In yet another adaptation of the Frankenstein monster myth, director Mel Welles (with co-director Aureliano Luppi) takes our now infamous Halloween villain to a realm where free love is just as popular as monster creation. The backdrop to “Lady Frankenstein” is still the same – mad scientist Barron Frankenstein uses dead bodies to attempt reanimation, but in this re-imagine his daughter, Baroness Frankenstein returns home, after studying to be a doctor, and wishes to follow in her father’s footsteps. She is young, eager, and ready to explore all possible positions in the monster world. Yet, disaster strikes when her father’s creation escapes, killing Frankenstein as well as plenty of town folk. While the initial idea is to stop the monster, Baroness goes a secondary route in hoping to complete her father’s dreams by transforming the brain of her older husband in to the body of a young man named Tom. Love, both physically and emotionally, flies rampant throughout all phases of the Baroness’ plans – and even when fire, anger, and destruction surround our characters, it doesn’t stop the love that they have….literally. “Lady Frankenstein” has the feel of a classic midnight movie. The scenes are dark, the characters are underdeveloped yet likeable, and the scares are minimal at best. One could also argue that this film has that raw ambition that several Italian horror films of the 70s seemed to latch onto and give audiences what they wanted, tons of flesh and large unrealistic plots. “Lady Frankenstein” was no exception. Do not even be fooled by the use of Joseph Cotton, who was nothing short of phenomenal in Orson Welles’ “Magnificent Ambersons”, he is the quintessential Frankenstein doctor, a few turns of a knob, a few stares at electricity, a menacing scream, and you have the character played not only by Cotton, but by most everyone who has attempted to fill these shoes. What makes this film stand beyond others, at least momentarily, is the chaos of Paul Whiteman’s portrayal of the creature and the creepy seduction of Baroness Frankenstein (played devilishly by Rosalba Neri) to nearly everything that walks. These two elements keep you glued to the screen as the full 90-ish minutes creep by. Will the monster get captured? What is Neri’s endgame? Can we get some angry villagers?
Do I suggest that you watch this film? Absolutely. Will you like it? That is a completely different question. “Lady Frankenstein” is for the classic horror viewer. Those interested in what Hollywood is churning out today will probably find this feature bland, scare-less, and choppy, but I challenge you to watch this at least once. It does demonstrate a small ounce of creativity in a story that has been told over and over and over again. Yep, the production is limited, the acting and voice work is pathetic, but there was something about this story that was entertaining. The implausible nature of the story was elevated, and the feeling of escapism – a good feeling for any cinematic journey – was explored, and I think that is what makes “Lady Frankenstein” viewable. Again – one will not find themselves arguing theories about Cotton and his relationship with Neri, nor will you question why Captain Harris cannot seem arrest Tom Lynch on any charges, or that questionable final scene of staying in a burning building instead of running all for love – nope, no detailed conversations will happen. But, the sheer enjoyment of this film will remain. I do recommend, but merely as a cult horror film teetering on nearly forgotten.
FILM: Worth one good viewing. Going into it without high expectations results in an original retelling of a tired tale. Nothing worth repeating, nothing worth re-watching.
VISUAL: As if you just dusted it off after discovering it at your favorite unique video store (on VHS of course!)
SOUND: Classic Italian horror.
EXTRAS: Nothing except chapters, which was surprising to see. This is as bare bones as it gets. Enjoy the film, but an audio would have been nice.
Found in John Stanley's "Creature Features", this is my second L-in this book. I am impressed. My first was a rewatch, and this being my first original, I thought that it was par for the course. I look forward to the next four to see what I have been missing in the 70s and 80s when it comes to creatures, horror, and cinema. I am going to give this one a pink mark. I don't think I will watch it again, but it was a blast the first time.
No comments:
Post a Comment