Search
Search results
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Doll House in Books
May 15, 2018
Slowly but surely, I’m getting caught up on my NetGalley reviews. (I’m waaaay behind.) This time around, I finished reading The Doll House by Phoebe Morgan. It’s a slow simmer with a bit of predictability and a lot of unnecessary information, but in the end, Morgan manages to redeem the book through fast-paced, constant action.
The plot is a bit all over the place for the majority of the book, but, like The Roanoke Girls, this seems to be a technique used to drive the story forward. That said, the chapters end with a bit of suspense before the jump to another character. (Also, it should be mentioned that I HATE how Morgan switches between first and third person.) Unfortunately, the first 80% of the book feel like a drag. There’s little to no action, with the most exciting parts being an apparent flashback to the antagonist’s past. The last little bit of the book picks up drastically, which was a nice relief from what came before.
I said earlier that it’s a slow burn, and The Doll House really is. Morgan leaves enough clues throughout the book that a reader can pick up on something awful culminating at the end, but its done in a manner that is simply alright. For instance, the conflict between Ashley and her husband is unnecessary. The title, The Doll House, is a bit of a misnomer because aside from a few parts of the house showing up and a few references to it, the dollhouse is very rarely mentioned. (Also, let’s take a moment here to point out that the dollhouse on the cover of the book is white and it’s made extremely clear that the actual dollhouse is pink. That would have been a simple photoshop fix.)
Now, the characters in The Doll House are really something else. Personally, my favorite is Ashley, the self-conscious, overweight mom of three whom I feel is quite realistically depicted. Corinne is more skittish than my Dad’s dog, which is pretty impressive. Which… it amazes me that she keeps her job with how much she calls out in the book alone. The male characters are alright, albeit apparently quite handsome. Andy is a pig, but you’d have to read the book to see why.
Overall, I didn’t hate or love this book to death. It’s a pretty solid three out of five, which is better than some of the other stuff I’ve read lately. I’d like to thank NetGalley and the publisher for providing me with a copy of this book free of charge in exchange for an unbiased review.
The plot is a bit all over the place for the majority of the book, but, like The Roanoke Girls, this seems to be a technique used to drive the story forward. That said, the chapters end with a bit of suspense before the jump to another character. (Also, it should be mentioned that I HATE how Morgan switches between first and third person.) Unfortunately, the first 80% of the book feel like a drag. There’s little to no action, with the most exciting parts being an apparent flashback to the antagonist’s past. The last little bit of the book picks up drastically, which was a nice relief from what came before.
I said earlier that it’s a slow burn, and The Doll House really is. Morgan leaves enough clues throughout the book that a reader can pick up on something awful culminating at the end, but its done in a manner that is simply alright. For instance, the conflict between Ashley and her husband is unnecessary. The title, The Doll House, is a bit of a misnomer because aside from a few parts of the house showing up and a few references to it, the dollhouse is very rarely mentioned. (Also, let’s take a moment here to point out that the dollhouse on the cover of the book is white and it’s made extremely clear that the actual dollhouse is pink. That would have been a simple photoshop fix.)
Now, the characters in The Doll House are really something else. Personally, my favorite is Ashley, the self-conscious, overweight mom of three whom I feel is quite realistically depicted. Corinne is more skittish than my Dad’s dog, which is pretty impressive. Which… it amazes me that she keeps her job with how much she calls out in the book alone. The male characters are alright, albeit apparently quite handsome. Andy is a pig, but you’d have to read the book to see why.
Overall, I didn’t hate or love this book to death. It’s a pretty solid three out of five, which is better than some of the other stuff I’ve read lately. I’d like to thank NetGalley and the publisher for providing me with a copy of this book free of charge in exchange for an unbiased review.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Loch Ness Legacy (Tyler Locke #4) in Books
Nov 20, 2019
When Tyler Locke foils an attack on a summit of Middle Eastern leaders at the Eiffel Tower he suspects there is more going on than meets the eye. He is soon proved correct as delegates at the summit start to die of a mysterious disease and an old enemy breaks out of prison bent on revenge. In a race for survival Locke and his friends must find out the truth and prevent all out war.
This book immediately gripped me. I have picked up many adventure thriller type books from many authors and few have impressed me. However Boyd Morrison manages to avoid the usual pitfalls. His characters are likeable and share realistic dialogue and act according to their motivations - even the main villain who is just ever so slightly over the top but still manages to be realistic as a character.
