Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Bluebeard (1944) review
It's a good adaptation of the story I've heard in the past, but I prefer the story over the film, for this has more problems.
PLOT:In 19th century France, Gaston (John Carradine) is a pretty successful artist and puppeteer, well known among his community. Little does his area know that he is the notorious killer known as "Bluebeard", who strangles his victims and dumps their bodies in the river. When he murders on of his fellow puppeteers, he hires another assistant named Lucille (Jean Parker) to design costumes for his puppets. Meanwhile, the painting of his latest victim hits the gallery via his business partner, Lamarte (Ludwig Stossel), and a couple inspectors try to trace the murders back through to the artist. Will Bluebeard be caught? Will he trick and do away with his new assistant? I'll leave you there. It's a pretty good plot executed fairly well.
ACTING:The performances in here were pretty great, keeping in mind the time being. John Carradine played a very respectable role of Gaston or "Bluebeard", the artist and serial killer. I'd say he played the part in a very sauve manner. The other shiners would be Ludwig Stossel as Lamarte, Henry Kolker as Deschamps, Jean Parker as Lucille, and Teala Loring as Francine.
SCORE:The score was a little annoying at times and unfitting at others. It followed you through the whole film and didn't cease to keep suspense at all. This is one of those films that nearly gets drowned out by the score.
OTHER CONTENT:This film was a pretty good horror film considering the time being and the plot altogether. It was pretty well thought-out, creepy, and shot with good direction. However, this film did have a good few cons. Firstly, I feel it needed a bit more character development for some of the characters. Gaston's character had a slight explanation of why he paints and kills, but I felt it needed a bit more to express their personalities better. Secondly, there is very little suspense written into the plot. The audience knows who is going to be the killer right off the bat, and the kills aren't too suspenseful at all as compared to other films of this era. It also drifts from the story I heard with this same name a time ago, so I found it a bit misleading. It can be a little confusing to some, but I think it's a pretty good horror film for the time.
OVERALL,a good horror film with a well-executed plot, great performances, annoyingly unfitting score, thought-out plot twists, creepy moments, and good direction, but it need more character development and suspense, along with matching source material.