying cancer patient, Amanda (Jennifer Ehle), Maud becomes convinced that saving this woman’s soul is that higher purpose.

Amanda, a dancer and author, is a woman far from the grace of traditional Christianity and a lesbian. She ends up mocking Maud’s faith, particularly when Maud intercedes with a sex worker Amanda has hired, trying to break off that relationship, setting the two women on a tragic collision course of fate.

Throughout the course of the film, we discover that Maud’s mind was shattered by a tragic and terrible event at the hospital where she once worked, causing the religious conversion and the adoption of this new identity. Maud’s miraculous interactions with God take place when she is isolated and alone, leaving the audience to decide if these are real or products of a deranged and damaged mind. (The very final shot of the film, I believe, settles that question.)

In 2021, Amazon’s The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power had not yet debuted, and I hadn’t seen Morfydd Clark in anything save Saint Maud. In this film, she plays an attractive woman who has transformed herself into someone very plain, eschewing overt attractiveness and sexuality. As Galadriel, she is glammed up, with all of the performer’s natural beauty enhanced, becoming nearly unworldly. It is a testament to what subtle make-up and costuming can achieve.

Does Saint Maud hold up?

Oh yes, I think it does. The cinematography by Ben Fordesman continues to impress with a very keen eye in using very shallow focus to give shots a subjective interiority that pulls you into Maud’s frame of mind. Rose Glass’ script and direction are just as powerful today in 2025 as they were in 2019 when the film was released. Saint Maud is not a story that is only supported by the culture and events of the time of its creation.

It is currently streaming on Amazon Prime.

.

In the 1930s, the major studios of Hollywood each had a ‘brand’ of movies that they were best known for: MGM for glitzy, polished, and extravagant films; Paramount for movies with an air of European artistry; Warner Brothers for gritty, ripped-from-the-headlines stories; and Universal, of course, was the House of Horror and the Universal Monsters.

Warner Brothers Studios

Because Universal’s best-known and best-at-filling-theaters monsters were adaptations of classic novels that were in the public domain, they could not keep Dracula and Frankenstein all to themselves. As such, there have been nearly countless remakes and adaptations of the novels, often taking the course of making Dracula a love story stretching across centuries (an aspect not found in the source material) and, with Frankenstein, making the creature more and more sympathetic (an element found in the novel) until it was elevated to heroic status.

Next spring, writer/director Maggie Gyllenhaal will give us perhaps the most unique adaptation of a classic Universal Monster with her feature film The Bride!

Starring Christian Bale as the Creature and Jessie Buckley as The Bride, Gyllenhaal reimagines the Frankenstein myth. It may have started as a novel, but I feel Mary Shelley’s tale has evolved into myth, as something that might have come out of Warner Brothers’ studios in the late 1930s: a prohibition-era gangster movie.

This take is so wild, so out of the box, that I think I may have no choice but to see it in the theater, giving it my attention as a reward for its sheer audacity.

Click here to accept Marketing cookies and load this content