Freaks (1932), directed by Tod Browning, is a unique blend of drama and horror based on Tod Robbins's short story Spurs. The film stars Harry Earles as Hans, a man with dwarfism who inherits a fortune, and Olga Baclanova as Cleopatra, a trapeze artist who manipulates him for his wealth. Other notable cast members include Daisy Earles as Frieda, a fellow dwarf in love with Hans, and Henry Victor as Hercules, Cleopatra’s lover. The film features real-life sideshow performers, adding authenticity to its portrayal of a tightly-knit circus community. Set primarily in the circus, the story follows Cleopatra's cruel scheme to marry Hans, poison him, and claim his inheritance. Despite Frieda’s warnings, Hans falls victim to Cleopatra's charms, only to discover her true intentions. The freaks unite to exact vengeance on Cleopatra and Hercules, culminating in a chilling climax where Cleopatra is transformed into the grotesque “human duck” seen at the film's beginning. The cinematography is dynamic, employing tracking shots and close-ups that heighten tension and drama. The wedding scene, where Cleopatra mocks the freaks, stands out with its striking use of camera angles to convey both the humiliation of Hans and the ominous unity of the freaks. The film’s setting contrasts the grimy circus with Hans’s luxurious apartment, underscoring the disparity in the characters’ worlds. Freaks elicits deep sympathy for its titular characters, portraying them as kind and loyal while casting Cleopatra and Hercules as true villains. However, the freaks’ vengeful transformation challenges this sympathy, creating a sense of unease. Browning’s depiction raises questions about the consequences of oppression and the capacity for revenge. While Freaks could be viewed as a drama, its intent to evoke fear firmly places it in the horror genre. The psychological tension surrounding the freaks’ retaliation is its most unsettling aspect. Though less visceral by modern standards, Freaks remains a haunting and thought-provoking film, blending empathy and horror to powerful effect.

Man this horror film is truly a masterpiece it's both soap opera and body horror and Tod Browning who terrified us with Universal Monsters and Tod really terrified us and shock us in freaks is really lovely at first and then bit by bit it turns to ultimate shock in horror and really great writing especially the iconic lines that sounds joyful but sounds horrifying and Browning is truly a magnificent queer horror filmmaker history.

There's part of you that wishes you were a freak in this very attraction, as you work your mind and heart through this masterpiece. "One of us one of us Google gobble Google gobble".

This is not a horror movie, it feels like a tragic drama and it can be quite disturbing if you're not used to grotesque scenes such as the ending scene (No spoilers) This was truly a special story by Tod Browning about "circus freaks" or as I would say disabled kind people. It's truly done in a humane way towards these unique individuals and shows their daily life. Schlitzie stole the show with his incredible personality and you can tell her really enjoyed filming. Hans and Frieda were also brilliant in their performances alongside Cleo and Hercules. This was raw talent at its finest. Prince Ramdian does an incredible thing as well with a cigarette. Every unique person in this film shined and even the people who had no disabilities. The ending was quite disturbing however, I personally didn't find it too disturbing because, I've seen way worse lol The Walking Dead Season 7 Episode 1 was more disturbing than this. I could see some people who would find this disturbing and might not be used to grostesque gory films or shows. It's a great film overall and I would definitely recommend it to anyone who is willing to see it.

It is disappointing that we will never get to see the original uncut version but what is there is still beguiling and dramatically satisfying.

A good an shockingly earnest look at a group of circus performers, for the era it doesn't feel exploitative at all. Awesome last 10 minutes.

Exploitive and gross.

Semplicemente bellissimo e che fa pensare molto, in alcune scene anche divertente. Chi è un mostro lo è dentro, non esteriormente. Non capisco perché sia stato inserito nel settore horror.