The action scenes - and there are plenty featuring more chases and fight scenes than a whole franchise of movies - are extremely well handled. People tire during fight scenes, nobody is a crack shot with a gun, injuries are realistic.
The plot cracks along as Locke and his team uncover the secrets one at a time. There are clues to solve and the whole time they are racing to beat the terrorists who always seem to be one step ahead.
I feel I must make special mention of the dialogue of the English and Scottish characters. A lot of American authors tend to assume everyone in the UK is either a 'cor blimey guv'nor' cockney or an 'I say old chap' aristocrat and so to my ears the dialogue always sounds phoney. Morrison does not fall into this trap and that really did enhance the immersion in the story.
Yes ultimately this is a hunt for the Loch Ness Monster but really that's just a McGuffin to drive the plot, and an ingenious one at that. I'm not aware of anyone else using Nessie in this kind of book and Morrison handles it well.
Overall a terrific book, well worth a read and would make a terrific holiday book. I've already got the first Tyle Locke novel lined up to read and am looking forward to it immensely. Morrison has immediately become on of my favourite authors. I noticed that he is credited as co-writer on the latest Clive Cussler Oregon Files book (Piranha) and will need to read that too, I suspect that he will inject some energy into the franchise and is a good choice as this book reads like one of Cussler's first novels - in fact I'd say even better.
This book immediately gripped me. I have picked up many adventure thriller type books from many authors and few have impressed me. However Boyd Morrison manages to avoid the usual pitfalls. His characters are likeable and share realistic dialogue and act according to their motivations - even the main villain who is just ever so slightly over the top but still manages to be realistic as a character.
The action scenes - and there are plenty featuring more chases and fight scenes than a whole franchise of movies - are extremely well handled. People tire during fight scenes, nobody is a crack shot with a gun, injuries are realistic.
The plot cracks along as Locke and his team uncover the secrets one at a time. There are clues to solve and the whole time they are racing to beat the terrorists who always seem to be one step ahead.
I feel I must make special mention of the dialogue of the English and Scottish characters. A lot of American authors tend to assume everyone in the UK is either a 'cor blimey guv'nor' cockney or an 'I say old chap' aristocrat and so to my ears the dialogue always sounds phoney. Morrison does not fall into this trap and that really did enhance the immersion in the story.
Yes ultimately this is a hunt for the Loch Ness Monster but really that's just a McGuffin to drive the plot, and an ingenious one at that. I'm not aware of anyone else using Nessie in this kind of book and Morrison handles it well.
Overall a terrific book, well worth a read and would make a terrific holiday book. I've already got the first Tyle Locke novel lined up to read and am looking forward to it immensely. Morrison has immediately become on of my favourite authors. I noticed that he is credited as co-writer on the latest Clive Cussler Oregon Files book (Piranha) and will need to read that too, I suspect that he will inject some energy into the franchise and is a good choice as this book reads like one of Cussler's first novels - in fact I'd say even better.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Farming (2018) in Movies
Mar 18, 2020
No Thank You
A young black teenager struggling with his identity joins up with a gang of skinheads. Despite what seems like an intriguing premise, Farming has to be one of the all-time worst movies I’ve ever seen. Since I’m on a streak of reviewing bad movies, might as well keep the train rolling.
Acting: 5
I couldn’t tell up from down, good from bad from these characters and, while that is attributed partly to writing, I think it falls on the poor acting performances as well. With the exception of a couple people here and there, almost everyone dropped the ball in this movie. It was almost as if they were making something they wanted no part of and, as a result, never really gave themselves over to it.
Beginning: 6
The beginning was good enough to get my attention. However, definitely didn’t love it. Like the majority of the movie, it was missing something for me. Little did I know, I was in for even more disappointment…
Characters: 1
Cinematography/Visuals: 0
Conflict: 3
Entertainment Value: 4
After twenty-five minutes of watching, I knew the movie was pretty much headed nowhere. It’s hard to enjoy a movie when you spend the majority of it breaking down and destroying the main character until it’s no longer interesting. It was like watching someone pick at a dead ant. The more I watched, the more I lacked interest.
Memorability: 0
Never have a single solitary desire to see this movie again. The message sucks. The movie sucks. “Forgettable” doesn’t begin to describe it.
