The Bride! (2026)

On the one hand, kudos to Maggie Gyllenhaal for taking such a bold approach to what you could arguably classify as the full-bodied legacy of Mary Shelley. On the other hand, maybe she should have taken some more time to ensure that her bold approach and mix of ideas could be bundled up into something that would work as a satisfying and cohesive movie experience. This absolutely fails, and the bigger failings help to obscure any of the more praiseworthy elements.

Christian Bale plays Frank (the monster, having taken the name of his creator). He walks into the workplace of Dr. Euphronious (Annette Bening) and asks for her help in creating a companion. He's desperately lonely, and so unique that only another creation similar to himself will offer him any hope of a relationship. Enter the corpse of Ida (Jessie Buckley), a woman who ended up being shot by horrible gangsters mere moments after she was possessed by the spirit of Mary Shelley (also portrayed by Buckley). While struggling to figure out whether or not they can have any kind of proper relationship, especially when trying to accept how it has all begun, Ida and Frank quickly become a notorious pairing, for their unique look and their behaviour. Seemingly unable to stop calling attention to themselves, although often due to calling out the behaviour of others, Frank and The Bride soon find themselves pursued by strangers, determined police, and some gangsters who are very surprised to see that Ida has somehow not stayed dead.

While a very divisive movie, I know there are some people out there who have really liked this. I don't know many of them, but I know one or two. So it works for some people. And I can see some of the appeal. It's very admirably bonkers, almost punk in the way that it makes use of some famous genre archetypes to crash through some other archetypes, all while commenting on misogyny and the constantly overlooked misbehaviour of men. Just typing out that sentence has made me wonder if I am about to be too harsh on the thing. But, alas, no. The ingredients aren't mixed together well enough, and the social commentary is picked up and dropped so casually that it may as well be a toy discarded by an over-stimulated child.

I guess that some of the visuals work, and the cast is full of considerable talent and/or people that Gyllenhaal knows well enough to get on board, but the overriding feeling is that this is a feature barely shaped into a tolerable form by someone seriously overreaching.

Some people appreciate the performance from Buckley, especially when considering the variety of personas that she ends up portraying, but I thought it was never nailed down. Perhaps that is the fault of the screenplay and direction, but Buckley certainly suffers most from the material given to the leads. Bale is okay, if a bit disappointingly low-key. The most interesting main character is actually portrayed by Bening, which makes it all the more frustrating when she is so underused. Jake Gyllenhaal brightens things up a bit with his role, playing a movie star from the era, but I cannot say the same for either Peter Sarsgaard or Penélope Cruz, who are disappointingly weighed down by the fact that their characters are more avatars carrying around some of the central themes than proper characters.

Some may love this, and I am glad that the movie exists for them. I suspect that most will dislike it though, and many will absolutely hate it. I find myself closer to that last grouping, and it's only the ambition and confidence of Gyllenhaal, however it was improperly channelled, that has me rating this just a bit higher than I otherwise would. 

4/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Netflix And Chill: Frankenstein (2025)

Everyone knows that writer-director Guillermo del Toro wanted to make Frankenstein for many years. It was already such a thematic through-line in so many of his movies (the perceived monsters overshadowed by actual monstrous humans) that maybe it was assumed that he'd managed to get it out of his system, but no. So it's good for us that people gave him over $100M to finally deliver his vision of the classic text. Maybe we will yet get his version of At The Mountains Of Madness.

Bookmarked by scenes set in the Arctic, this gives us Victor's Tale in the first half and then The Creature's Tale in the second, both announced by title cards. Young Victor may be played by Christian Convery, but things really get going when we meet the adult Victor (Oscar Isaac), a man consumed by the idea of conquering death, much to the dismay of many, including his own brother, William (Felix Kammerer). William and Victor aren't exactly close, but William is still excited to have his brother meet his fiancée, Lady Elizabeth Harlander (Mia Goth). This proves to be quite the fateful encounter, almost as fateful as Victor's encounter with Elizabeth's uncle, Henrich Harlander (Christoph Waltz), a wealthy man who wants to fund Victor's experiments. Then it's all body parts and lightning storms until you can cry out "it's alive, it's alive" and we get the creation of a creature (Jacob Elordi). Victor isn't actually prepared for his role as "new father" though, which makes things very difficult, to say the least.

With lovely cinematography from Dan Laustsen, a fine score from Alexandre Desplat, and great use of some well-dressed locations (it's always nice to see even a heavily-disguised Edinburgh onscreen), it's no surprise that Frankenstein is a feast for viewers. It may be a slightly overdone feast, considering the hefty 150-minute runtime and the moments that have a bit too much CGI in the mix, but it's a feast nonetheless. The biggest problem would seem to be that Del Toro is too close to the whole thing, and has been allowed to indulge himself with every decision, for better or worse. This is most obvious during the many times he seems to be pointing at a massive hand-painted sign that says "It's Victor who is the real monster, get it?", as if we haven't been reminding ourselves, and others, of this for many many years now.

