Great Film, but…
-
zurabinho — 17 years ago(April 01, 2009 01:02 AM)
I actually thought in Bride of Frankenstein she was used a bit too often, and it made her performance redundant and didn't serve the movie : as great as she was in these two films (absolutely loved her in the Invisible Man), it seems she always plays quite the same way. But I only saw her in these two
-
Knoxvicious — 15 years ago(May 16, 2010 07:42 PM)
I watched the bonus features on this and I remember film historians saying James Whales just LOVED the woman who played the inkeepers wife just BECAUSE she was so annoying and dramatic. But I have to say, it got extremely annoying after a while
www.simplydustinhoffman.com
-#1 site for Dustin Hoffman fans- -
franzkabuki — 14 years ago(July 05, 2011 10:42 AM)
I thought her over-the-top screaming - especially when there was actually no particular reason to scream meaning, most of the time - was totally hilarious. And Im quite sure the director was aware of it as well; lots of funny stuff in the movie.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
chipe — 14 years ago(November 06, 2011 02:16 PM)
Whether she served a good purpose or not, I agree with Whale she was a delight to watch, very amusing and much of the film was meant to be funny.
While here, I'll add two things about this entertaining movie:
(1) while I liked the innkeeper's wife, too many of the other characters (cops, townspeople)were just like her: funny faced, silly acting boobs. It got tiring (and silly) after a while, too many buffoons.
(2) I wish I had time to document this, but it seemed to me that the movie had lots of director flaws in it! A lot of scenes ended abruptly when there were great opportunities to milk them for more. And Travers (the father of Stuart), who is a great character actor I suppose, seemed very weak here. He delivered his lines without any enthusiasm, as though he were bored! -
bradford-1 — 13 years ago(November 02, 2012 11:59 AM)
Whale had worked with O'Connor in some British stage plays and loved her. She could also tone it down, if you see her in THE INFORMER (1935). And she was pretty restrained, comedically speaking, in ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD.
"May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?" -
SidekickinWhiteFury — 12 years ago(April 23, 2013 07:34 PM)
It is important to realize, that in these very early films, the actors got their training on the stage.
Stage acting is much larger and hammier than screen acting.
Television acting is different from screen acting, and stage acting is different from both.
The hamminess is forgivable here. Great film. Loads of fun.
This film is 80 years old. You can't think about it in 2013 terms. -
Trax-3 — 12 years ago(July 23, 2013 08:43 AM)
The acting here by most of the supporting characters is terrible by the standards of any time and medium be it stage or film.
It seems to me that the director thought that the kind of people who might go to see an horror film don't appreciate fine acting anyway so why waste time on it.