From then to now, All the harry potter movies.

It sure has been a long ride hasn't it?

I mean Jesus. I was actually a fan of the books before the movies came out, but that is quite a feet, because I was bloody eleven as the first movie came out! Eleven, barely out of the diaper and still clutching to my teddy-bear at night.. actually I still do that now that I am twenty, but that's beside the point.

I was excited as hell when the first movie came out, and I enjoyed it to, I owed it all with potter, posters, video games, mugs, twigs I found in the wood and could call wands, plastic cups.. yep.

But now I am an adult and do reviews for a hobby, so I have my boring adult glasses on, bear with me for this one.

I actually re-watched all the movies in preparation for this article, so you can't say I am not doing my homework… or you can.. because I spend my time either writing or watching movies instead of doing school work.. what ever.

It all started back in the year 2001.

At the time, Fantasy movies weren't nearly as many as today.. that is to say. The genre was kind of dead to the world, same as superhero movies.

(try an imagine a world without at least two summer releases of super hero movies and a fantasy movie per summer, I dare you.. but that was how it was at the time.)

This meant two things for the movie upon the release date.

1; due to lack of comparison of the genre and lack of competition, the movie had an a lot easier time surviving the wrath of critics and movie goers a like. So though standard my not be the greatest, it could get away with it.

2; though quality wasn't so good it could get away with it.. and make lots and lots of sequels.

Today when a fantasy movie is being released, we can't be sure that it will have a sequel, even if it's a filmatising of a book series, it does not guarantee sequels (The golden Compass, Eragon, Vampires assistant.. pick one!)

That is damn lucky for the first harry potter movie, because it only works by the promise of sequels.

It spends three fourths of it's time setting up story and universe and only the last quarter is plot. That is usually inexcusable for a movie. And as I said, just because you make the first book into a movie doesn't mean you get to do the next one. That is a stupid assumption.

But having said that, the rest of the books did get filmed as well, and having that knowledge in hand, it would have been inexcusable not to set up the universe probably in the first movie.

There is no real answer to this, there isn't even any compromise clear to me.

The movie holds up as a fairly standard childrens fantasy movie, what it lacks in plot it thankfully gains in originality, there really isn't any franchises out there quite like Harry potter. you can say what you like about Quidditch, but it will still be original and unique to the potter verse.

However, I personally would have liked something a little more over the edge of normality, but that is a matter of taste.

And this movie gave us something that would be the dominate part of the next seven movies. Sets and cast!

Thank god those are right! The adult cast have always been and always will be superb, and the children cast is differently not the worst child actors I have ever seen, plus they grew into it later on and all grew into actually pretty damn good actors. that is pure luck!

There is only one casting choice I have any questions about what so ever, rest is perfection. And this might surprise a lot of you people..

Well… Alan Rickman as Snape.. no no. hear me out for a second.

In my mind, Alan Rickman is both the best choice ever and the worst choice ever, there is good and bad sides to this, so I guess we should talk about the good first and the bad second.

Well good thing, Alan Rickman is born to play parts like Snape. He doesn't sound nor look like something you would want to trust, yet he is so damn fascinating to just watch and listen to, the way he swoones around slick as a fox, he is made for swooning black robes, his deep hypnotising voice, he have a very unique presence and demeanour, just something about him you can't really explain, you just glance at him and knows there is more to the guy than what meet the eyes. When he steps into the room you know he is there, his presence is that great, he knows how to give an evil stare and he understands how to convey deep emotions without saying a word. Not anyone would be able to play Snape, it requires a very highly skilled actor, and Rickman is that. The part could easily have been horrible miss castet, it isn't.

Here's my conflicted reasoning, I think Alan Rickman is to old.

A lot of Snapes tragedy is lost on the fact that he were in his late fourtiesh in the first movie and is now.. well almost sixty. It does make a huge difference that a man is 31 or 48, especially when his reasoning is lost love. I kind of even want him to be younger in the books, and I fell he kind of is in the books, after all, Rowling keeps referring to both him, Lupin and Sirius as "young." Though they are the same age. But that was the age to make the story possible I suppose, hell what would you want? Making James and Lily having harry in the age of 17? That's a litte disturbing.

My other reason why I am a little vague about Rickman.

Snape is not a pleasant person, he is very unpleasant! Snape both looks and sounds unpleasant,you really don't want to be stuck with this guy. He is tall, gaunt, sullen.. you know, how people who have hated life the past twelve year usually looks like.. extremely unpleasant company. repulsive in fact.. he is a gian greasy bat in lack for better words.

Alan Rickman is hot!

You can't deny it, those smooth movements and his awesome voice sends shiver down any felines spine, it's nothing to be ashamed of girls. Though that does present our problem, I would love to be stuck in a room with Rickman, doesn't matter that he is mad at me, because he seems so fascinating and mesmerizing.. that is Rickman, not Snape.

But hell, he is the movie Snape now, there is no denying that, and I can enjoy his superb acting. So I guess I have chosen just to roll with it, and just wanted to point it out.

It only took a year for next movie to come out. "Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets." Which were released in the winter of 2002.

Now we are at a point where we have already seen the cast, sets and universe, so things aint as fresh and new any longer, and the flaws of the director of the first two movies, Chris Columbus gets a lot more glaring and obvious.

Of all things, Columbus's greatest flaw towards these two movies is that he was way to faithful to the books.

The first two movies is almost page for page re-cap of the books. And no matter how you put it, that is not the same as making a good movie.

Despite Chamber of secret being the second shortest book, it is the longest movie out of all of them, and it's a slow clunky ride. We should be able to quickly move on to the plot now that we spend an entire movie setting up the universe, but apparently not.

I am not here to diss the books, they are perfect in my mind! They are early childhood and my entire youth, so even if I wanted to I couldn't say as much as one bad word against them. However, movies are not books, movies only have that much time and needs to pick a focus and stay with it to have continuously flow that keeps up the excitement in each scene, and makes each scene lead to the next. The books have a lot of themes going on, so the movies actually have to choose and focus, the first two movies failed miserable at that.

That is not to say this movie does not have it's salvaging factors, as I said. It is extremely faithful to the book, I don't care, Gildory Lockheart always made me laugh, and Kenneth Brannagh is perfect in the part. most importantly, the magic is intact.

It's not a downright bad movie, but it's not that great either, it is a bit to close to be bad, it is for the most part.. average.

So, the problem with the first two movies was that they were way waaay to faithful, concerning themselves more about being as much like the books as humanly possible rather than standing as good movies in their own right, even to the point J.K. Rowling (god bless the genius!) were drawn a bit to much into the mess, even she stated she was more concerned about the movies being enjoyable than overly faithful, thought she looked forward to see the Quidditch!

In the year 2004 we have the next instalment, enter two new important people.

Chris Columbus did at this point decide to wave goodbye to the franchise and hand to steer to someone else, coursing our first change in director.

Enter the French film director Alefonso Cuaron. Known for his darker children's film.