Isaac is decent in the role of Victor, enjoyably single-minded and callous, and I am sure the film was helped to find some extra viewers by the moments that have him working feverishly on his creation without any care for the state of his clothing. Goth is a wonderful Elizabeth, and it was canny casting to also have her playing another pivotal role in the earlier scenes of the film. Elordi is the highlight though, giving an interpretation of the creature that shows the full range of his life, from the new-born confusion to his education, from his vulnerability to his rage. Helped by an interesting, if not altogether successful, make up job, Elordi feels as if he's giving his all to portray a definitive take on the creature that manages to feel both very traditional and quite modern. Waltz is used well, Kammerer less so, and there are good scenes for the likes of Lars Mikkelsen, David Bradley, and Charles Dance in supporting roles.

People seem to want to give us the "definitive" Frankenstein every few decades, but it hasn't really happened yet. This is certainly close though. Some scenes use too much digital trickery (let's not mention the imperfect wolves in one key sequence), and Del Toro has a strange way of turning the creature into something like a superhero at times (he's very Incredible Hulk throughout, which I'm sure we've all seen as a modern blend of Frankenstein/Jekyll & Hyde over the years anyway), but the overall feeling is one of care and quality. You know that you're in the hands of someone who really wants this to deliver on all of his promises, even if he unsubtly hammers home one or two of the key messages of the tale. Although, for all of Del Toro's good intentions, ending his own adaptation of Mary Shelley's touchstone text with a quote from Lord Byron is a major mis-step that may leave viewers slightly soured as the end credits roll.

This is very good. And there are some pleasantly surprising bursts of gore and real horror too. It's not great though, perhaps due to the fact that Del Toro put himself under pressure to cram in everything he'd ever envisioned for the project. He has, somewhat ironically, given birth to something that he explored and experimented on for many years. It's not a monstrosity, but I don't think it will ever be as beloved as some of his other "children". 

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Shudder Saturday: A Nightmare Wakes (2020)

Sometimes I have to blurt out a film review summary before I start to share some details, and that is the case here. I hated A Nightmare Wakes. Really hated it. Purporting to tell the story of "the birth of Frankenstein", through a depiction of Mary Shelley and her mindset during that period of creation, not one moment of it ever rings true.

Alix Wilton Regan plays Mary Shelley, a woman who starts to blend her personal problems, nightmares, and imagination as she builds up the layers of the classic horror tale she would be forever attached to. Giullian Gioiello is Percy Shelley, her lover and a source of some of her ill-feeling. There are many moments in which you can imagine storm clouds gathering, people stand around with brooding looks as low lighting creates more shadows around them, and the whole thing feels less like a celebration of a complex creative process and more like the out-takes from a mid-00s Evanescence music video.

Written and directed by Nora Unkel, making her feature debut, it's easy to see why this is such an unsatisfying mess. Most movies that show a glimpse of a life that we know about can go one of two ways. You either try to show the truth, or the essence of it, or you decide to "print the legend". Unkel cannot decide where she wants to take her movie, filling it with details that are inconsistent with the facts while never doing enough to lift up the central figure and fully celebrate her strength and talent. It would be easier, sadly, to come away from this film and think of Mary Shelley as a fragile and broken woman who somehow managed to write a popular book in a rare moment of high spirits in between days and days of moroseness and pain.

Regan doesn't do a bad job in the main role. She has to keep looking downbeat, and often feels like she's playing a secondary character, but the problem doesn't lie with her performance. The same can be said of Gioiello. Claire Glassford gets to seem a bit happier, for the most part, in the role of Claire Claremont, and the more exuberant characters of Lord Byron and Dr. Polidori are capably portrayed by Philippe Bowgen and Lee Garrett, respectively.

I guess the whole thing looks alright, although it doesn't do enough to distract you from the fact that Unkel seems to have had access to one main location, and the sound is audible throughout, so full marks for a basic level of technical competence. The performances, as weighed down as they are by the script, get another point. That's as high as I'm willing to go. Frankenstein, and the creation of it, is ripe for so many different adaptations, as we've seen over the years. Make it true to life, make it a fever-dream phantasmagoria, make it gritty and basic, make it gory and ridiculous. Just don't, please don't, make it as horribly boring as this.

3/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Prime Time: Frankenstein (2015)

Another day, another film involving a talent that I have forgotten to check out more from. This time it's director Bernard Rose. He may still be best remembered for Candyman (a classic of the horror genre) but has, after a couple of standard period dramas (Immortal Beloved and Anna Karenina), gone on to carve out quite an impressive filmography, often reworking classic literary works (mainly by Leo Tolstoy) and making use of the great Danny Huston.