Pace: 6
The pace is solid in spots but the story is so painful it negates that things are moving quickly. I wanted this to end so many times and it wouldn’t. It frustrated me to no end.
Plot: 1
An interesting premise spoiled by terrible execution. The movie should have centered on empowerment, yet it lingered too long on the tearing down portion. Eventually that becomes a bane to your audience and hard to stomach.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 36
I did sympathize with the main character’s culture shock in Farming having to go from African culture to British culture. I can imagine it would almost be enough to drive someone crazy and it definitely did a number on him. I would have liked to see his story told in a better fashion with a stronger glimmer of hope. That’s what we watch movies for, right? To hope for something better than the same old mundane shit we deal with on a regular. Farming dropped the ball and I’m damn sad about it.
Acting: 5
I couldn’t tell up from down, good from bad from these characters and, while that is attributed partly to writing, I think it falls on the poor acting performances as well. With the exception of a couple people here and there, almost everyone dropped the ball in this movie. It was almost as if they were making something they wanted no part of and, as a result, never really gave themselves over to it.
Beginning: 6
The beginning was good enough to get my attention. However, definitely didn’t love it. Like the majority of the movie, it was missing something for me. Little did I know, I was in for even more disappointment…
Characters: 1
Cinematography/Visuals: 0
Conflict: 3
Entertainment Value: 4
After twenty-five minutes of watching, I knew the movie was pretty much headed nowhere. It’s hard to enjoy a movie when you spend the majority of it breaking down and destroying the main character until it’s no longer interesting. It was like watching someone pick at a dead ant. The more I watched, the more I lacked interest.
Memorability: 0
Never have a single solitary desire to see this movie again. The message sucks. The movie sucks. “Forgettable” doesn’t begin to describe it.
Pace: 6
The pace is solid in spots but the story is so painful it negates that things are moving quickly. I wanted this to end so many times and it wouldn’t. It frustrated me to no end.
Plot: 1
An interesting premise spoiled by terrible execution. The movie should have centered on empowerment, yet it lingered too long on the tearing down portion. Eventually that becomes a bane to your audience and hard to stomach.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 36
I did sympathize with the main character’s culture shock in Farming having to go from African culture to British culture. I can imagine it would almost be enough to drive someone crazy and it definitely did a number on him. I would have liked to see his story told in a better fashion with a stronger glimmer of hope. That’s what we watch movies for, right? To hope for something better than the same old mundane shit we deal with on a regular. Farming dropped the ball and I’m damn sad about it.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Moana (2016) in Movies
Mar 20, 2020
A delightful journey
In what is probably not a surprise to those of you that know me well, I keep a list of films that I have seen and a list of "top films I need to catch up with." (I know, that makes me a "film nerd" and I wear that badge proudly). In perusing the list, I saw that I had yet to see the 2016 Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson Disney animated flick Moana, so thought I'd check it out.
And...I'm glad I did...for I was thoroughly entertained by the story, the characters, the visuals and the music. How is this film not mentioned in the same breath with FROZEN? It is terrific.
Set in the South Pacific, MOANA, the 56th Disney Animated film, tells the tale of...well...Moana...who works with the Demigod Maui to reverse a curse that he started.
Hawaii native Auli'l Cravalho was perfectly cast as the voice of Moana, she is the perfect blend of perky, smart and grounded with a singing voice that is strong and bold. But this film belongs to Dwayne Johnson as Maui. His demigod is brash, egotistical, and cocky...but there is a tenderness and vulnerability to his character that makes Maui lovable and not arrogant and annoying. This is a delicate balance to make and Johnson balances it perfectly. He has a natural charm and charisma that shines through his characterization. I couldn't think of anyone else that could have pulled this role off - oh...did I mention - he sings!
And that is another part of this film that I was surprised by. The music is first rate. As written by Lin-Manuel Miranda (Broadway's HAMILTON) and Opetaia Foa'i and Mark Mancina, the songs are joyous, fun and drive the plot and the characterizations forward. AS does the direction by Ron Clements and John Musker. It is a fast paced film that doesn't really slow down for audiences to think too much about the plot or plot machinations...and that is a good thing.
Is it a perfect film? Well..no. I found the character of the Sea Creature Tamatoa (Jermaine Clement) and the accompanying song to be..."meh"...it was a bump in a fun road. And...the way the plot was resolved was not entirely satisfying for me.