Interesting choice, well he were known for children's fairy tales at the time so it seemed to make perfect sense, but still as he as a director is known for a very distinct expressionistic style and mood in all of his prior movies.

And the change of the director can be felt instantaneous.

Thank god, this is an actual movie and not a wannabe book.

At this point the books had started growing in plot and themes, and the movies would no longer be able to get away with trying to follow the books page for page, sentence for sentence.

Though the first thing to springs to eye is not the new found ability to have focus, but the over all changed style. Gone is the bright children's colours and in its place we have a dark stylish fogyish world. Cuaron is differently bringing his own style, but it's differently not devoid of childish magic, actually the misty mystical fog gives a lot more magic if you ask me, especially when comparing to later films, I love Caurons over all style, "A little Princess" and "Children of men." Both his movies are movies I enjoy highly, and the misty style suits harry potter a lot, I love it's not so clean any more, but a little dirty, if you leave things foggy and a little less see through, it does appear more magical really.

The other person we need to bit welcome at this is a bit of a controversy. Sadly Richard Harris who had played Dumbledore in the two first films, and had done so to perfection, had passed away and the part had to be re-casted. Entering Michael Gambon.

However, as I don't mind him to much in this movie, lets wait to talk about him until the next one.

Prisoner of Azkaban, at last picks a focus and stays with it, delivering a good paced picture that keeps the attention to the very end and entertains, it is all in all actually quite a good fantasy movie.. but.

Yeas, there is always a but isn't there?

The third book is one out of two books in the series which is not about Harry.

Yeah that's right, the third book is actually not about Harry, what it is about is what came before Harry, it's about his mom and dad, the Marauders and the events leading the Harry's current situation.

Without Lupins condition, Sirius's friendship.. Petigrews betrayal.. Harry's world would have seemed a lot different now wouldn't it? The entire world would have seemed a lot different, and this book is about explaining what happened.. The movie kind of fail to notice this at all.

The plot is kind of the same but the explanation and reasoning is gone. The map and nicknames are there, but not as much as one line of dialogue tells why it should matter. It doesn't mention the Fidilus charm and exactly how Petigrew supposedly betrayed Harry's parents.. they never talk about just how close the Marauders friendship was. And dude, they became freaking Animagi for Lupin, it would have to be a god damn close friendship!

So.. literately, this movie is a very beautiful figure sculpted by a capable sculptur, but missing a leg.

It's a nice experience which probably entertains most people, though then they would probably just go home and forget all about it. The book gave us so much to reflect about and imagine for us selves, it's the story of the story within the story.. urh.. Well it is! But sadly... the movie is not.

Though.. could be a hell of a lot worse.. sigh.. like the fourth movie.

Urgh.. excuse me while I go slam my head in the wall.

…

Thank you!

The fourth movie is a bloody disaster! All the way from what ever the hell Michael Gambon was on, to all the time spend on mindless action instead of plot to the stupid eighties hair cuts to Robert Pattinsons eyebrows.

The brightest point in the movie is that I got to see Voldemort freaking kill Edward Cullen by the sight of him.

Oh yeah.. and Doctor who on crackers.

Anyhow, lets at least try and be serious about this for a moment, though it would be way to easy just to pull a Spooney one on this one and take a mocking walk through about everything I don't like about this.

Again, it's not the book I am talking about. It's the movie, I like the book.

Well, the steer was once again passed on to Director Mike Newell.. this man was a disastrous choice.

As much as I said you need to steer a bit away from the novels in order to get a more focused movie, which is actually a movie, I didn't mean "Take an entire detour." You would need to balance it. And Mike Newell was suffering badly from the syndrome. "Need to make my own vision regardless of source material and what came beforehand" while making this movie.

He didn't even read the fifth and sixth book, which had been released at the time while making this! That is totally inexcusable!

I mean, I will always support film directors who actually have their own vision and stands up for it, that is a good quality. But this situation is rather unique, we are talking about a movie which had three movies coming before it and would have at least three movies coming after it as well, you just can't disregard that.

Apparently Newell had the idea of showing the life of school the way he sees and remember it, as a dark work camp where the teachers are evil and hit you over the head with a book..

Okay seeing Snape hitting Harry and Ron over the head with a book was pretty funny though out of character, but hell. Snape had nothing to do in the movie so it was a clever way to integrate him somehow.. still.

This is Hogwarts, we like Hogwarts.. we want to be at Hogwarts, read the book Newell, it's a magical place. And it brings us to the next problem which I know many is aware of.

Wtf is up with Dumbledore oO;

Gambons portrayal of Dumbledore in this movie frightens me.. it frightens me a lot.

Hell, to this date I remember the cinema experience, I was one month away from being fifteen at the time, so I had stopped using a pacifier… for the most part.

And still I cringed back in the seat and tried hard not to cry while calling for my mommy, seeing Dumbledore looking that grumpy and evil while yelling at Harry traumatized my childhood at the same time as it gives reason to all of the "Evil Dumbledore" fan fics out there.

And it did not happen by chance or because if Gambon, it was Mike Newell's conscious decision to make Dumbledore the cold distant head master… dude.. at least read the fifth book! One of the important themes in that one is that Harry fells betrayed because Dumbledore keeps his distance.. well why the hell would that matter if Dumbledore was an evil gitt in the first place? Honestly.

And why even put so much effort into making the teachers into cold unpleasant shells of the characters they are based on when it really doesn't matter in the movie, plot wise it means nothing! It does nothing! It does nothing for reflection either.. there is simply no reason nor explanation given! The movie spend all of it's time on the Triwizard tournament anyhows, and as I said, spends far to much time on the tasks and to little time on the overall plot, the red threat is missing here and it gives a clunky weird picture where it's hard to find what anyone is trying to say.

At least the highlight of the movie is the finale. It is actually even so good that movie audiences at the time totally forget how bad the rest of it was and left we a good feeling in their stomachs.

I am of cause talking about the church yard scene and Voldemorts resurrection, and it is kind of awesome. Also because there have been build up to this specific point for three movies, the audience had spend so much time just hearing about Voldemort and see various shadows of him, but they were nothing more than that, just shadows. And there he is, in full glory… killing Edward Cullen.

I'm sorry the joke is to obvious.

And I have to give credit where credits due, all people who are actually cool already knows that Twilight is a brain dead franchise for the sort of girls who are giving fanfiction a bad name because they only like graphic slasher fics that only they can read because they have no brain left to burn out from the just wrong mental imprints.

But Robert Pattinson is not that bad an actor, he can be good. In fact, as usual with harry potter, the entire new casting wich includes Moody, Barty crouch junior and of cause Voldemort himself. Is excellent!

So if for nothing else, we have that. Lets please move on to talk about more pleasant things, like the next director who took the steer with the fifth, sixth, seventh and eight movie.

Where the bloody hell did you spring from and where have you been all of my life?

David Yates. As he was announced I had just begun actually getting into stuff like this.. you know, directors and production of movies and shit.

