hellholehorror There are obvious problems with this movie. The sound is so bad at times that I had to put subtitles on to understand the dialogue. Some shots are horrifically exposed; the movement is poor, dirt on the print horrific and jump cuts regular. But this is over eighty years old. Quite good for the age. I don't think that they tried to shock and sicken with this film. They wanted to create a drama behind the scenes of a circus. It turns out to be a perfectly paced and brilliantly developed. There are few films that I can think of that take this kind of theme seriously. This is a fantastic and enjoyable horror drama. It is what you think that they will do that is scarier than what you see. It has a satisfying ending and good pace where you feel the relationships. I didn't notice the disabilities. Enjoyable but not something that you would watch often due to tone and technical.

Irishchatter This movie is really sad, like it shows the way people with different deformities were treated so badly. What was really shocking, was that the story goes that a dwarf man is in love with a beautiful French woman who is able bodied and is using the dwarf for his money. Even worse, she actually is getting jiggy with that world strongest man guy. Seriously, it is just seems so f*cked up and that does go to show how back then, the way they treated people with disabilities rotten. I have to say, although the ending was brutal, it was a good revenge plan at the same time. I mean, she was cruel and deceitful to Hans especially trying to kill him with poison. I suppose maybe that scene considered this as a dangerous movie or the fact, it had disabled people on it. This is my first time ever watching a 1930s film that showed people with different needs. I just wish this film was receiving credit, the actors were brilliant and I'm giving this an 8/10!

ironhorse_iv Although, it was chosen for inclusion in the National Film Registry in 1994 and is considered by many to be a classic by many; 1931's Freaks still can makes some people feel uncomfortable, watching it. After all, a horror film about killer sideshow performers will indeed, raise some eyebrows even in today's extreme world. Some people still feel, that it is a horrific exploitation film. It can be certainly be argued that, since the film does somewhat invites audiences to gawk at, and eventually fear, the so-called "freaks" of the title. However, others audience members see it, as a mostly sympathetic portrayal. After all, the one-dimensional villains, strong-man Hercules (Henry Victor) & Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova) was indeed conspiring to murder one of the freaks, in order to steal his large inheritance. In my opinion, the sideshows revenge plot was somewhat justified, because of that. Although, I agree with the sympathetic people; I still have to say, there are somethings about the film that still can be criticize. Not everything in this film was perfect. One is the notorious bad-acting from both the real-life sideshow performers, and the actors chosen to play the villains. The dialogue was really hard to heard, due to the thin German & Russian accents, some of the actors, had. Other times, the dialogue was some badly written, that it just doesn't sound natural, coming out of a performer's mouth. Although, director Todd Browning and his uncredited screenwriters offer frequent reminders of the sideshow performers' humanity, there were tons of parts in the film, where, the sideshow performers were looked down, upon, as children, rather than real-life adults. Other times, the camera somewhat linger, for a little too long. While, the 'slice of life' sequences, were somewhat entertaining, and does help expose, who these supporting characters, are. Plus, I understand, that director Tod Browning had previously worked as a contortionist in a traveling circus, but what does showing a long sequence in which a performer use her feet to do everyday activities, in an almost ballerina style grace, have to do with the main plot? Nothing. It really doesn't help, force the main story, along, at all. It felt like padding. Despite that, I still would had love to see the original now-lost 90 minute version, rather than the 64 minutes movie, we got, instead. Much of the violent sequences of the freaks attacking the villains was removed. Not only that, but a number of comedy sequences and most of the film's original epilogue was also cut from the film, due to executive meddling. Instead, a new prologue featuring a carnival barker was added, as well, as the new epilogue featuring the reconciliation of the tiny lovers, despite the fact, that the happy ending, doesn't work; as it come across as jarring and out of place. After all, how does a circus performer at that time, honestly, makes that much money? I never heard of millionaire midgets, before. Plus, it's disturbing to think, that they got back together, seeing how both of the actors, playing Hans (Harry Earles) & Frieda (Daisy Earles) were indeed brother and sister in real-life. Despite that, I do like, the fact, that they did cast real people with deformities as the eponymous sideshow "freaks", rather than using costumes and makeup on conventional actors. However, it's a bit disheartening to hear, that the sideshow actors, were banned from the MGM commissary due to complaints from other actors. Not only that, but were getting underpaid, compare to the normal actors for the same amount of time. Despite that, I like how 'Freaks' does seeks to unseat its audience's expectations and challenge their biases in a way. At the time, that was pretty daring for any major Hollywood released to a movie like this. Even today, some studios wouldn't even dare, go the lengths that this film does. For that, I have to give MGM, some props for that. It's just sad that this movie bomb at the box office for being too offensive. It even supposedly, cause an audience member to have a miscarriage. It got even worst, as the film was then sold off to exploitative, second-rate distributors in 1947 who truncated it, toured it and renamed with altered names like 'Nature's Mistakes', 'Forbidden Love' & 'The Monster Show'. Only to have it, then banned in the UK & parts of the US for the next thirty years after those releases. It's also sad, that this film, pretty much, ruin Tod Browning's film career. Yes, he did directed a few more films through 1939; however, he never had the success, as he had, before, making 'Freaks'. Was it, worth it for Browning? Yes, indeed, in my opinion. One gets an even stronger sense of Browning's likely motivations and intentions with this movie, when one read the source material, in which, this film was based on. Author Tod Robbins' strange and brutal short story "Spurs.", presents all of the characters, more monstrous and selfish than Browning's version. Another thing, while Robbins' story goes for broad comedy and more making fun of the disability, Browning's more sensitive adaptation finds something pointed and tragic instead. It's shows that Browning honestly care about, making this film, and it shows Overall: Browning's film powerfully grapples with the cruelty that people are capable of inflicting, when they fail to recognize someone else's humanity. That, rather than sensational exploitation, is why this movie continues to endure. It's a good movie to watch, but not a perfect film like some modern viewers think it is. Still, it's worth watching.

framptonhollis Is Tod Browning's 1932 film "Freaks" really a horror film? Well, somewhat. Some scenes towards the ending are really chilling, and the entire film has a haunting and unsettling atmosphere. Actually, the movie would be even better if it was a bit longer, which it originally was. There's thirty minutes that were cut out of this film and no ones been able to see it since a test screening in 1932. It was cut because the audience seemed to be disturbed and shocked by the footage. A woman even threatened to sue MGM because of how disturbing it was for her.And even without this so called shocking missing footage, "Freaks" is still genuinely haunting and even disturbing at times. "Freaks" is certainly a film that is far ahead of it's time, and that explains why it was very under-appreciated back in its day. It destroyed director Browning's career, and was a box office bomb! But, luckily, its gotten a second chance with film goers and is one of the ultimate cult classics.The film really does deserve the cult status, it truly is one of the best films of the 30s and definitely deserved some recognition! The freaks, themselves add quite a bit to the film, as well. Real circus performers were cast, including a man with no arms or legs and a half man/half woman, among plenty of others.Although some of the acting is pretty bad, it was the 30s, most films had some pretty bad acting, and a lot of the people in this film were, as I said, not actors, but actual circus performers.Browning's film is a masterpiece of the creepy and absurd, with touches of humour and heart.