Back when Hollywood hadn't yet adopted the Hays Code, you could get away with so much on film that would be unconscionable for close to 3 decades, and that's where Freaks come in. Given the title, and rather unappealing line from the poster ‘Can a full grown woman truly love a midget?', you'd be forgiving for thinking this was just a piece of cheap exploitation, the cinematic equivalent of wandering through a circus in the early 20th century and being encouraged to gawk at all the people on display because they ‘don't look like us.' But no, it's nothing like that. Freaks has been reappraised in later years as being very empathetic and generous in its depiction of people with deformities, especially considering when it was made. It's a message that clearly went over most people's heads at the time, as it bombed at the box office and effectively killed the director's career. The titular freaks are hampered but their deformities, but they're not defined by then. They aren't the enemy, they're just people trying to make a living. The able-bodied performers are the ones who concoct the schemes, who prey on those they see as less than themselves. The film is a mirror that's held up to society to expose its true ugliness, the one that's staring them in the face when they see their own reflection. But another thing it gets right is its unwillingness to venerate the disadvantaged simply because of who they are. They can be jealous, abrasive and dishonest, just like everyone else, and its similar to 2021's CODA in that regard. For me, the horror elements don't really come into play until the end, when the story briefly becomes about a bloody revenge. The filming techniques, as well as the visual and audio quality have aged considerably, but it's messages about tolerance and self-reflection likely never will.

It's always interesting to see what films truly pushed the envelope and broke boundaries for their time. One film that is no stranger to this fact is Tod Browning's Freaks from 1932 - an unforgettable, disturbing, and unfortunately outdated horror film bringing humanity to what would be considered real sideshow circus acts. In addition to being groundbreaking and controversial, the film hosts a great narrative, meaningful life lesson, and a truly harrowing and suspenseful ending that still brings discomfort to audiences today. However, a lot of the social statements, scare factor, and performances are beyond outdated these days, making the oddity that the film strives to be a little mundane and ordinary. Tod Browning's most controversial film was banned for over thirty years in the United Kingdom, and, in looking through the goggles of a casual viewer back in the 1930s, it's no surprise. The film made a painfully-accurate statement on the perception of physical differences by including real circus acts and deformed individuals in its cast. Almost all of the cast has some sort of deformity that would've been mocked, gawked at, or found entertaining inside of a regular circus. Dwarfism, amputees, and birth defects of all types are used in this film as a tool to instill a shock factor in its audience, but not without a good cause behind it. As the film progresses, it's easy to see that these actors aren't just used to shock and scare the audience but to deliver an important lesson that rings true to this day: don't judge one another for one's physical appearance. One scene in particular that shows this is where a man nastily reports and comments on the physical appearance of the individuals as they're outside playing. The response of one of the more normal-appearing circus members is that they're just children that she likes to take out and play in the sunshine - like normal children. In addition, the film's ultimate climax shows that these individuals, while physically different, can still be hurt and hurt others just like regular people. It all paints a perfect picture of the aforementioned lesson that all of us should be treated equal and with respect because in reality, we're all not that different. The ultimate climax mentioned earlier is one of the reasons also that this film remains disturbing to audiences still today. After the pretty, able-bodied trapeze artist, Cleopatra, and her muscle-man partner, Hercules, lead on one of the dwarves and tries to poison him for his money, the deformed circus performers band together with a plot that's built up to in the most suspenseful of ways. Every scene you see with the performers afterwards show them looking onward at the two villain characters in a very intimidating and judgmental manner. The tone of the film completely changes from occasionally fun and in good light to menacing and ominous. There are no more running in-jokes or playful conversations between the circus folk - only a heavy, angry silence. This helps build suspense up to the big climax where the deformed circus folk let their anger and bitterness known by pulling weapons on and attacking Cleopatra and Hercules - deforming both of them in brutal ways. Afterwards, we see the former trapeze artist turned into a sideshow act of her own - a speechless, deformed goose or chicken of sorts. Her tongue, lower body, and one eye are gone, her hands are smashed, and she's been tarred and feathered. Unfortunately, we don't get to see what happens to the muscle man, but in doing research, I've found that the original ending (which is now lost to time) showed that he had been castrated, thus turning him into a bizarre sideshow act as well. The final reveal when we find out what happened to Cleopatra still shocks and unsettles to this day as it is quite brutal no matter how you think about it, and I love how timeless that aspect of this film is. The ending may be quite a timeless shock, but the same can't be said for all of the film; not everything can stand the test of time. Some of the acting performances (counting out those who are deformed beyond speech and action) are very dated. The performances embody the physical acting tropes and stereotypes of the time - overdramatic and exaggerated. In addition, the social statements used in the film and the overall scare factor have aged pretty terribly. There's a character used as a joke in the film who is "half man and half woman" and is spoken about in a way that is very much insulting and not politically-correct these days. The same can be said about a couple of characters that are female conjoined twins - the way they are used and spoken about in the film is very much not acceptable by today's social standards. As for the scare factor, the film, while having the suspense, disturbing climax, and excellent narrative, falls short as a horror film by today's standards. While a lot of the subject matter and shock factor may have hit like a ton of bricks back then, it doesn't even come close to some of the big-name horror films of modern cinema. It feels more like a disturbing and suspenseful social commentary rather than a terrifying shock-fest when looking at it with today's eyes. I do still consider it a horror film as that was its intent, but a lot of audiences today probably won't feel the same as it doesn't scare anymore outside of the ending. Tod Browning's controversial masterpiece, Freaks, may not have lasted the test of time when it comes to scares, performances, and social standards, but it still remains iconic with a great narrative and fantastic lesson on treating everyone with respect - no matter how different a person may look. It still has loads of suspense and an ending, at least, that will still shock anyone upon first viewing. It's a veteran of horror film in its own right - it didn't age so well, but it still packs quite a punch if you're not expecting it, and in many ways at that. This fact alone makes the film an oddity worth seeing. 8/10 - Great after all these years.