Bearing that in mind, Frankenstein is exactly what you think it might be. An updated version of the classic tale, starring Danny Huston and Carrie-Anne Moss. Huston is Victor, Moss is Elizabeth, and the two of them are first seen trying to help their creation, Adam (Xavier Samuel), through his confusing and painful "birth". Adam has, essentially, been created by 3-D printing technology. Things don't go too well, leading to the monster being unleashed on an unsuspecting public.

Despite the fact that it is set in the here and now, and the fact that it has occasional moments of squishy violence and bloodshed, Frankenstein is a surprisingly faithful interpretation of the source material. It takes a few liberties here and there, but a lot of the main story beats are in place. You get the monster being cast out, you get an encounter with a little girl who is playing by some water, you get a blind man (Tony Todd) who becomes a friend, you even get an angry mob of locals trying to beat down the creature.

Huston and Moss are both good in their roles, but it's Samuel carrying the film with his portrayal of the scarred outcast who is simply trying to find out where he fits in the world. Samuel may not be perfect, his physique belies the strength that he is supposed to possess, but he does well with a performance that retains the essence of the character without simply mimicking more iconic interpretations. Todd is enjoyable in a rare role that doesn't make him seem menacing or ominous, and Maya Erskine is absolutely wonderful in a small, but memorable, turn as a prostitute named Wanda who is persuaded by Todd to give the monster an experience he will never forget.

It's a shame that I can see this falling between two stools for many people. The revisionism may detract from the impressive way it follows a good number of the main plot points, and the relatively low-budget and unfussy style doesn't get in the way of the better gore gags, but it's up to patient viewers to, ironically, give it some time to find its feet.

7/10

The movie can be bought here.
Americans can buy it here.

Dead By Dawn 2018: Frankenstein (1931)

I'll be reviewing most, not all, of the films shown at Dead By Dawn this year. The reviews won't be in order. Because my schedule doesn't allow for that. Deal with it. Anyway . . .

Although it was not the first of the classic Universal monster movies, and not even the first to be released in 1931 (Dracula beat it by a few months), Frankenstein, or his monster as portrayed by Boris Karloff, certainly deserves to stand as one of carved faces on any Mount Rushmore of the horror genre.

Based on the book by Mary Shelley, there seems little point in going over the plot, or any of the factors that make the film so memorable. But I will anyway, because this would be a very short review otherwise. Colin Clive plays Henry Frankenstein, a scientist obsessed with the idea of creating human life from dead flesh. He has the body all stitched together, he just needs to procure a brain, a task which he entrusts to his hunchback assistant, Fritz (Dwight Frye). It’s unfortunate that Fritz ends up dropping the healthy brain he was asked to acquire and so instead heads back to his boss with an abnormal brain. One atmospheric, lightning-filled, night later and the creature is alive, although not of the sound mind that Henry had hoped he would be. Things go from bad to worse, so Henry entrusts a friend (Dr Waldman, played by Edward Van Sloan) to take care of the creature and he heads home to busy himself with preparations for his wedding to the lovely Elizabeth (Mae Clarke). But his troubles are far from over.

A script written (by Garrett Fort and Francis Edward Faragoh) from an adaptation of a play (by Peggy Webling) from the source novel, Frankenstein is a masterpiece that stands tall today thanks to a perfect storm - no pun intended - of performances, direction, and writing (not just from those mentioned here, but also other credited and uncredited contributors). With certain moments and passages that still hold a magical power today, it's almost impossible to fathom how audiences would have felt when faced with this maelstrom of horror, blasphemy, and murky morality back in 1931.

Clive remains on of the best Frankensteins we've ever had onscreen, a man so driven by his obsession that he takes himself to a state of physical exhaustion. Frye is fun as Fritz, Van Sloan does just fine with his role, and Clarke is suitably lovely and poised to be a damsel in distress. But it is, of course, Karloff who owns the film, helped in no small part by the superb make-up work from Jack Pierce. There's a saying nowadays that goes something like this; intelligence is knowing that Frankenstein is not the monster, wisdom is knowing that Frankenstein is the monster. That idea may have been muddled by sequels and reworkings of the material, but it's clear as day here, largely because of the sweet and lumbering performance from Karloff.

Some might say that director James Whale does a great job here and then betters himself in the sequel. I am not sure about that. I think both films stand alongside one another as fantastic pieces of work, brought to the screen by a team determined to thrill and entertain, and yes even shock, audiences of the time. Deftly working within, and right to the edge, of what was allowed at the time (even going over the line, certain dialogue was excised from the film for many years when it was re-released, due to the blasphemous nature of it), everyone involved managed to craft part of Hollywood horror history. Some modern viewers may scoff at the melodrama and the tame nature of the content. That's their loss. I know many horror film fans who love this one as much as I do, and rightly so.

