Bride of Frankenstein (1935) review

 Number 380 on the top 1000 films of all time is James Whale's Gothic horror film 'Bride of Frankenstein.'

Sequel to Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein portrays a previously un-filmed subplot of Mary Shelley's original novel. Scientist Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) and his mentor Doctor Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger) work to create a "Bride" for the monster (Boris Karloff )they created in the last film.

The original story was the birthchild of Mary Shelley when she, her husband Percy Shelley, Lord Byron are stuck inside on a rainy, miserable day. To stave off the boredom, they challenge themselves to tell the scariest ghost stories ever and, so Frankenstein, was borne. Bride of Frankenstein began by portraying this very incident in a way to establish some continuity (more on this later) between it and its successor, but I don't think this was necessary. I think any viewer could have filled in the gaps quite easily. 

A criticism I had for the original film was their unfair portrayal of Frankenstein's monster. In the original novel, he is portrayed as an intelligent and articulate, if hideous being. In Frankenstein, he is little more than a simple-minded beast. This edition helped to rectify that mistake. He's still far from being any type of Renaissance man, but we do see more depth to his character. 

He's not just an animal now, but somebody desperately looking for friendship like when he befriends a blind hermit who teaches him how to speak and how to enjoy life. Boris Karloff should also be credited for bringing some humanity to a monster that everybody misunderstands. Rather than being a mindless brute, he's more something to be pitied. 

This film also helps to develop Henry Frankenstein. Far from being a mad scientist, he still wants to continue his pursuit to the secret of life and immortality. Again, he has more depth than the first film.

At the start, I talked about continuity. I know this film was only made in the 1930's but there were a whole slieu of continuity errors. One I particularly remember was when the hermit was showing the monster how to smoke. He passes his cigar to him, but in the next cut, both characters have lit cigars. 

Bride of Frankenstein was enjoyable enough with well-developed characters, despite its dodgy editing.

Frankenstein (1931) review

 Number 335 on the top 1000 films of all time is the pre-code Gothic drama 'Frankenstein.'

Based on Mary Shelley's book of the same name, Frankenstein follows the Bavarian scientist Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) in his attempts to create life. This culminates in him creating a monster played by Boris Karloff. This monster is made out of dead bodies. Meanwhile, his fiancee Elizabeth (Mae Clarke) and cousin Victor (John Boles) try to talk him out of his madness.

Frankenstien is a film that needs no introduction. Even if you haven't read the book you are familiar with the story. I have read the book and I think the film over-simplified the plot and characters.

At seventy minutes long, there wasn't enough time to properly explore the characters in any depth. As a result, they felt shallow, superficial and under-developed. Neither Dr Frankenstein or his monster had the humanity they had in the book.

Frankenstein's monster was little more than a simple killing brute and not the misunderstood yet articulate being he was in the book. He's supposed to be somebody you both pity and are scared off - not just something to be feared. Similarly, Dr Frankenstein lent a little too much into the "mad" aspect of "mad scientist." he wasn't so much of an evil genius, as just evil. It was a radical departure from the books where he was a brilliant if misguided scientist.

This film is beloved by many - having spurned countless sequels, parodies and imitators, so I'm obviously in the minority with my opinions. But I didn't care for Frankenstein. It was an overly-stripped affair that lacked the heart and humanity which made the book so beloved.

Monster review

 Number 998 on the top 1000 films of all time is the true crime biopic Monster.

Based on the shocking true story, Monster focusses on Eileen Warnoss (Charlize Theron.) She is a prostitute in Daytona Beach, Florida, who begins a killing spree after her 'John' Vincent Corey (Lee Tergesen) rapes and tries to kill hjer. Warnoss also forms a toxic relationship with the young Selby (Christina Ricci,) a young, gay woman living in a repressive, Christian household.

True Crime is a genre that has always been popular. Over a century later, we are still speculating over the true identity of Jack the Ripper, the movie 'Zodiac' immortalises the Zodiac Killer's crimes and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre was inspired by the crimes of murderer and grave-robber, Ed Gein. However, it is also a genre that's come under a lot of scrutiny. The recent Netflix show about Jeffrey Dahmer was criticised for its romanticisation of Dahmer and for how it retraumatised the families of his victims.

You can argue that, to some extent, Monster romanticises Warnosses' crimes. It initially portrays her as a victim who is taking back her power by killing the man who assaults and rapes her. But, conversely, there is nothing romantic about this tale. In fact, it portrays a brutal and gritty perspective into the reality that many prostitutes face every day. Prostitution is largely illegal in the US and it is theoretically legal in the UK - the act itself is legal, but many of its associated acts are not. Neither brothels nor street side solicitation are legal.

Many prostitutes are desperate - coming from broken households or have addiction issues or a greedy pimp to pay. They have little choice, but to follow their Johns and be driven to a remote area where they could be raped and killed - as is the sad reality for some sex workers. The aforementioned Jack the Ripper targeted prostitutes, as did Peter Sutcliffe. Perhaps if prostitution was fully legalised and regulated, there wouldn't be so many young, lost women losing their lives.

Charlize Theron was outstanding in the role. She won the best Actress Oscar and I completely understand why. I'm inclined to agree with film critic Roger Ebert's assessment of it being one of the greatest performances in the history of cinema. She absolutely embodied Warnoss, portraying the neuroticism and the agitation to a Tee. Warnoss has always maintained that all of her victims tried to help her and she acted in self-defence. Theron brought a lot more nuance than that to the role. She portrays Warnoss as neither a helpless victim or a cold-blooded killer, but a psychologically damaged young woman in desperate search for human connection. She attempts to go legitimate, but due to her past reputation, she's laughed out of every job she applies for. Perhaps if there wasn't such a stigma behind prostitution, Eileen Warnoss' killing spree might have been avoided.

Of course, I'm not justifying Warnoss' actions, but highlighting the morally grey that Theron exhibited. She kills her first John in self-defence, but her last murder was completely unprovoked. Her last victim did not deserve to die. And this raises more moral questions. Do we ever have the right to take the law into our own hands? Warnoss thinks we do. And Theron just disappeared into the character. She was unrecognisable.

Christina Ricci was great as well. She is best-known for playing kooky, off-the-wall characters, like Wednesday Adams, so it was great to see her play a more human role. Like Eileen, she comes from a troubled background. In search of a strong, adult, role model, she latches herself onto Warnoss. The two of them form a toxic, co-dependant relationship. Selby's life is turned upside down by Warnoss' erratic behaviour. And I think you can argue that Warnoss should have taken more personal accountability and stayed away from Selby. As Selby rightly says, she is being used by Warnoss. Certainly, no romanticisation there.

But this was a great film. It is doomy, hard-going, often traumatic, but with an outstanding, Oscar-worthy performance from Charlize Theron.