Sensacional, um terror diferenciado, acho a fotografia lindíssima.

There can be few movie directors who managed to squander their popularity more magnificently than Tod Browning. Before making Freaks, he was riding high on the success of his adaptation of Dracula the year before. While Freaks did not end his movie career, it did deliver a blow to his reputation from which he never recovered. After the success of Dracula, the studio gave Browning considerable freedom in his next project. It was a decision that they would soon have cause to regret. The director's response was to draw on his own upbringing in vaudeville. Browning was a man who genuinely ran away from home to join the circus, and his early career involved work for sideshows, carnivals and circuses. Like Phroso, one of the most sympathetic of the ‘normal' characters in Freaks, Browning was a circus clown. Browning pushed the boundaries of taste even further with Freaks, a horror movie that featured real ‘freaks' – sideshow performers marked by some kind of ‘abnormality'. The result was one of the most remarkable troop of entertainers assembled to act in a movie. Let us have a look at who some of them were. By the time the film studio realised what Browning was doing, it was too late. When the studio head Louis B Meyer saw the entertainers, he was horrified and tried to have the picture shut down. The film was completed however, and shown to test audiences. It did not go down well, and one woman threatened to sue MGM, claiming it caused her to have a miscarriage. This led to the studio to make a decision that is deeply regrettable in hindsight. They cut the running time of the film from 90 minutes to 62 minutes, and tacked a happy ending on it to make it more palatable to audiences. I can only sadly speculate on how special the movie might have been if it had not been butchered. These efforts at damage limitation were unsuccessful. Audiences and critics were aghast by what they saw. The film was banned in the United Kingdom for over 30 years, one of the longest bans in cinema history. Australia banned it too, and technically it is still illegal to play Freaks in some parts of the United States, although the ban is now ignored. In the circumstances, the movie ran at a heavy loss off $164,000, and Browning was only allowed to make four more films during the rest of his career. It took until the 1960s when censorship became more relaxed, and audiences developed more of a taste for shocking subject matter before Freaks was re-evaluated, and acquired its present higher status. Even today the content of Freaks is unsettling for audiences, and for some of the same reasons that it appalled people over 80 years ago. The content of the film is a mixture of exploitation and sympathy for the ‘freaks'. The only monstrous characters in the film are the ‘normal people' who mock or strike the ‘freaks', and who say and do cruel things, culminating in attempted murder. There are a few likeable ‘normals', such as Phroso (Wallace Ford) and the seal trainer Venus (Leila Hyams), but they are few. On the other side, the ‘freaks' are portrayed as being innocent, trusting and honourable in themselves. As the barker says at the beginning, "Their code is a law unto themselves. Offend one, and you offend them all." There is a tension, even in this sentence since it portrays the ‘freaks' as potentially dangerous to others when crossed, and the atmosphere of dread at the end of the film is clearly enhanced by the physical appearance of the avengers. The very title of the movie reflects its ambivalent treatment of the ‘freaks'. It is a sensational title likely to attract cinemagoers' interest, but it was an accurate name for what the entertainers were called in those days. There is also room for doubt about who the real freaks are – the decent entertainers with the ‘deformed' appearance, or the characters who look physically normal, but whose personalities are mis-shapen instead. Personally I am sympathetic to both schools of thought – that Freaks is exploitative of its subjects, and that it is making a plea for tolerance and acceptance. The attitudes offered in Freaks were advanced for their time, and are still more advanced than the attitudes of some people today. It is sad that Browning's career should have suffered from making Freaks, because it is in hindsight a genuinely unusual and original piece of cinema. I wrote a longer appreciation of Freaks on my blog page if you would like to read more: https://themoviescreenscene.wordpress.com/2018/10/04/freaks-1932/