But...these are nits...for MOANA is more focused on the journey - and the relationship between Maui and Moana - than the destination. And this journey is a delightful one to go on.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...I'm glad I did...for I was thoroughly entertained by the story, the characters, the visuals and the music. How is this film not mentioned in the same breath with FROZEN? It is terrific.
Set in the South Pacific, MOANA, the 56th Disney Animated film, tells the tale of...well...Moana...who works with the Demigod Maui to reverse a curse that he started.
Hawaii native Auli'l Cravalho was perfectly cast as the voice of Moana, she is the perfect blend of perky, smart and grounded with a singing voice that is strong and bold. But this film belongs to Dwayne Johnson as Maui. His demigod is brash, egotistical, and cocky...but there is a tenderness and vulnerability to his character that makes Maui lovable and not arrogant and annoying. This is a delicate balance to make and Johnson balances it perfectly. He has a natural charm and charisma that shines through his characterization. I couldn't think of anyone else that could have pulled this role off - oh...did I mention - he sings!
And that is another part of this film that I was surprised by. The music is first rate. As written by Lin-Manuel Miranda (Broadway's HAMILTON) and Opetaia Foa'i and Mark Mancina, the songs are joyous, fun and drive the plot and the characterizations forward. AS does the direction by Ron Clements and John Musker. It is a fast paced film that doesn't really slow down for audiences to think too much about the plot or plot machinations...and that is a good thing.
Is it a perfect film? Well..no. I found the character of the Sea Creature Tamatoa (Jermaine Clement) and the accompanying song to be..."meh"...it was a bump in a fun road. And...the way the plot was resolved was not entirely satisfying for me.
But...these are nits...for MOANA is more focused on the journey - and the relationship between Maui and Moana - than the destination. And this journey is a delightful one to go on.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The End Of The Tour (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The End of the Tour tells the story of the five-day interview between Rolling Stone reporter and novelist David Lipsky (Jesse Eisenberg) and acclaimed novelist David Foster Wallace (Jason Segel), which took place right after the 1996 publication of Wallace’s groundbreaking epic novel, Infinite Jest. The film is based on Lipsky’s critically acclaimed memoir about this unforgettable encounter, written following Wallace’s 2008 suicide.
So there is the summary. And it tells you what this movie is about. However what that summary does not tell you is the depth of emotion to which both Jason Segel and Jesse Eisenberg deliver in their performances.
Jesse Eisenberg gives a performance that we come to expect from the Oscar nominated actor. Not only can you feel, but you can also and understand his curiosity and jealousy towards Segel’s success. A less successful writer, he wants the notoriety that Segel has. So much so, that he is constantly trying to find the holes in Segel’s persona under the guise of an interview and yet is forced to ponder the things that Segel is saying to him.
Jason Segel’s portrayal of David Foster Wallace is not understated by the word phenomenal. I was skeptical that Segel would not be able to deliver a dramatic performance of this caliber, but I am glad to say I was wrong. He steals every scene he is in and his performance is so deep and thoughtful that Jason Segel himself disappears and we are instead left with a performance of what I will always believe David Foster Wallace was like in real life. This performance is one of the best I have seen this year and I believe he will receive an Oscar nomination for this role. I was fascinated with Segel’s performance that I actually downloaded David Foster Wallace’s book Infinite Jest on my drive home.
Performances aside, this movie is not for everyone. If you are looking for an inactive cinematic experience then this film is not for you. This film makes you think. It is like being a part of a deep conversation with friends trying to make sense of the world. It brings perspective to the society we live in and the loneliness we find ourselves trying to avoid while clinging to meaningless things that bring us simple pleasure. A simple way of living where we go from A to B to C to find meaning, only to obtain those things and then not knowing what we do next. But for those who are looking to escape the mundane summer blockbusters and want to see stellar performances, be sure to check this one out.
So there is the summary. And it tells you what this movie is about. However what that summary does not tell you is the depth of emotion to which both Jason Segel and Jesse Eisenberg deliver in their performances.
Jesse Eisenberg gives a performance that we come to expect from the Oscar nominated actor. Not only can you feel, but you can also and understand his curiosity and jealousy towards Segel’s success. A less successful writer, he wants the notoriety that Segel has. So much so, that he is constantly trying to find the holes in Segel’s persona under the guise of an interview and yet is forced to ponder the things that Segel is saying to him.