And I was worried, because. Well.. he was unknown. The man had never ever done a cinema movie in his life, all he had done was a couple of television movies and some BBC episodes of TV-shows.

I had a great difficulty understand why you would put a man who so far hadn't moved beyond television behind such a big movie, wouldn't that be quite a gamble?

Apparently somebody in Warner Brothers knew what he was doing, because out of all of the directors, David Yates is in my opinion the best match for the franchise. He both honours the books but also manages to keep a strict story line that interpretates rather than copy, not his own vision of school, but the books them selves, he understands them! more than any of the other directors.

The fifth book can't have been easy to make into a movie, it is the largest book of all of them, and a lot happens. Not only that, the psychological aspect of Harry's journey is not an easy one to convey.

The fifth book is the heroes breaking point, it's where things are now really dangerous and on the edge, but not quite out in the open and Harry suffers the greatest strain, it's the point where he either breaks or learn from mistake and rises to face the real battle.

Every hero in any good story breaks at some point, they must in order to rise again and win the fight. And Harry both breaks and rises simultaneously here in the fifth book.. a rather unique breaking point actually, but well made Mrs. Rowling :D

The movies does not quite get that, but hell how could it?

Dolores Umbridge is possible the scariest female book villain ever! You would not be able to put her probably on screen, by they are making the best out of it anyhow, and what we are getting is one hell of a creepy scary aunty with that sugar smile of hers and evil sweety giggle D:

Scenes like the Umbridge montage where she takes the school, the Weasleys flying around Hogwarts with their fireworks and the battle in the department of mysteries are great fun sights to behold. And on the same time as we keep the story as simple as is possible with such a complex book as Harry potter five (not easy task, which is probably why it doesn't succeed entirely, though it tries.) Yates gives lots of small visual treats to hardcore fans in the back ground, like Nevielle actually caring around a Nimblus Nimblotonia and Luna reading the Quibbler upside down.

That is not to say the movie is perfect, it isn't.. hell, search me I have no idea what the hell Voldemort did at that train station wearing a business suit (the hell? Can anyone explain?)

It gets a bit cramped and a bit bumpy on the way, but my god it actually tries, and it tries to maintain the fine line in between "vision" and "Faithfulness." Quite admirably. It's a job well done and an actual above average movie though not amazing.

And this brings us to the last movie I can talk about right now.

Harry Potter and the half blood Prince.. Seriously I could kiss David Yates, and I am not to shappy looking if I might say so, so he need not run away in horror because of it.

Harry Potter and the half blood Prince is hands down so far the best movie of all of them!

It was also here I became aware of how good Yates is at transcend meanings that was before described with words into visual pictures. Don't say it, show it. That is the difference between a book and a movie.

There are three instances that jumps into the front of my mind while thinking of this concept in the movie.

One is the over all look, of Diagon Alley and Hogwarts.. it made my mid life crisis arrive around twenty years early.

I mean Jesus! The set of Diagon Alley.. empty, devoid of colours.. magic and any kind of happiness.. empty.. before filled up with people.. now empty.. and sad.

I don't ever want to grow up.. what he does with moods and set designs is incredible, it is really telling without saying or using words, just showing... using the same sets, but now so damn empty and cold.

The second instant that spring to mind is when Harry and Ron stands together in the hall of Hogwarts and observes all the small eleven year old kids below them.

Wauw, the symbolic picturing here you know. The eleven year old kids were our starting point, but now they are so big and stuff.. and stands there… and I am missing my pacifier now.

Unlike the third movie it is not misty dark with magic hidden in the corners.. no.. it is dark dark.. devoid of happiness dark.. the kind of dark you get from war and despair, and growing up.. dammit.. absolutely amazing. And so sad! What happened to the colours! same sets just empty as I said, I am having mid life crisis here! And I am only god damn 20!

The third instant in mind, which I think, shows an amazing gift in interpretation and craftsmanship of the director is the scene by the tower in the finale act.

Instead of hiding beneath his invisibility cloak Harry hides beneath a sort of half roof, he have clear view to Dumbledore and he stands by the only entrance to the tower where Dumbledore is.. he is not body binded or anything so he can act if he chooses to do so.

Dumbledore stands up there and is confronted by Draco and the death eaters.

Then Snape arrives, and he is standing right next to Harry.. they are literately inches from each other. Snape signals to Harry to keep quiet by hushing him… and Harry nods, choosing not to act.

That is wordlessly and visually showing Harry choosing to trust Snape, they are that damn close, only inches. The deatheaters has not seen Snape, they have not seen Harry. Harry is not body binded, he could Hex Snape if he chose to do so. But he chose to finally trust Snape… And then Snape kills Dumbledore betraying Harry's trust. wauw.

It is not how it happened in the book, you could not have written it like that in the book. But it is a magnificent movie interpretation, using the medium, as it is, visual. The mood is so extremely intense, even though I naturally read the book and knew what would happen, my heart was still in my throat, and the emotional pay off of Snape's betrayal extraordinary.

That was visual movie beauty!

The sixth book is the other book that is not about Harry, the fifth was his breaking point and uprising, the seventh is the finale stand.

And the sixth is just there in between.. so what do you do with such a book? Well, you reflect on what have happened so far, why it happened, and what will probably happen in the future as well as why.

The sixth book is not about Harry. It's about Voldemort and Snape, and in a way that makes it about Harry to, as Voldemort and Snape is reflections of Harry in different ways.

Voldemorts, Snape and Harry's early childhoods are identical, as eleventh year old children they are identical. They were all raised by the muggle world, and hated it. They all grew up without love, they are all very powerful and intelligent and they are all half bloods. The only thing dividing them and making them different, is the choices that they made.

Voldemort did choose the dark, he did choose to become the dark lord, Harry consciously choose the light, he chose love.. and Snape.. Snape chose something in between.

That is what the book is all about and reflects upon, all though it first became really clear after reading the seventh book and then re-reading the sixth one. Hell, lots of stuff in prior books first made sense after the seventh book! Who would have known Snape spend his childhood scaring Petunia with ghost stories of Dementors? Who would have guessed?

And more importantly, the movie understands that! It uses it and does indeed reflect. The title "Half blood prince." Is not just a reference to Snape, it's a reference to the entire half blood trio of Voldemort, Snape and Harry. And the movie acknowledge that fact. Unlike the third movie which walks around lacking a limp the sixth movies not only honours it's source material, but understands it as well, something the other directors kind of didn't, and on the same time it has the guts to stand on its own as an independent medium.

David Yates.. you are amazing and I salute you.

I can't wait to go in a watch your next movie Thursday!

Oh, and for those blasphemic people who doesn't know of it yet, you should totally go to Youtube and watch the legally uplouded. "A very Potter Musical." that thing and it's sequel is a work of geniouse and features some of the best lines ever written by men.

Remember, you might think that killing people makes them like you, but it doesn't! it just makes them dead.

Thanks, see you with next update or review of the new movie.

The bright side of Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde, from then to now

"Unleash your inner desires, and got a laugh out of it!"

