.

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

Film Geeks SD

.

Saturday September 13 saw the sixth Secret Morgue movie festival, a marathon of 6 theme-linked horror films screened all day and into the late night at the Comic-Con Museum in Balboa Park by San Diego Film Geeks. Being the 6th the theme was announced to be ‘satanic panic.’ I have attended 4 previous regular Secret Morgue screenings and one special two years ago with a unifying theme of witches and witchcraft, loving and enjoying each marathon.

Contempo III Productions

The first feature was the only film I had already seen, 1966’s Incubus. Performed entirely in the constructed language of Esperanto, the film stars William Shatner just before he began his work on Star Trek. The plot revolves around a collection of demons who lure corrupted and evil people to their doom and damnation, but one Kia longs to bring a good person, a hero, to hell and sets her sights on Marc (William Shatner), igniting a battle of wills and temptations for Marc’s soul. I liked this film and enjoyed watching it again after so many years.

Shaprio-Glickenhouse Productions

Black Roses (1988), a limited budget movie produced in Canada, followed as the second feature. A satanic heavy metal group making their first non-studio performance has come to the quite small town of Mill Basin. The kids are drawn to the group, while the parents fear the music and musicians. The twist is the group truly are agents of Satan and converts the teenagers to corruption and evil with only an ineffectual English teacher opposing them. I honestly could not determine if Black Roses had been intended as comedy or was actually that badly made.

Yuma FIlma 75

Things improved with the 3rd feature, Alucarda, a Mexican film from 1977. The filmmaker’s daughter was present to introduce the film and speak briefly about her father.

Censored in Mexico, Alucarda is a very loose adaptation of the 1872 novel Carmilla. Justine, a teenage girl recently orphaned, has come to live in a convent and quickly becomes fast friends with Alucarda. The girls are accosted by stereotypical ‘Gypsies’ and soon fall under dark Satanic influences bringing terror and death to the convent.

Universal Studios

The 4th film was one I hadn’t seen but had wanted to for some time: Sam Raimi’s Drag me to Hell, long heralded as the director’s return to horror after his foray into superhero movies with the original Spider-Man trilogy. The audience was treated to a special video introduction by Sam Raimi and his brother Ivan who had together co-written the script.

Loan officer Christine Brown, trying to prove herself ‘tough enough’ for an important promotion and chafing from her simple rural roots, denies a woman a third extension on her mortgage and in the following altercation, the woman, again a film stereotype of a ‘gypsy’ takes deep offense. She lays a curse on Christine, proclaiming soon it will be Christine who comes to beg. Christine now suffers a ticking clock to find a method to escape the curse before a demon arises and literally drags her to hell.

Orion Pictures

After a dinner break of pizza, we returned for the fifth movie 1990’s Satanically-powered serial killer movie The First Power. I can’t decide which was the greater ignorance displayed by the filmmakers, their understanding of the American criminal justice system or their comprehension of Christian theology.

Detective Russell Logan (Lou Diamond Phillips) receives tips and guidance from an anonymous psychic Tess (Tracye Griffith) leading to the capture of a notorious active serial killer but as a price for her assistance, she extracts a promise from Logan that the killer will not be subjected to the death penalty. (A decision that is not in the hands of any police detective.) The killer is executed and resurrects as a body possession spirit leading Logan and Tess on a chase for an immortal serial killer wielding the first power, Resurrection.

Generation International Pictures

The festival ended with a screening of a blaxploitation film, Petey Wheatstraw: The Devil’s Sun-in-Law.

Released in 1977, Petey Wheatstraw is a movie of its time, place, and unique production. A true ‘blaxploitation’ movie, it was created, produced and performed by black actors and creatives, telling jokes that were tasteless at the time and today no white production could even begin to approach. It’s a common sentiment that Blazing Saddles couldn’t be made today but trust me when I say that Saddles doesn’t come close to the boundary-breaking tone of Petey Wheatstraw.

Petey, (Rudy Ray Moore) after being brought to life by Lucifer following being gunned down at a funeral by rivals is empowered to seek revenge provided he marries Lucifer’s daughter, a woman of unspeakable ugliness.

I cannot speak fully to this feature. The hour had drawn late, and my vitality flagged, and I have limited tolerance for literal scatological humor. I can say that this was intended to be funny, unlike Black Roses, and before I left, I had laughed, heartily, several times. Petey Wheatstraw is streaming, and I may still finish the movie.

That was the Secret Morgue for 2025, and I can hardly wait for the next one.

.

Netflix

At the Venice Film Festival Guillermo del Toro premiered his latest film Frankenstein adapted from the classic early 19th century novel by Mary Shelley. One published review of the feature criticizes it for presenting Frankenstein’s creation as too sympathetic leaving Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac) as the real villain of the work. There has been quite a bit of pushback from various sections online to this interpretation by the critic declaring loudly and in no uncertain terms that this is in fact the theme of Shelley’s novel.

Now, anyone who has seen much of del Toro’s fantastic work should be far from surprised that in any ‘monster’ movie that his sympathies lie with the monsters. This has been del Toro’s theme in most of his films including his Oscar-winning The Shape of Water. It is who the man and who the artist is.

I would wager dollars to donuts that in this adaptation of the novel some things are going to be changed to keep the sympathy with the creature and one of those elements is the murder of William, Victor Frankenstein’s younger brother, The creature then frames the family’s nurse, Justine, for killing William, leading to her lynching at the hands of an outraged mob.

In the film Doctor Sleep, the character of Rose the Hat, played to terrifying perfection by Rebecca Ferguson, tortures and murders a young boy to enhance the psychic energies she and her ‘family’ require. No one held Rose in any sympathy nor should they even though her motivations, survival, are more excusable than the creature’s, which were simply anger and vengeance. The audience, if forced to witness a child’s murder, on screen, will abandon all sympathy for the creature and his emotional trauma at being abandoned. If this event is in this adaptation, then it will take place suitably offscreen and as such will not really be real in the emotional context of the audience.

Here is where I tend to part ways with many people’s interpretation and sympathy for Frankenstein’s creation. Yes, being abandoned as essentially a child by his creator, his father, is a terrible thing to endure. Being shunned for one’s physical appearance is something that creates deep and terrible emotional scars. For that there are countless people already deserving of our sympathy because they have not turned that pain into murderous rage.

Some do.

Some people feel so isolated, hurt, tormented, and rejected by the people and society around them that they become vessels of pure, unrestrained rage. Sadly, it is not uncommon for these hurt and tormented souls to murder by the score. Like the creature they feel ‘justified’ in their acts of violence against those that they have rightly or wrongly concluded are the cause of their misery.

Tremendous emotional injury and hurt are never an excuse for wanton murder and violence, not in the real world and not in fiction. I can have no sympathy for the creature because it is intelligent enough and self-aware enough to know not only what it does but why it does it and yet it still chooses to murder.