Jason Segel’s portrayal of David Foster Wallace is not understated by the word phenomenal. I was skeptical that Segel would not be able to deliver a dramatic performance of this caliber, but I am glad to say I was wrong. He steals every scene he is in and his performance is so deep and thoughtful that Jason Segel himself disappears and we are instead left with a performance of what I will always believe David Foster Wallace was like in real life. This performance is one of the best I have seen this year and I believe he will receive an Oscar nomination for this role. I was fascinated with Segel’s performance that I actually downloaded David Foster Wallace’s book Infinite Jest on my drive home.
Performances aside, this movie is not for everyone. If you are looking for an inactive cinematic experience then this film is not for you. This film makes you think. It is like being a part of a deep conversation with friends trying to make sense of the world. It brings perspective to the society we live in and the loneliness we find ourselves trying to avoid while clinging to meaningless things that bring us simple pleasure. A simple way of living where we go from A to B to C to find meaning, only to obtain those things and then not knowing what we do next. But for those who are looking to escape the mundane summer blockbusters and want to see stellar performances, be sure to check this one out.
Google Analytics Breakthrough: From Zero to Business Impact
Feras Alhlou, Shiraz Asif and Eric Fettman
Book
A complete, start-to-finish guide to Google Analytics instrumentation and reporting Google Analytics...
Humans are Underrated: What High Achievers Know That Brilliant Machines Never Will
Book
What hope will there be for us when computers can drive cars better than humans, do intricate legal...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Crank (2006) in Movies
Jun 26, 2020
Quick Pacing, Bad Movie
When a former hitman’s enemies inject him with a lethal poison that will stop his heart if it goes below an active rate, that hitman Chev Chelios is on a race to find the antidote while keeping his heart pumping at the same time.
Acting: 10
I could think of worse actors to play the role of Chev outside of Jason Statham. He seems like he was made for this type of movie. He brings a successful intensity to the role that kicks the movie into a new gear. Unfortunately it wasn’t enough to save the film as a whole. While other performances didn’t necessarily warrant a 10, Chev is pretty much the entire centerpiece so I’m basing the score off Statham’s performance alone.
Beginning: 10
I honestly didn’t hate how the movie began. It actually gets off to a pretty fast start only to let me down later. If only I knew what I was getting myself into.
Characters: 1
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
For what' it’s worth, the film does a good job of making you feel like you are in Chelios’ shoes. The camera relies on close up shots and jarring movement when Chelios has to “charge up”. The action is also captured fairly well, giving you a true sense of being in the moment.
Conflict: 10
Consistent action abounds throughout the movie. In addition to Chelios kicking much ass, there’s also the matter of him trying to keep his heart pumping while he finds the antidote. There is more than enough conflict to drive the story.
Entertainment Value: 6
While there are flashes of greatness in Crank, much of it is hyped up hyperbole so extreme it makes the movie really hard to get into. I lost count of the number of times I rolled my eyes throughout the movie. What did intrigue me throughout was just how much crazier the movie could potentially get.
Memorability: 4
Pace: 10
Plot: 0
What a dumbass story. That is all.
Resolution: 6
I give it props for an inventive ending. However, it wasn’t a successful resolution in my opinion. We followed Chelios on this entire journey for it to come to this? Nah, just…nah.
Overall: 64
You could tell this movie was going to be a mess from the trailer. Surprisingly enough it has a positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes and it seems to have a cult following. I really don’t get it, even as an action lover. It’s a pass for me.
Acting: 10
I could think of worse actors to play the role of Chev outside of Jason Statham. He seems like he was made for this type of movie. He brings a successful intensity to the role that kicks the movie into a new gear. Unfortunately it wasn’t enough to save the film as a whole. While other performances didn’t necessarily warrant a 10, Chev is pretty much the entire centerpiece so I’m basing the score off Statham’s performance alone.
Beginning: 10
I honestly didn’t hate how the movie began. It actually gets off to a pretty fast start only to let me down later. If only I knew what I was getting myself into.
Characters: 1
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
For what' it’s worth, the film does a good job of making you feel like you are in Chelios’ shoes. The camera relies on close up shots and jarring movement when Chelios has to “charge up”. The action is also captured fairly well, giving you a true sense of being in the moment.
Conflict: 10
Consistent action abounds throughout the movie. In addition to Chelios kicking much ass, there’s also the matter of him trying to keep his heart pumping while he finds the antidote. There is more than enough conflict to drive the story.
