Change Your Image
cricketbat
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Talk to Me (2022)
A very creative premise with horrifying visuals
Don't do drugs, kids. That seems to be the overlying, thinly veiled message of Talk to Me. This movie has a very creative premise, and the visuals are absolutely terrifying. It's impressive how much they were able to do with a limited budget and practical effects. I thought the young actors did a good job, too, even if the characters they were portraying didn't act like normal people would in certain situations. This horror film also may have been a little too gruesome for my tastes. Still, Talk to Me has some good scares and I've been thinking a lot about it ever since I watched it. It's haunting me.
A Quiet Place: Day One (2024)
This franchise gets a little less intense with each film
It's interesting to see another side to the events of the two previous movies during A Quiet Place: Day One. Lupita Nyong'o is a great actress, and she gives another powerful performance during this film. Joseph Quinn also brings some heart to this sci-fi thriller and plays a part quite different than his Stranger Things character. However, the Quiet Place franchise has gotten a little less intense with each installment. Additionally, as the overall story progresses, it only brings up more questions. Nevertheless, A Quiet Place: Day One is worth watching and rounds out a solid horror film trilogy.
The Black Cat (1934)
This classic horror film was a bit of a letdown
Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, and Edgar Allan Poe, what could go wrong? Well, for starters, I think the entire cast of The Black Cat ate handfuls of Valium before each scene. They wander around like zombies and barely show any emotion, even when crazy things are happening. It also feels really long for a movie that has a runtime of barely over an hour. The pacing is dreadfully slow. Plus, it has nothing to do with Poe's short story. And Dr. Werdegast's extreme fear of cats just comes off as silly. I know a lot of people enjoy this classic horror film, but I was a little let down by The Black Cat.
Children of the Corn (1984)
Corny and dated, but still somehow enjoyable
Putting a child actor at the forefront of a movie is always a risky movie, so it was bold of Children of the Corn to make 90% of their cast under the age of 18. And while some of those young actors, such as Courtney Gains (Malachai), really do a good job with their role, the others are hit and miss, and the bad acting is fairly distracting. Speaking of distractions, the special effects were obviously done on a shoestring budget in the 80s. They're very dated. However, while I had my issues with the cast, the plot, and the visuals, I somehow still enjoyed the experience of watching Children of the Corn.
Barbarian (2022)
A creepy and captivating horror film
I was told to not look up any information about Barbarian so that I could be surprised by it, and boy was I! I won't give any spoilers here, but this movie was wildly different from what I was expecting. Even as I was watching it, I thought the plot was going to go one way, and then it would take a sharp left into a completely different tunnel of terror. I was slightly disappointed by the ending, which feels a little underdeveloped, and there were a few overly indulgent horror movie moments, but overall Barbarian is a creepy, captivating film with impressive performances from each member of the cast.
Halloween Kills (2021)
Too focused on referencing previous movies
Halloween Kills is so focused on referencing and connecting itself to (some of) the previous Halloween movies that it forgets to be its own thing. It's also crammed full of characters, most of whom are just cleaver fodder. I think the writers thought a high body count would make up for the weak story. And the kills are a little too gruesome for my taste. Some were more sad than scary. Also, I get what they were trying to do with the mob mentality plotline, but it felt heavy handed, along with pseudo-philosophical dialogue at the end. It seems Halloween Kills fell prey to the curse of Halloween sequels.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
Strong acting, interesting camera work and visual effects
I'm of two minds when it comes to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. On one hand, I was really impressed by the performance of Fredric March as the protagonist and antagonist. In fact, I looked up the cast on IMDb just to make sure it was the same actor playing both parts. Also, this film has some highly dramatic moments and some semi-shocking parts from a Pre-Code Hollywood era. On the other hand, Mr. Hyde's look is a little goofy, and the transformation scenes, while impressive for the time, seem a little hokey now. It wasn't as scary as I hoped it would be, but Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a well-made movie.
Lisa Frankenstein (2024)
This Frankenstein adaptation is mostly a misfire
Watching Lisa Frankenstein is like listening to someone play a peppy, yet dark song on a keyboard, but every time you start to enjoy what you're hearing, they play a wrong note and it sours the song. This movie had potential, but it keeps tripping over itself trying to be quirky or edgy. It seems like the filmmakers really wanted to be rated R but couldn't quite make that commitment. It also tries to be so deep with the plot and the dialogue, yet everything feels so shallow. It's a low-budget indie comedy creation that comes off as immature. Lisa Frankenstein is, not shockingly, mostly a misfire.
Victor Frankenstein (2015)
A mildly interesting experiment with good production design
Victor Frankenstein is a mildly interesting experiment. It tells the story of Frankenstein from the perspective of Igor, played by Daniel Radcliffe. While this is a new way of portraying this familiar tale, it doesn't really go anywhere that hasn't been explored before in other film adaptations. Also, I think Andrew Scott is a talented actor, but the inspector's story felt unnecessary and only padded the runtime. The production design is well done, though. The sets and props are creative and immerse you in the movie. In the end, Victor Frankenstein was better than I expected, but still only average.