My obsession with Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde have taken me far and wide, and in my search for Jekyll and Hyde related stuff I have stumbled over tons and tons of Spoof’s and comedies.
I don’t think any tale have been spoofed more, and why should it not? The possibilities for spoof’s are endless. The reason why a character would want to turn into somebody else, equally endless and doesn’t necessarily have to be dark. I sincerely believe that we all have an inner smuck we just yearn to try and unleash, just one, we all have tried situations we hated and wished we could trash and crash with no worry for consequence, further more we all have people we don't like we wish we could trash down in the trash can, but our better self restrain us. or at least that happens a lot to me. I am never allowed to be as rude or mean as I kind of want to be once in a while, if there was just some way I could unleash my mean rude side without consequence....


There is even a wonderfully opportunity for farce and all sorts of crazy stunts, on that same note, it’s also really easy to make a fail in this, especially since it have been done so many times, and often instead of create new unique stories, people tend to try and copy what have been done before. I personally can think of numerous way to do a Jekyll and Hyde Spoof right now I haven’t really seen before, so why is it so hard for professional writers? I really don’t know. but lets have a look on some of the truly great doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde spoofs through time. Again, I will just pick does I like, there’s lots of suck out there.





Dr. Pyckle and Mr Pryde silent film from 1925. Starring Stand Laurel from before he started partner ship with Hardy.
Boy, this film is a pearl! You can watch it legally for free on the classic movie archive on the net, and I implore people to do so. It’s the oldest spoof movie I have ever seen, and it’s hilariously funny, its only consistent of classic slap stick, and uses the Jekyll and Hyde story as a back drop for tons of physical gags. It’s such a illuminating experience to watch Stand Laurel in this were you realize how talented the guy is, the acting in this is nothing like his Laurel character, but is so diverse and all over the place yet very funny and just great.
It is literately a spoof, it’s spoofing the 1920 silent movie I talked about in my previous article, and boy is it a pearl, a must watch for horror fans, comedy fans or just plain movie fans. As it’s only 23 minutes long and free to watch, I don’t think it’s to much to ask.




Abbot and Costello meet Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde, a 1953 black and white movie.
Now, Abbot and Costello was one of the many favoured comedy partner acts back in the day, though their act was mostly that the two incompetent people cut stuck in one of their many movie adventures, their biggest movie success and what is considered now a classic is the movie “Abbot and Costello meets Frankenstein” which does not only have Frankenstein in it, but Dracula, the wolf man, the mummy and the invisible man as well. Now the reason that movie today is considered a classic is not because of Abbot and Costello, but because the movie managed to collect such people as, Bella Lugosi, Lon Chaney jr, and Vincent Price to reprise the monster characters they became so famous for in the first place in a funny movie and a tribute to their prime days. And that movie was a giant hit, so it only made sense they would make other “meet monster movies” and one of does was “Meets Jekyll and Hyde” now, the movie is silly let me tell you that right away. It’s camped and silly but does manage to force some laughs for me, the truly epic thing about this movie is horror legend “Boris Karloff” in the part of Jekyll, he is an evil Jekyll who very deliberately turns himself into a monster, sadly when he turns into Hyde it’s not Boris Karloff anymore, but a stunt guy with a rubber mask. What a shame, because Karloff was a master of playing evil, and have in his carriers given evil a great deal of different faces and different personalities. So again, shame that they did not use him probably.





Doctor Jekyll and Mr. mouse 1947/ Hyde and Hare 1955
I put these in the same category as they are both funny short animation. And they are both stuff I remember fondly watching several times in television doing my childhood.
Doctor Jekyll and Mr mouse is a tom and Jerry short where Jerry discovers a portion that can turn him into a strong mouse and he then miss uses this new strength to beat up Tom, most noticeable about the episode is the scenes where Tom or Jerry mixes the poison and sparks are flying everywhere as things combusts around them, again it’s slap stick humour, and as it’s Tom and Jerry it’s really good slap stick humour, good go oll Tom And Jerry.
Now, Hyde and Hare which is a bugs bonnie short scared the hell out of my when I was a kid, the cartoon genuinely frightened me, then again I do believe kids likes to be frightened, it’s about Bugs bunny suddenly finding himself in the home of the nice gentle spirited Doctor Jekyll, of cause Jekyll eventually starts to turn into the monstrous Hyde and scares the life out of Bugs who cannot figure where Hyde’s keeps coming from and where the nice doctor went. A classical Looney toons cartoon, and very scary for small kids.




The Nutty professor, Jerry Lewis version from 1963.
This is probably the first spoof to actually have a message in it, the very obvious message by being yourself, the film is considered a cult classic by many and is considered Jerry Lewis best film ever.
In this Doctor Jekyll, or professor kelp as he is called in this movie is a little nerdy guy who gets picked on and kicked around by everyone, he develops a mixture which transforms him into the handsome yet ruthless Buddy love. Often it happens that the story steps away to focus on the gags, but that is okay as the story and the gags compliments each other well. I really love to see and actor doing something very different than what they are known for, and Buddy love is so far a stray from what you would expect of Jerry Lewis while Kelp is all you normally get from Lewis that it’s a joy to watch. He is literately playing his own counterpart.
The movie is a long run of madness that ends on an actually quite beautiful speech delivered by Jerry Lewis as his character slowly reverses to Kelp from being Buddy love, exposing who he really is to everyone.





The mask, from 1994.
Okay, this is not officially a Jekyll and Hyde movie, nobody have ever said it’s a Jekyll and Hyde movie, but it really is a Jekyll and Hyde movie. It truly is.
Also, it’s the spoof Hyde the most like a prober Hyde in my head.
Meaning, I think Hyde’s are peoples madness unleashed, when Jerry Lewis turned into buddy love a cold restraint which we don’t normally see with him comes above him, when Jim Carrie turns into the mask, he is unleashed in wild madness!
Meaning he turns into a human Looney Toon, which he always were so I guess that’s just perfect casting.
This is a fun movie, very bright and very colourful, on the same time as it spoofs lots of movie themes, it carries the obvious message of “being yourself” but never over exposés it as the movie just want to move on with the funny plot, the imaginary scenes and other less used themes.
An inventive aspect of the movie as that the Mask unleashes a persons wildest desire, the character of Stanley which Jim Carrey’s plays is just such a to the heart nice guy that went he puts the mask on, he at best turns into a wild maniac and sort of a revenging bully, but no one really gets hurt when he have the mask, because his heart is just that pure, so the main issue of the movie is keeping other people away from the mask, who knows what might happen when they put it on, real bad things indeed.






