Platypuschow
Joined Jan 2015
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings17.1K
Platypuschow's rating
Reviews1.8K
Platypuschow's rating
Plot
The first filmed version of Frankenstein. The young doctor discovers the secret of life, which he uses to create a perfect human. Things do not go according to plan
Cast
Unfamiliar with those involved.
Verdict
I'm somewhat of a completionist and I went through a spate of watching every single Frankenstein adaptation from the loyal to the comedic to the just plain odd and naturally being that this is the first ever filmed version is where I began.
Now when it comes to films from this period you do of course need to look at them very differently, it's not that you must lower your expectations as that's rather ignorant it's that you must adjust them and respect the limitations of the time and take it for what it is.
There are plenty of both shorts and features from this period I've enjoyed greatly and amongst the Frankenstein adaptations were some masterworks but this alas is not one of them.
I'm not a fan of silent cinema at the best of times, I do prefer it when a musical score is placed over them but even then I tend to find their choices very distracting and usually ill fitting.
Frankenstein here is undeniably historic, unquestionably a pivotal moment in cinema history but let's not create a bias for ourselves and convince one another that means that it's good.
Frankenstein (1910) is bland, ugly and lacks entertainment value in this age.
Rants
I think that's something people need to get past, just because a movie is a "Classic" or even "Cult" doesn't mean it's good by default. People raise such things as if they're untouchable and cannot be criticized, they can and they should be. Nothing should be as such, nothing should be free from subjectivity.
The Good
Undeniably a breakthrough for its time
The Bad
Boring Questionable score Nothing more than a forgettable stepping stone.
The first filmed version of Frankenstein. The young doctor discovers the secret of life, which he uses to create a perfect human. Things do not go according to plan
Cast
Unfamiliar with those involved.
Verdict
I'm somewhat of a completionist and I went through a spate of watching every single Frankenstein adaptation from the loyal to the comedic to the just plain odd and naturally being that this is the first ever filmed version is where I began.
Now when it comes to films from this period you do of course need to look at them very differently, it's not that you must lower your expectations as that's rather ignorant it's that you must adjust them and respect the limitations of the time and take it for what it is.
There are plenty of both shorts and features from this period I've enjoyed greatly and amongst the Frankenstein adaptations were some masterworks but this alas is not one of them.
I'm not a fan of silent cinema at the best of times, I do prefer it when a musical score is placed over them but even then I tend to find their choices very distracting and usually ill fitting.
Frankenstein here is undeniably historic, unquestionably a pivotal moment in cinema history but let's not create a bias for ourselves and convince one another that means that it's good.
Frankenstein (1910) is bland, ugly and lacks entertainment value in this age.
Rants
I think that's something people need to get past, just because a movie is a "Classic" or even "Cult" doesn't mean it's good by default. People raise such things as if they're untouchable and cannot be criticized, they can and they should be. Nothing should be as such, nothing should be free from subjectivity.
The Good
Undeniably a breakthrough for its time
The Bad
Boring Questionable score Nothing more than a forgettable stepping stone.
Cast
Not familiar with anybody involved. Alice Oliveira was surprisingly good here.
Verdict
It's a rarity I give a movie a 1/10, because that means a movie has absolutely redeeming features and that's quite the accomplishment if I cannot see one single memorable, enjoyable or competent thing throughout its run time.
Shadows Side from all the artwork looks like we're going to see something Lovecraftian, one poster I saw even featured portal right out of Dr Strange. Let me be clear, there are no portals, no tentacles, and everything used to advertise this movie is just a lie.
The movie a cheap and nasty tale with cringe inducing special effects, a plot that makes absolutely no sense and where ultimately nothing actually happens and I found myself unforgivably bored to the point that the movie became a chore to watch.
It's so dull, and the dubbing? Or at least I think it was dubbing actually managed to make it worse.
Shadow's Side isn't worth your time, it doesn't even have a novelty value like Scyfy/Asylum/ITN movies it's just terrible.