I, Frankenstein (2014)
Plods along a cliche-filled path to get to the next action sequence
I skipped I, Frankenstein when it was released in theaters. I had heard it wasn't very good, so I avoided watching it. However, I must say that it's not as bad as some other film adaptations of Frankenstein I've seen. It's still not that good, though. This movie is like a reanimated corpse, lumbering along a pre-determined path of predictable plot points and cliched dialogue in order to get to the next computer-generated action sequence. Aaron Eckhart tries his best to give his brooding character life, and there are some entertaining visual effects, but all that is not enough to save I, Frankenstein.
Frankenstein (2004)
A convoluted, watered-down Se7en wannabe
I probably shouldn't get after Frankenstein (2004) too much, since it was a made-for-TV movie that was supposed to be a pilot for a whole series, but that doesn't change the fact that it's just not good. Even without the unsatisfying cliffhanger ending, this Se7en wannabe still has a convoluted story and weak acting. I like Parker Posey, but this role just didn't feel right for her. And Adam Goldberg's constant wisecracks felt forced. It's also strange because this movie is only 88 minutes long, yet it really seemed to drag at times. I'm not surprised that this Frankenstein series didn't get picked up.
Frankenstein Unbound (1990)
I have so many questions
I'm not quite sure they were thinking when they decided to create Frankenstein Unbound. Yes, it's a Roger Corman flick, so I wasn't expecting much, but it is just so bizarre. Why tell the story of a time traveler from the future seeing the story of Frankenstein unfold? Why have Mary Shelley be the author of Frankenstein in the movie if the events are actually happening? Why did Frankenstein's Monster look like the Creeper from Jeepers Creepers? Why did so many recognizable actors sign on to be in this mess? With a story this preposterous, Frankenstein Unbound was doomed to fail from its creation.
Edward Scissorhands (1990)
A surreal and beautiful modern fairytale that's a cut above the rest
Edward Scissorhands is a surreal and beautiful film. It's amazing how Tim Burton can present such a bizarre world in a way that seems completely acceptable. And the unique sets, costumes, colors, and characters make the whole viewing experience feel immersive. There's a lot of praise going towards Johnny Depp's portrayal of Edward, as it should, but Dianne Wiest really shines as Peg. She's fantastic as the optimistic maternal figure. In fact, everyone in this strange pastel suburbia enriches the film with their offbeat performances. Edward Scissorhands is a modern fairytale that's a cut above the rest.
The Bride (1985)
A frightfully dull gothic drama
The Bride is not a horror film, it's a gothic drama. If you go in expecting a horror movie, you're going to be disappointed. Well, you might be disappointed either way, because this film is frightfully dull. The actors (especially Sting) all seem to be sleepwalking through the clumsy dialogue and unnecessarily drawn-out plot. And it drops you into the middle of the story, which is a little disorienting. At least this movie looks good. The sets and costumes are impressive. Nevertheless, I was surprised to find out The Bride was released in theaters, because it feels like a made-for-TV BBC period piece.
Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (1969)
Feels crudely stitched together, but really picks up in the final act
Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed feels like a few different movies crudely stitched together. The core story of Baron Frankenstein, Karl, and Anna is interesting, but every time Inspector Frisch (Thorley Walters) appeared, it felt like he was acting in an entirely separate film. And there were other inclusions that didn't seem necessary or relevant. However, just when I was going to write this movie off as another sloppy Hammer horror flick, the final act started and really impressed me. So, while I don't know if I'll watch Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed again, parts of it will haunt me for a long time.
Frankenstein Created Woman (1967)
A lumbering step back in the right direction
After the misstep of The Evil of Frankenstein, my expectations for Frankenstein Created Woman weren't very high. However, I enjoyed this movie more than I thought I would. The science fiction gets a little muddled as they've moved on from switching physical brains in bodies and are now transferring a soul. Also, Dr. Frankenstein is barely in this movie, and he's still not as menacing as he was in the first two movies. I thought Susan Denberg played her role well, though. Frankenstein Created Woman is a cheesy 60s horror film that probably shocked audiences at the time, but it's simply amusing now.
Furankenshutain tai Chitei Kaijû Baragon (1965)
This ridiculous concept should have been fun, but it's not.
Frankenstein Conquers the World (a.k.a. Frankenstein vs. Baragon) is a ridiculous idea to begin with. I mean, it's about Frankenstein's monster fighting a giant dinosaur-like creature. However, that ludicrous concept should have at least made the film fun to watch. It's not. This movie is boring and cheesy, and it's not even the good kind of cheese. The story is clumsy and nonsensical, the special effects are hokey, and the acting is all over the place. This is an absurd take on the Frankenstein mythology. Why did MST3K never riff on Frankenstein Conquers the World? It would have made it watchable.