Doctor Jekyll and Mrs Hyde, 1995.
Okay, this is by no means an overly good movie, but it presents an issue I just real badly needs to address. It’s something that have been done tons of times, but never in a good way, especially not in spoofs, and this just happens to be the best try, though that is not saying much.
Sex change.
Now, I love the idea of a female Jekyll and Hyde, I am female and I would love to play that part, I mostly love the idea of a female Hyde, a female savaging beast unleashed, which is the one thing I am never ever getting in any movie nor television show, no one simply dares to write a savage female character without grace, we are never allowed to be Looney without maintaining some grace, which is basically why I started doing my own stuff in the first place. I am to weird for any female character I could get otherwise.
Also this lady Hyde is a restraint graceful lady, who of cause is evil, again, stuff like that was only fun the first ten times, now it’s old. I need over the top.
The most laughable in this movie and what I find that’s the trouble with lots of this kinds of movies is the ending quite, as Hyde for the finale time have turned into Jekyll, Jekyll states, and I quote
“the only way I could ever understand a woman was to become one”
Yeah, that is true. I believe that, but hers the laughable thing, the movie had three writers and non of them was a woman. Please, it can’t be that difficult, when writing a film dealing with this sort of stuff, bring in a woman.
It’s actually policy in Hollywood than we you write about black people, just bring in a black guy to write, why is it not the same with this sort of stuff? I really don’t understand. If you want to write about women bring in a woman, you guys have no idea what we are doing when we are alone with each other. …. Even know I believe the guys who read my last sentence is thinking very wrong and kinky thoughts, if you didn’t do then you do know. You bastards.
btw, when is it gonna be a womans turn to turn into a man? it's always a man turning into a woman not virsa versa.





The Nutty Professor, Eddie Murphy version, 1996.
Yep, this is a remake of the Jerry Lewis film. Though made with Jerry Lewis blessings as he actually did act as executive producer.
It has an interesting idea, now the good hearted professor is over weight and that is what makes him insecure.
Almost all Jekyll and Hyde spoofs features a kindly hearted insecure doctor, but normally he just seems very scrawny and geeky, this is the only place where I have seen them dealing with the mentally of somebody being over weight, that is a very brilliant idea. Being over weight is a horrible feeling and state, even though I have never been down right over weight, I was slightly fat as a kid and teenager, I can very much relate and his early scenes are very emotional for me really, very subtle and very sad.
Then he invents a poison that is supposed to make him loose weight rapidly, and it works as it turns him into the very thin “buddy love” though the split personality comes as a side effect rather than the intent. Though again to my delight, buddy love comes across as the inner beast released while Klump is a very subtle and quite character.
Thankfully the good execution makes an story that have been made a thousand times before very enjoyable and nice. It’s far from being my favorite version of the story, but it’s a nice add to the story.
Sadly, the same thing cannot be said for the sequel, “The Klumps” which is from the era where Eddie Murhpy really went down hill as an comedian, actor and writer. The movie is real bad and has little to do with “Jekyll and Hyde” on the same time of completely lacking the heart that made the first movie stand out for me, and made it worthwhile.





This was my pick of best, most influential and most enjoyable spoofs, probably also the most well known.
I do firmly believe that Doctor Jekyll and Mr.H yde will be around forever, I firmly believe the main idea will be used forever, in comedy and drama alike. Even the drama is best when it’s dark comedy.
The mentality of a multi facaded is somewhere inside of all of us, there is somebody we see ourselves as inside, and then someone we show to the world. I think we would all would love to try and unleash the person we would love to see ourselves as inside of ourselves. That is what I am occasionally trying to do in my videos.
And I also think anyone would love to try and be somebody else for a day or two.
Though, the message the story brings still stands, no matter how much films try to undermines it the message will still be present.

“You don’t need to be someone else, you are good enough!”

Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, from then to now.

and it was as an ordinary secret sinner that I at last fell before the assaults of temptation



My relationship with the story of doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is not bound in unconditional love, it's bound in unconditional fascination that have captured me in its net and have evolved to down right obsession which demands me to see everything that have to do with the franchise, and boy do I have my work cut out for me, I have seen so much doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and there keeps being more. both stuff that is long time lost and really difficult to dig up, or just pops up out of nowhere and there keeps being made more all over. how sweet is that!?
or not sweet, because if there is something most Jekyll and Hyde interpretations does, it's sucking. There are enormous amounts of suck in the history of Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde interpretations, in fact only one tenth seems to be any good, luckily when it does work it is extraordinary good, sexy, dirty and so extremely fascinating. The movies I am going to pick out are the ones I personally find to be any good, which is probably also the most well known films anyhow. but let's have a look shall we.
Jekyll and Hyde is about the good man and honorable doctor, Doctor Jekyll who finds away to separate his bad side from the good by taking a drug, and then turns into a whole other person "Mr. Hyde" who ad the beginning is nothing but Jekyll's lustful side and just acts as a stupid bully, until it all eventually gets out of hand as Hyde gets out of controls and literately kills people, while Jekyll can do nothing about as he is now turning into Hyde without the drugs, and it all goes up in a point.



This book sucks, never in my life have I been more disappointed as when I read the original Jekyll and Hyde book or "the Strange case of Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" as the actual title is, as a fifteen year old. okay, the book is okay I guess, but it is just not what you would expect from this tale. Exactly like the original books of "the Scarlet Pimpernel," and "The Phantom of the opera" the novel is written as bloody mystery novel where we see everything from the point of view of the lawyer mr Utterson who tries to find the connection between doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, not before the very last page is it revealed that they are actually the same person, and so the book never ever deals why the Psychological aspect, nor the characters made journey from point a to be, boring boring disappointing book, and it saddens me. Robert Lewis Stevenson who wrote the book also wrote stuff as "treasure island" which is in fact a very good book. thank god for the adaptations, lest have a look at those.




Okay this might come as a surprise to you, as I guess no one is aware of its existence, it haven't even been released on DVD, but my experience regarding this movie is so unique and kind of awesome that it needs telling. "Den Skæbnesvangre opfindelse" or just English titled "Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is a 22 minute long silent movie from 1910. it's probably the first movie adaptation ever made of Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde, and it's Danish... hey I am Danish!? the fuck O.O
I so marveled when I found out about this, as I said earlier the movie haven't even been released on DVD anywhere, but the raw print still exists in the archives of the Danish movie institutes as a national piece of treasure, and I actually called the instituted and asked if there is somehow I way I could watch it? They were surprisingly happy that I seemed this interested and invited me over for a private screening, which I attended to, and I went to their private cinema in Copenhagen and watched the movie. So I am probably one out of around a hundred people to have even seen this movie. haha awesome story, beat that James Rolf.. the film is okay, it's what you would expect from such an early silent movie and the print was in a really bad shape, it's interesting how they at that early stage managed to shoot a scene where Jekyll and Hyde was in the same room, though actually being played by the same actor, in 1910 guys! I have bloody no idea, but extremely inventive for its time.
the experience was absolutely awesome, and the hunt was on to be the most knowledgeable Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde fan in the world.. though my travels may be far from over.