10/10

This is a great collection for any fan.

This is it available in America.

And here is the Dead By Dawn schedule/site.

Witchcraft (1988)

Witchcraft is a straight-to-video horror title that I would never have felt the need to watch until I discovered one important fact. It started a series that has currently reached instalment number sixteen. SIXTEEN. I'm not sure how easy they are to get a hold of but, thanks to the wonders of the internet, I am going to do my very best to see them all.

Grace (Anat Topol) is about to have a baby. All is going swimmingly with her husband John (Edward Ross AKA Gary Sloan) until they move into his mother's house. That's when the plot really begins to start up. Grace starts having disturbing visions, her favourite priest (Alexander Kirkwood) is adversely affected, and there are generally unsettling goings on that prey on her mind.

Directed by Rob Spera and written by Jody Savin, who haven't done anything else that I have seen (to date), Witchcraft is, to reach for the nearest comparison, a clumsy mix of Rosemary's Baby and The Devonsville Terror. The visions mostly feel plucked from the latter, a scene in which a number of visitors gather round to see the baby highlights the former, especially when Grace is visted by an attractive friend, Linda (Deborah Scott), who is pointedly ogled by at least one of the older visitors.

The acting is about what you would expect from a DTV flick called Witchcraft. Topol and Sloan aren't great, Mary Shelley plays the mother-in-law in a turn clearly influenced by "The Handbook Of How To Portray People Who Are Really Really Suspicious And Probably Evil", Kirkwood is given the obvious selection of affected priest tics to work with, and Scott is a surprising highlight. You also get Lee Kissman as Ellsworth, a man who seems to roam the house missing the days when he was being trained up for the role by his Uncle Lurch.

Despite the limitations of the budget, there's a lot here that's better than it could be. Savin may have written a pretty awful script but that's compensated for by decent enough work on the technical side. Yes, most of the film takes place in the one location, with one or two scene set elsewhere (supposedly set elsewhere, I should say), but the camera moves around okay, the editing doesn't make it into an unwatchable mess, and even the music by Randy Miller isn't too bad.

With a few extra ingredients this could have been a much better film. It tries to play things too seriously when it should have gone all-out and just had more fun. The fact that it resists the impulse to pad out the runtime with gratuitous nudity and gore is admirable, yet it also feels like this is the kind of film that would benefit from such obvious tactics, especially when the few special effects moments on display here are among the more careless and disappointing aspects.

It wasn't a great film but it wasn't too painful to watch. I had a little bit of fun with it. I wonder if I'll feel the same way when watching the sixteenth film in the series.

4/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

The Curse Of Frankenstein (1957)

Okay, before the review starts let me just ask you one question, based on a supporting performer in the movie.

Tell the truth now, is this not the best "direct look to camera" that you've ever seen?

I think it is, hence its inclusion here.

But let's get to the entire movie.

The first proper Hammer horror that set the template for many movies to come (the Technicolour horror, the updating of the Universal classics taken mainly from literary forerunners, the greatness of Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, etc), this also remains one of their best movies.

It's a pretty familiar tale, with enough changes made for everything to feel fresh and exciting. Peter Cushing plays the obsessed scientist and it's not long before one small success in the ongoing battle against Mr G. Reaper sees our protagonist getting quite obsessed with actually creating life and playing god. His long-time companion, and former tutor Paul (Robert Urquhart) tries to keep things from getting out of control but Hammer fans will already know how things will unfold.

Directed by Terence Fisher, and written by Jimmy Sangster, The Curse Of Frankenstein has plenty going for it. The pacing is perfect, the character of Victor Frankenstein is brilliantly portrayed by Cushing and it's easy to quietly root for him even as his methods become more and more unhinged, Urquhart makes for a decent friend/voice of reason and the script and cinematography are both well above-average for something that people could easily dismiss (both then AND now) as pulp genre fare.

Hazel Court is lovely enough as Elizabeth, though she doesn't get all that much to do, but Christopher Lee is a bit of a disappointment as the creature. Not his fault really, it's just hard to top that original design and performance with Boris Karloff in the role. Hell, even De Niro didn't manage it so Lee shouldn't feel too badly as he certainly doesn't embarrass himself either. It's also fun to see a young Melvyn Hayes (probably best known to UK TV viewers from his role in It Ain't Half Hot Mum) in the role of young Victor and Valerie Gaunt is great as a housemaid who dares to threaten the baron when she realises that she will never be more than his secret mistress.

A great success when first released, this movie deserves to be seen and enjoyed by fans for many, many years to come and deserves all of the adoration it has received over the years.

8/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Curse-Frankenstein-Blu-ray-DVD/dp/B008LU8MME/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350081696&sr=8-1