Entertainment Value: 6
While there are flashes of greatness in Crank, much of it is hyped up hyperbole so extreme it makes the movie really hard to get into. I lost count of the number of times I rolled my eyes throughout the movie. What did intrigue me throughout was just how much crazier the movie could potentially get.
Memorability: 4
Pace: 10
Plot: 0
What a dumbass story. That is all.
Resolution: 6
I give it props for an inventive ending. However, it wasn’t a successful resolution in my opinion. We followed Chelios on this entire journey for it to come to this? Nah, just…nah.
Overall: 64
You could tell this movie was going to be a mess from the trailer. Surprisingly enough it has a positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes and it seems to have a cult following. I really don’t get it, even as an action lover. It’s a pass for me.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Frankenstein (1931) in Movies
Sep 24, 2019
Everyone remembers the story of Frankenstein, or at least the first part. We all know Dr. Frankenstein assembles his "creation" from the bodies of the deceased and his assistant henchman brings him the brain from a criminal instead of a "normal" brain. His creation is then elevated to the heavens during a lightning storm and given the 1.21 Gigawatts of electricity he needs to regain life and drive the DeLorean back to the future! (Come to think of it, that might be a different film!) 😋
What you may not remember is the 2nd half of the film where the monster, presumed dead, wanders the countryside searching for the meaning of life and meets a young girl. The two sit by the shore trading flowers and tossing them into the water. The monster thinks it would be a good idea t toss the girl as well accidentally killing her.
After hearing about the atrocity, the townspeople form a lynch mob determined to hunt down and destroy the monster once and for all. The creature ends up at a lighthouse where his final fate is carried out.
Some other facts I may not have remember or never knew at all:
-Dr. Frankenstein's first name is Henry (I thought it was Viktor)
-Henchman' name Fritz (not Igor)
-Mary Shelley's opening writing credit is listed as Mrs. Percy B. Shelley (lame)
- The Monster's acting credit at the beginning is listed as "?" (not until the end credits is Boris Karloff given his due)
-No soundtrack during the film at all other than the opening and closing credits (I found out from the film historian DVD audio commentary in film music wasn't begun as a normal practice until sometime after this film's release in 1931)
Some other facts you may not remember is how excellent Boris Karloff really is as the monster. He takes you from hating him, to loving him, to feeling pity for him in the course of his limited screen time.
Also, for the time period, the set design and cinematography are breathtaking in glorious black and white. You really feel you are there with Frankenstein as he creates his masterpiece and watches quickly while he decidedly begins to regret his decision.
This time of year is fun to watch the spooky and scary. In this case, this classic is both and is not that long so you can watch more than one Frankenfilm tonight!
What you may not remember is the 2nd half of the film where the monster, presumed dead, wanders the countryside searching for the meaning of life and meets a young girl. The two sit by the shore trading flowers and tossing them into the water. The monster thinks it would be a good idea t toss the girl as well accidentally killing her.
After hearing about the atrocity, the townspeople form a lynch mob determined to hunt down and destroy the monster once and for all. The creature ends up at a lighthouse where his final fate is carried out.
Some other facts I may not have remember or never knew at all:
-Dr. Frankenstein's first name is Henry (I thought it was Viktor)
-Henchman' name Fritz (not Igor)
-Mary Shelley's opening writing credit is listed as Mrs. Percy B. Shelley (lame)
- The Monster's acting credit at the beginning is listed as "?" (not until the end credits is Boris Karloff given his due)
-No soundtrack during the film at all other than the opening and closing credits (I found out from the film historian DVD audio commentary in film music wasn't begun as a normal practice until sometime after this film's release in 1931)
Some other facts you may not remember is how excellent Boris Karloff really is as the monster. He takes you from hating him, to loving him, to feeling pity for him in the course of his limited screen time.
Also, for the time period, the set design and cinematography are breathtaking in glorious black and white. You really feel you are there with Frankenstein as he creates his masterpiece and watches quickly while he decidedly begins to regret his decision.
This time of year is fun to watch the spooky and scary. In this case, this classic is both and is not that long so you can watch more than one Frankenfilm tonight!
Simpler Pro
Productivity and Utilities
App
* Over 3,000,000 people love Simpler Pro :) Your address book is a mess? Simpler Pro will fix it in...