The American silent hour long "Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" movie from 1920 is probably the silent version most people are familiar with. And it's also put legally up for free on several internet sites including youtube, plus have been released on DVD in numerous times.
Like all the classic silent movies I need to give my usual rant that you need to go and buy a prober version of this with a prober soundtrack if you are ever going to see it, don't see the free youtube version or any free internet versions. just find one with a good well balanced soundtrack, the experience will be completely different.
And with the right soundtrack, it's an awesome movie. So creepy and so dream like, like a nightmare.
There is no other Hyde who looks like this one, he is sort of indescribable, but he looks great, really creepy and scary and I can even trace and evolution throughout the movie that Hyde looks worse and worse every time he appears, he kind of goes bold actually.
One pretty cool transformation scene Jekyll is just laying in his bed sleeping, and a ginourmus spider crawls up in the bed and immerges with him as he transforms into Hyde, and that is probably the best way to describe this Hyde, he looks like a human spider. no really, he does. and very inhuman, which is great. absolutely a movie worth checking out.



The 1931 is differently my favorite version that tries and stay as true as possible to the book. this movie is really incredible awesome.
It's dark, edgy, sexy and does not compromise but carries out it's dark themes perfectly, plus it's entertaining.
Frederich March delivers a superb performance as both Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Jekyll as the young ideal doctor, but not mr goodie perfect as he is rather brash and is put down by his own class who tells he what he can't do, which is really the issue he wants to deal with. And Hyde unleashed which is a bundle of energy, he looks and moves like a freaking monkey, not ever trying to maintain any kind of dignity as he is just raging through the world doing whatever the hell he likes. that is bloody awesome.
As Hyde becomes a growing menace and eventually rapist and downright murderer Jekyll sinks deeper and deeper into hysteric and panic. this movie have no shame but at the same time maintains a sense of class. it is freaking great.
In 1941 the movie was remade with Spencer Tracy in the title role, and I mean that literately as dialogue, sets pieces and plot is exactly the same. only not nearly as daring, sexy. in other words, really boring and not worth checking out when you got the other much cooler version, which even predates it by ten years, sloppy work people, real sloppy.




The British horror company horror productions actually managed to make three different Jekyll and Hyde adaptations, all really unique and stands on their own. one is, "The two Faces of Doctor Jekyll " "Doctor Jekyll and sister Hyde" (no really, it is "sister" he turns into a blood thirsty woman, and no, it's not a comedy either but goes straight for dark horror feast) and "I'Monster"
My personal favorite of does are "I'monster" which I find to be a real good credible Jekyll and Hyde adaptation, in any case Christopher lee in the main character, you can't go all wrong. plus it follows the idea I have of doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde most closely, and have lots of unashamed horror.
"The two faces of Doctor Jekyll " is just such a weird movie, if not for anything else it is absolutely creative written and doesn't quite end as all other adaptations, plus handling the Jekyll and Hyde persona quite different then I have seen other places.
"Doctor Jekyll and Sister Hyde" is equally weird to watch, mostly because I keep expecting some kind of lame pun regarding Jekyll turning into a woman, but it never ever comes. Hyde just goes on a murderous rampage as in any other Jekyll and Hyde movie as Jekyll realizes how dangerous she is and decides to kill her.
one thing that is plainly obvious in this movie though, that kind of really bothers me regarding female villains is that they are never any fun. Hyde as a character is often really grotesquely funny as he is a rampage and a savage beast all in himself, but women are never allowed to act that way, for some reason women monsters must have beautiful grace and dignity, which was pretty cool the first couple of terms where it was in sharp contrast to their murderous actions, but now it's just boring, I see a woman villain and I now precisely what she is going to give, zero surprises there. and Mrs. Hyde is no different.



"Mary Reilly" from 1996 (get the anagram, Mary Reilley, Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein, anyway). I did not think I would like this movie, after all, it does not take the approach you would usually take for a Jekyll and Hyde movie, but we see everything from the perspective of his servant girl. that's right, Mary Reilley. it is a classic tale of Jekyll and Hyde, only we see all from her point of view as the plot develops. it's a surprisingly good and moody film, it actually manages to deal with the psychological of Jekyll and Hyde as a character, even though we don't spend to much time with them. the growing unsuddenty in the household leaves a mark at the viewer and a sense of claustrophobic helplessness is ever growing as the household is seeing their master slowly growing more and more insane as the manically Hyde appears more and more to terrorize them. The movie does not hide that they are the same person, and it seems like the staff all kind of suspects it, especially Mary, only they don't want to believe it, and so the truth is tearing them slowly down inside of their own mind. a really unique and special movie, but well worth checking out.



the 1997 musical.. I know I know, musicals. I'm sorry, but I just need to.
I have seen this musical three times in three different productions, plus the recorded version with David Hasselhoff.. and they were all tremendlessly different! It's four completely different musicals, even using very different music despite them all kind of being the same score and says its "Frank Wildhorn's" the man have just written so many alternative versions of it, so how the hell am I supposed to talk about this? I don't know, but I tell you something, and that is that I love this musical, again its one of the things I want to really make into a good movie. I own three different soundtracks and I listen to them and I see precisely how I want to make it. The score is great and the song is changing between being brutal and cruel to beautiful that again contrasts the savage murderous things that is going on. Frank Wildhorn the creator of the musical also wrote the Scarlet Pimpernel musical, which I just plainly love. so he is in my mind a very capable and good author and composer. songs like "This is the moment" and "Someone like you" are actually considered huge classics as standalone songs between classical singers, and even if the musical doesn't life on, does songs absolutely will.



in 2007 a six part British television series simply called Jekyll come out, written by Steven Moffat the current head writer of doctor who it's a modern interpretation of the classic stories. actually it only uses the idea of a man turning into a savage beast and uses the tale of Jekyll and Mr. Hyde more as a back grounds story than anything else, actually even the back ground story reminds me more of "Mary Reilley" than anything else related to doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the real story takes place in present day and is more of a psychological thriller with some hardcore action in it to.
Now, they are a lot of divided opinions about this, some people seems to hate it as they find it to complicated. I personally plainly love this!
It was such a treat for me as all modern interpretations of Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde I have seen so far other than this sucks. and this is just such an exciting hardcore disturbing thriller which is not afraid of really digging down and going deep in the psychological exploration of Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and his two personalities, on the same time as being a adrenalin pumped ride Die heart still. Hyde as a character is a total show stealer and is as disturbing yet fascinating as any Hyde character I have ever seen, despite he doesn't have disturbing make, he simply doesn't need to as he is disturbing enough as it is, you just don't know where you have him, and keeps expecting him to do something truly horrible. he truly is a psychopath or largest degree.




Well, this must be this for new. as I said, new adaptation keeps popping up everywhere, right now I have two whole major adaptations to look forward to, one is set to be released in 2011 with Keanue reeves in the title character. I don't care much for him, I think he have the emotional equeliant of cardboard, but maybe we actually will see him being released in a mad rampage as Hyde! I would love to see that! I don't think I have ever seen Keanue reeves being unleashed in any emotional way, at all. neither in the Matrix movies.
The other one is that freaking Guillermo del Toro is going to make his version of the story.
I love Del Toro as a director, I love his art directing and his heavy emotional style, Pans Labyrinth is easely one of the most disturbing fantasy films I have ever seen. and Guillermo Del Toro and Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde seems like a match made in heaven for me, my heart is singing clear and loudly and I am crying tears of joy.