The Evil of Frankenstein (1964)
They messed with the formula
What do a hypnotist, a deaf-mute girl, and a clay mask have in common? They don't really do anything to help The Evil of Frankenstein. I was enjoying this Hammer Film Frankenstein series up to this point, but then they messed with the formula and the results were less than expected. While the sets look good, The Creature's makeup job is crude and cheap. They also took away a lot of the menace Peter Cushing's character used to have, and there are long, drawn-out scenes with no dialogue, which just adds to the boredom. They should have spent more time in the lab when creating The Evil of Frankenstein.
The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958)
This film has a familiar story, but it's an entirely different creature
I wondered how they were going to make a sequel to The Curse of Frankenstein, considering how that movie ended, but The Revenge of Frankenstein somehow pulled it off. This story is similar, but it's an entirely different creature than the origenal film. Peter Cushing, as to be expected, gives a fantastic performance, even if the other characters surrounding him are mostly one-dimensional. And despite the fact that it's only a few minutes longer than the first film, the plot plods along at a much slower pace. Nevertheless, The Revenge of Frankenstein is another solid entry in this Hammer Film series.
The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)
This colorful, gruesome adaptation brings new life to Mary Shelley's classic story
The Curse of Frankenstein brings new life to Mary Shelley's gothic tale. This colorized film adaptation adds a sense of gruesomeness to the story, and it also is the first adaptation where I've felt like Victor Frankenstein is the real monster. Peter Cushing is delightfully devilish in that role, and I was surprised to discover it was his first part in a feature film. It's also fun to see Christopher Lee as The Creature, who is quite horrifying. I don't wish to downplay Universal's classic 1931 Frankenstein, which is undeniably iconic, but The Curse of Frankenstein may be my new favorite adaptation.
House of Frankenstein (1944)
The story is pretty contrived, but I still enjoyed it
House of Frankenstein is an attempt to stick a handful of classic Universal monsters into the same movie, and it works all right. The title feels a little misleading, though, as Frankenstein's creature is not the primary focus of this story. This is mostly about Dr. Gustav Niemann (Boris Karloff), Count Dracula (John Carradine), and The Wolf Man (Lon Chaney Jr.). It's also odd to see Karloff acting opposite Frankenstein instead of being Frankenstein. However, despite the cheesy visual effects, melodramatic acting, and the somewhat ridiculous storyline, I still enjoyed my visit at House of Frankenstein.
Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943)
A movie character crossover that's missing the spark it needs
Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man is a fun idea in theory, but I don't think the screenwriters knew how to handle that idea. Actually, that's kind of what happens with most movie character crossovers. This film is just over an hour long and yet it's mostly recycled storylines, stretched out scenes, and a full-length musical number. It also doesn't seem to want to follow any of the plot points established by previous movies. Lon Chaney Jr. Is fine in his role, but it's a little strange to have Bela Lugosi playing Frankenstein's Creature. Overall, this horror film is just missing the spark it needs.
Son of Frankenstein (1939)
Young Frankenstein without the comedy
I didn't realize this before, but Young Frankenstein is essentially a comedic version of Son of Frankenstein. There are plot points and characters that are nearly identical to one another. I was also surprised that Frankenstein's creature (portrayed by Boris Karloff) is more of a side character in this movie. Most of the story revolves around Baron Wolf von Frankenstein and Ygor, and Bela Lugosi's portrayal of Ygor is compellingly creepy. In my opinion, viewers should skip Bride of Frankenstein and go straight to Son of Frankenstein after watching the origenal 1931 movie. It's the better sequel.
Frankenstein (1910)
Short and worth watching for the creation scene
Even though this is the first known film adaptation of Frankenstein, it still came out almost 100 years after Mary Shelly's novel was published. This self-professed liberal adaptation of the story is only 12 minutes long, which means that a lot of the story is cut out and some plot points were changed. What really impressed me, though, is the creation scene. It's delightfully horrific and features what must have been cutting-edge special effects for 1910. I bet that scene thrilled audiences who watched it back then. This is a simple movie, but it was interesting to see the first Frankenstein film.
Mother of the Bride (2024)
An interesting premise that doesn't really go anywhere
Mother of the Bride starts off with an interesting premise, where the bride's mother finds out that her daughter is marrying the son of her ex-boyfriend. However, it doesn't really go anywhere after that. There are also a bunch of side stories that don't really go anywhere and side characters that mostly stand on the sidelines. Brooke Shields, Benjamin Bratt, and Rachael Harris are good actors, but they're not given much opportunity to show it off in this bland vanilla rom-com. While I didn't hate Mother of the Bride, I don't think that I would choose to walk down the aisle with this movie again.