Rants
Cover art seems to be the way indie filmmakers really push their film. They can't make the film look good but they can at least reel you in with some striking memorable artwork (Even if most of it is AI). They can create anything regardless of whether it's actually featured in the movie. Shadows Side is a fantastic example of this, they lie before the opening credits have even rolled.
The Good
Nope
The Bad
Terrible dubbing Incredibly boring Plot makes no sense Really ugly Dishonest cover art.
Not familiar with anybody involved. Alice Oliveira was surprisingly good here.
Verdict
It's a rarity I give a movie a 1/10, because that means a movie has absolutely redeeming features and that's quite the accomplishment if I cannot see one single memorable, enjoyable or competent thing throughout its run time.
Shadows Side from all the artwork looks like we're going to see something Lovecraftian, one poster I saw even featured portal right out of Dr Strange. Let me be clear, there are no portals, no tentacles, and everything used to advertise this movie is just a lie.
The movie a cheap and nasty tale with cringe inducing special effects, a plot that makes absolutely no sense and where ultimately nothing actually happens and I found myself unforgivably bored to the point that the movie became a chore to watch.
It's so dull, and the dubbing? Or at least I think it was dubbing actually managed to make it worse.
Shadow's Side isn't worth your time, it doesn't even have a novelty value like Scyfy/Asylum/ITN movies it's just terrible.
Rants
Cover art seems to be the way indie filmmakers really push their film. They can't make the film look good but they can at least reel you in with some striking memorable artwork (Even if most of it is AI). They can create anything regardless of whether it's actually featured in the movie. Shadows Side is a fantastic example of this, they lie before the opening credits have even rolled.
The Good
Nope
The Bad
Terrible dubbing Incredibly boring Plot makes no sense Really ugly Dishonest cover art.
Plot
As winter rolls into a small Midwestern town, the locals get more than just snow. As the dead start to rise.
Cast
Tony Todd, in alas one of his paying back to the industry rolls.
Verdict
Have you seen Zombies (2016) starring Tony Todd? Then you don't need to see this. No let me be clear, I'm not saying they're similar movies I'm saying they're the same movie.
As I booted this supposed 2024 movie up my heart warmed seeing Tony Todd, after all he at time of writing isn't even on the credits. However, he looked weirdly young for a new movie. Then what I was watching felt awfully familiar and I looked into it further. This is Zombies (2016) marginally edited, with a new title card, bit of additional marketing, new name and re-released almost a decade later.
Bit insulting right? Zombies (2016) was an awful movie and this right here is the same awful movie but with added foolishness on top.
Rants
Let's not kid ourselves this isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened, but this one stings a bit for some reason. Can you imagine a person paying for this!? Only to find themselves watching a movie they'd already seen 8 years prior. Are there not laws against this? If not, why not?
The Good
Tony Todd
The Bad
Ugly Poorly acted Unoriginal to remarkable levels A re-release of an existing movie.
As winter rolls into a small Midwestern town, the locals get more than just snow. As the dead start to rise.
Cast
Tony Todd, in alas one of his paying back to the industry rolls.
Verdict
Have you seen Zombies (2016) starring Tony Todd? Then you don't need to see this. No let me be clear, I'm not saying they're similar movies I'm saying they're the same movie.
As I booted this supposed 2024 movie up my heart warmed seeing Tony Todd, after all he at time of writing isn't even on the credits. However, he looked weirdly young for a new movie. Then what I was watching felt awfully familiar and I looked into it further. This is Zombies (2016) marginally edited, with a new title card, bit of additional marketing, new name and re-released almost a decade later.
Bit insulting right? Zombies (2016) was an awful movie and this right here is the same awful movie but with added foolishness on top.
Rants
Let's not kid ourselves this isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened, but this one stings a bit for some reason. Can you imagine a person paying for this!? Only to find themselves watching a movie they'd already seen 8 years prior. Are there not laws against this? If not, why not?
The Good
Tony Todd
The Bad
Ugly Poorly acted Unoriginal to remarkable levels A re-release of an existing movie.