So, that is probably how it will keep on going with Jekyll and Hyde, lots and lots of crappy adaptation with great shinning lights in between. I would not want it in any other way.

Kevin Smith, once a counter Clerk always a counter clerk

in 1994 Kevin Smith as a no name borrowed 27,575$ from the bank, and from these money made a movie with his best buddies. And that became the underground cult phenomena "Clerks" About the two counter clerks "Jeff and Dante" and there to say the least fucked up renting store and all the fucked up people who visit it, everyone is on weed in this movie and it's filled to the brim with disgusting, disturbing and vulgare jokes and most of the comedy lays in the dialogue.


And the dialouge is perfectly written! that would later proof to be Kevin smith's all time strongest point and a feed no one else can copy, perfect over the top funny dialogue.
Tons and tons of comedy film have since tried to copy Kevin smith's obscure vulgar style, and they all fail horrible as they think just because you write "dick" and "pussy" in the dialogue, it's funny. it is not, but Kevin smith can pull it off, and this movie is genuinely funny. disturbing... but funny.

Already in 1995 in cause of the box office hit Clerks had, despite only being showed in few underground special theaters, he made the comedy "Mallrats"


This is by many ways one of his weaker movies, but there is a lot of things excusing this, this was the first time Kevin Smith had to direct while a studio was constantly watching his neck and demanding changes in his on purpose Vulgar and obscure writing, and as a newby he complied and let the studio have to much influenced, and it can be felt in the movie as it seems to be a tamer affair than should have been. There are some few laugh here and there, but what should have been two hours of hilarity is just moderately funny.





In 1997, his widely critically acclaimed movie "Chasing Amy" had its release.
This is one of the two of my personal favorite Kevin smith films. I think this movie is wonderful, it's sad, it's genuinely funny, it's something I can relate to and it have so much heart in it. and you can really fell that.


This movie the kevin smith that have been attempted copies on the most, and they all fail because they miss the heart this story have. The story and the big end dilemma is as obscure and odd as ever, but it fells like a natural evolving of characters from the dialogue, and the dialogue is really beautiful. Kevin Smith's own character "Silent bob" probably makes the best little speech in all of Kevin smith's carrier, and this film is a no brainer and must watch for any film geek who want to trace the latest tendencies of trashy film makers who make trashy pretentious movies. this movie however is not pretentious, it is just very true.





In 1999 the very geekly acclaimed movie "Dogma" came out.

And I tell you why I say geekly acclaimed, it's because critically it was only acclaimed sort of moderately, but all geeks in the universe who knows Kevin Smith and have seen this seems to worship this movies to the sky's. Geeks everywhere is still praising this movie and acclaiming it's mighty awesomeness.
.... I don't get it...
Seriously, I don't. I mean, not to say that I dislike the movie, I do kind of like it and it have lots of cheap laughs in it, but ingenious? I really don't think so, as far as I am concerned it's two hours of harmless fun and no more. If Kevin Smith really wanted to, it could have been a lot more, I do see a lot of potential in the story, but it seems to me Kevin Smith did not even want to make it more than innocent fun, and so it isn't.


For crying out loud it has a "poop monster" in it which is defeated by an deodorant which silent bob carries around with him so he doesn't have to smell to Jay's farts.

And that's this movie, because it's Kevin Smith he can pull it off, other film makers can't, but it's really not that ingenious piece of worship geeks are making it out to be.

"Jay and silent bob strikes back" from 2001.
If people are in any doubt how much Dogma is a piece of unpretentious fun, then you would have to be dim not to realize that that is exactly what his movie is.


two hours of unpretentious fun.
I don't even have anything more to say about this movie, it's just a little snack for the Kevin Smith fan base with reference to earlier work and featuring his two arch type characters of the totally wasted and doped Jay and himself as silent bob who is, as the name indicates, silent.
I got no more, it's just a package of jokes, laughter and fun. I'm empty, it's not a bad movie but there is just nothing more to it. god.

on the other hand "jersey girl" from 2004 is worthy hours of talking and analyzing.
It was a miss step for Kevin smith, the movie is not very good even though it really tries it's very best. When watching this, I do believe Kevin Smith was very honest in his intentions and I see what he tries to do. it just doesn't work.

Kevin Smith is an ever growing artist, and you can fell that in his work as he grows in life, his works grow with him, he had just done two pieces of mindless fun and now wanted to do something with steady ground in it. it just falls short and flat but it's a very forgivable miss step and when a movie creator makes a miss step, after only having done good movies, what really do count is how he decides to get back on his feet's?

2004 DVD special release called. "And evening with Kevin Smith"
This is sort of cheating, as the DVD is just a collection of videos of Kevin Smith answering questions and telling stories to his fans on stages around the US, but it is so hilarious to watch, Kevin smith is the born story teller and standup comedian, he is interesting to listen to and most of all, absolutely hilarious, this video can be seen legally for free on Google videos, and I would very much recommend it, and it does not matter if you have seen his movies or not, he is comedy gold. and if for nothing else, he makes the best Tim Burton impersonations I have ever seen.

Thank god for "Clerks II" which was released in 2006, precisely twelve years after "Clerks" it's the perfect way for Kevin Smith to get back on track, because this movie is brilliant. with "Chasing Amy" this is my favorite Kevin Smith movie, I really love it.
As the title might suggest, it's a direct sequel to Clerks. ten years have passed for the two main characters, and yet more importantly, ten years have passed for Kevin Smith as well. "Clerks II" have the obscure vulgar humor from the first "Clerks" film, but also the sophisticated growth of it's creator. it's again a very honest movie with lots of hearts, which makes it so good and unpretentious despite it's quirkiness.

For me, it does not matter if the viewer have seen "Clerks" or not, because this movie stands so well on it's own that anyone can watch it, and they should, because it's a very unique and fresh experience, again the dialogue is just perfect and the characters their own and obscure. a wonderful little piece of movie.

oh crap.. this year 2010 Kevin Smiths latest movie "Cop out" came out. I don't know how the describe the experience of this movie, but I am gonna try.

Anyone remember when Tim Burtons "planet of the apes" came out? well first of all it weren't a good movie, but in my mind more importantly, it did not fell like a Tim Burton movie at all. it was a weird head scratching experience where you just sat there and waited for a little sign of "Burtoniness" and as the Credits came on you tipped your head to make sure Tim Burton really is in the credits and thereby involved in the movie, and when his name did role up you furry your brows and ask yourself... where the bloody hell is Tim Burton is in this movie? I don't see any trace of him nor his still, this just doesn't fell like a Tim Burton film.


That is "Cop out" and Kevin Smith.. I know Kevin Smith directed it, and it is plainly obvious that he didn't write it, as the only film he ever directed he didn't write. but there is no trace of the uniqness of Kevin Smith anywhere in the movie, he is untraceable, and the movie is not very good either. it's pretty bad and is the same kind of movie that we have seen thousands of times before in cop movies, so I am not even going to talk about.

