They have a lot of the creative ideas i like and i have 3 or 4 movies im writing that are awsome my real name (frankie goucher) promised keanu teeves a free script thats awsome under my writing name (Sean Scott) called Who's Laugh'n Now!! Very intense sick and good story i based off keanu, kate beckinsale and jason statham im basing keanu charchter of his (the gift) type but i also want to send them and my top 5 actors one free from my gift and huge movie knowledge we need a crank 3 refueled rude crude nude exploded! With jason statham and amy smart plus a chris pratt and (kurt russesl daughter) Missing !!! And a comedy but goid idea for a major league last season ! Charlie sheen wesley snipes was a huge movie and the sequals ill forget were made but till my sean scott name owns the writing but i can say a bit of major league remember rick vaughn whis now on his last season and has it in his contractvto not shave his veg head but he had onenight stand with suszanne dorn well she got pregabt and has a child who pitches for his dads team ny yankess (dorn) former tesmmate to ricky and the manger of indians is tom bernengger and wesley back fir his last season willy mays hays and wikd thing vs his son thats not known to him or son till later bringing back radio disc jocckey the indusn beating drums and the big yankee killers still having never one a world series jake talks him into one last season run and the new team owner should br awsome but we need a crank 3 it allready be writing but bern hacked but thats getting fixed and get my writing back on track so blum house ill have some intresting scripts you like i have a ton of ideas.
4 Reviews
Pretty dull - seemingly without direction wastes interesting talking heads
RastaVari6 October 2022
Pretty dull, which is a real shame as there are some potentially insightful talking heads (from the Biz and academia) but it just seems really poorly conceived and directionless.
Its a real worry when in the first episode one of the first statements from Blumhouse describes Frakenstein as a) a monster and b) American. Maybe it'll fill out and offer more but after the first episode I'd describe it as school media studies project made by a child who's just got into scary movies and thinks blood, creepiness and nail-varnish makes them interesting whose parents have great connections in the industry but has wasted that nepotism.
Its a real worry when in the first episode one of the first statements from Blumhouse describes Frakenstein as a) a monster and b) American. Maybe it'll fill out and offer more but after the first episode I'd describe it as school media studies project made by a child who's just got into scary movies and thinks blood, creepiness and nail-varnish makes them interesting whose parents have great connections in the industry but has wasted that nepotism.
Inaccurate history
kingsemi27 October 2022
Leave it Jason Blum to butcher horror history. The first episode completely skips over Lon Chaney and his Universal films like they didn't exist. How can you not talk about "The Phantom Of The Opera"? No mention of Paul Leni's masterworks "The Man who laughs or "The Last Warning ". It just jumps into Dracula as if Universal has never dabbled in the Horror genre. Fun real fact, Lon Chaney was going to play Dracula until he passed the year before because him and Tod Browning had made the lost film "London After Midnight" together.
Following Dracula they talk about the other monsters in the catalog, clumping The Wolfman in with the 30's monsters, cause according to this episode Universal Monster's died out in the early 40's, even though "The Wolfman" was 1941 and jump started the second wave of the shared universe sequels, not to mention the Abbot and Costello stuff which is fantastic. Lon Chaney Jr was the 40's, not 30's.
Another downside to this show was the guest they got to speak on the films, other than John Carpenter and Greg Nicotero, the rest were just people from academia trying to push their narrative on films they had nothing to do with. One goes to say "The Bride Of Frankenstein" was early feminism, cause she rejected the man she was created for. No, she rejected him cause he was hideous and she had yet to realize she was the same as him. Patton Oswald says Dracula played into Kink because people like to be dominated and consumed? UH no.
One also brings up the Hays code and says that it cracked down cause of films like Dracula's Daughter, false, that came out after the Hays code. I don't like people changing history to fit their narrative, there is one truth not multiple.
Following Dracula they talk about the other monsters in the catalog, clumping The Wolfman in with the 30's monsters, cause according to this episode Universal Monster's died out in the early 40's, even though "The Wolfman" was 1941 and jump started the second wave of the shared universe sequels, not to mention the Abbot and Costello stuff which is fantastic. Lon Chaney Jr was the 40's, not 30's.
Another downside to this show was the guest they got to speak on the films, other than John Carpenter and Greg Nicotero, the rest were just people from academia trying to push their narrative on films they had nothing to do with. One goes to say "The Bride Of Frankenstein" was early feminism, cause she rejected the man she was created for. No, she rejected him cause he was hideous and she had yet to realize she was the same as him. Patton Oswald says Dracula played into Kink because people like to be dominated and consumed? UH no.
One also brings up the Hays code and says that it cracked down cause of films like Dracula's Daughter, false, that came out after the Hays code. I don't like people changing history to fit their narrative, there is one truth not multiple.
One long social message
jgpike7 February 2023
Was so looking forward to seeing this and after the first episode it was one continuous allegory for every social, progressive view in the past 50 years. Even without screenwriters saying so everything had to be twisted around to make their story some underlying wrong or victimhood point. I thought this was supposed to be about horror history and how it morphed over time. And get insights from the masters who created it. The movie was about 20% that and 80% trash. I do not recommend this movie for any serious fan of the horror genre unless you want to be preached to. So very very disappointing.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