"Jersy girl" was a miss step, but it was clearly a Kevin smith movie, this was not. and it doesn't seem like his next movie will go in his old style either, though at least he wrote it himself, I dunno.

But at least he showed after doing his first real miss step with "Jersy Girl" that he knows how to bounce back stronger than ever with "Clerks II"

Maybe white this major miss step of "Cop out" he is gonna bounce back with the best movie he ever created widely to be acclaimed as a master piece, only the future will tell.

Kevin Smith have stated that there will be no more movies with Jay and Silent bob, and there are many devided thoughts upon that among fans.

Personally, I find it to be a good thing. Kevin Smith have grown as a story teller and a director, he have become older and having two guys in their mid thirties hanging in front of a wall aint as cool or fun as them in their early twenties, the creators and faces of Jay and silent bob have grown away from the characters, it's wisely of Kevin smith to put them to rest, and Clerks II was the perfect way to do it.

Frankenstein, from then to now.

Ah yeas Frankenstein.
The man who created a monster out of corpses and thereby defied the laws of nature, which he came to pay for pretty dearly.
All though, how dearly depends on the adaptation you're watching.
The original book was written by female author Mary Shelley when she was only 19 years old, on a dark stormy night all the way back in 1818.
I really love this book, and I never get tired of reading it as I always discover something new even though it's not a heavy large book, it's not even half as long as Dracula but have so much more going on for it, and it doesn't drag me down, as old classic novels often does, I really can't believe it was written in 1818, almost two hundred years ago. that is just incredible.
lots of stage plays were based on the book through the 1800 century, and there have even been made more than one silent movie, one of them is legally free to watch on youtube, which is just a very odd little ten minute long movie, if you wanna put ten minutes aside go ahead, but its really campy old, low in production and just all around weird.





the 1931 Frankenstein movie with Boris Karloff is probably the one most people are thinking about when talking Frankenstein, even though few people have seen it. This movie just created all the mental imprints we have. the look of the lab with all the sparkly light thingies all around, the castle on a hill with lighting in the back ground, the graveyard which just looks so bare, the hunchbacked assistant, the creator yelling "It's alive", villagers charging the castle with hay forks and touches, and of cause the look of the monster.
All of these things is in the movie. Now its important to remember, non of this stuff had ever appeared in a movie before this, this movie doesn't use old clichés. it created them from scratch. And the movie is well checking out for any horror fan of any horror genre, because this is the movie where it all really began. its a cool movie.



The sequel "Bride of Frankenstein" from 1935 is a stunning experience. it doesn't have so many things in it that would eventually become clichés, but it is actually a better movie.
It is just so beautiful, well acted and preformed, well written and all that stuff. it's really a sequel worth its title and time, taking what the first movie brought and taking it a step further, just as any sequel in reality should. one cliché this movie created however was the blind old man with the violin, and the scenes he is in is just so filled with emotion that it's unbelievable, you wouldn't quite believe it, but that's how it is. a really cool and beautiful movie, and this is my personally favourite movie of all the universal classics.

five other sequels have been made, but they are not nearly as good nor influential as these two first movies, and is really only worth checking out for hardcore fans.




In 1957 the british horror company Hammer Productions made their first major horror, which was Frankenstein. through time there were made 7 Hammer Frankenstein films all in all, all with Peter Cushing as Viktor Frankenstein.

These movies are awesome, instead of having the same monster appear again and again like in the universals movies, Frankenstein was the one to reaccure, each time with a growing insanity as his obsession of creating a monster that works grows which each movie, really making Peter Cushings performance the highlight of each movie and the entire film series, non of the monsters have ever hardly anything to do. they are kind of camped and not always visually stunning, but the horror and the mood are always very much present which is what makes these movies so great.





in 1974, Parody maker Mel Brooks made his master piece in both comedy and spoof movies. "Young Frankenstein" this movie is both beautiful to look at, have class, is daring and vulgar and is funny as hell. Both Gene Wilder as Frankenstein and Marty Feldman as Igor, both comedians known for plenty of other stuff delivers the performance of their life, and the performance fans would continued widely claim to be the best they ever gave.

The movie is a love letter to the old universal Frankenstein movies of the 30's as the style is completely replicated and the movie shows nothing but respect towards its origins. its well worth checking out.




in 1990 Tim Burton made the movie "Edward Scissor hands" which is quite a different kind of Frankenstein tale, where the maker is not involved in other but few flash backs scenes, though the themes is very much the same themes as is often used regarding the monster in the classic Frankenstein movies.

I really love this movie, it's one of the movies out of my childhood, and I just love everything about it. It really have an all around fairy tale fell about it, and its just so cute and funny though at the same time developing a serious dark undertone towards the end.

Personally, I believe this movie paints what Tim Burton was all about in his pride, and sadly he have kind of forgotten with his last few movies, though this glimpse of the past is well worth checking into. one thing is for sure, even November as the first snow falls outside of my window, this movie will be popped into my DVD machine.



In 1994 Kenneth Bragath made his version of the Frankenstein "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" and put himself in the main role as Frankenstein. Already as production had hardly started he claimed this to be the definitive version of Frankenstein.
sigh... I can't stand film makers that have the arrogance to call their version of something "The definitive" especially with something with such a big legacy, as pr usual I havn't hardly touched all that that have been going on in this franchise, it's legacy is just huge.

Is it definitive then? well, its a lot more faithful to the original novel than any of the above mentioned films, but that doesn't make it entirely faithful, and I just don't find it that exciting either. It's a bit to pretentious and a bit to bland to me and really trips over itself in the story telling and becomes muddled as it tries to much, all though it really tries, and of cause over ambitious is always better than under ambitious, I just don't fancy this movie that much.
If you want to see a version that rocks that is incredible faithful to the novel watch the two parter television movie with John Huston as the monster from 2006, it's awesome! and unbelievable faithful to the original novel.




And this year 2010 we had "Splice"
I did not exspect to get a Frankenstein film delivered, but that is kind of what it is.. well of for nothing else than.. awesome to go and see a Frankenstien film in cinema! though... really disgusting and disturbing Frankenstein... YUK!
though, how often do I say yuk of a recent horror film? not to often I have to admit, so yeah, applaud.

It really is Frankenstein, the main characters are even called "Clive and Elsa" which is obviously named after Colin Clive, who played Viktor Frankenstein in the 1931 movie, and Elsa Lanchester who played the bride in the 1935 sequel. awesome!


now this isn't a perfect film, but for a horror fan who likes campy, cheap shock evil dead effect horror over things that doesn't even try an be all smart with itself. its a treat, and I throughout enjoyed it. despite a couple of "huh" moments, I was never bored and that counts a lot for me in recent horrors as most horrors bores me to dead.

well, awesome. I went to cinema and expected a new kind of boring Matrix but got a kind of fun Frankenstein, this franchise is just to good to ever really die.