We're all freaks in our own way, & this film reminds us of one simple truth, DON'T TRY TO CHEAT CARNIVAL FOLK!!! #GoobleGobble #OneOfUs #FreaksForever

A love story with a unique cast. Visually stunning but slow in story pacing. IT has a awful audio mix and needs a restoration, very hard to understand.

I don't get why this receives so much praise - almost as if it's the cool thing to do. "Wow this is from 1932 and we'll beyond it's time!" This is simply a revenge film using a marginalized minority that is taken advantage of but gets the last laugh but not really as revenge never feels good. That is literally the film.

1932. WOW! Never heard of this until saw on 온라인카지노추천 2.21.23. Giving it max 5 Rt stars. Listen to audio voice memo. Ending is kinda like the classic NIGHTMARE ALLEY about circus geeks.

Was there ever such code that led to the horrific turnout at the end? A social commentary ahead of its time while being one of the most authentic portraits to be presented cinematically, but also an apparent dissuasion to even go at storytelling lengths based on how the prompt never been quite replicated. Genuinely grotesque with questioned exploitation, however the empathetic intention got grasped just to understand genetically shared humanity beneath the titularly given label. It could've gone further in a different direction without feeding into the fear through an actual sympathetic portrait with depth to explore and understand. Compels over its uniqueness and history, only to have sensitivity overloads into discomfort throughout the film as an inadvertent effect due to the obligated approach. Maybe it was destined its original longer version got considered lost if it's constantly fogged as doubtful for any depths, but the narrative is always open for a better representative portrait over physical and mental hardships with covered beauty. (C)

Classic horror film which was so powerful, shocking and disturbing that it ruined Tod Browning's career; and as shocking as it was back then, it might be more powerful now; as it's only risen in stature over the years. This is ironically both a freak show; and an indictment of the audience for it's ableism in indulging such vicious exploitation. It's as much about outcasts in society and their strange and wonderful world as it is about the vicious prejudice they still experience. It's a terrifying morality tale and also a moving testament of how the handicapped are so punished in society; now and then. This is one of those movies that stays with you long after it's over. It had a direct impact on Ryan Murphy's Freak Show season of American Horror Story; (although Murphy wasn't really working with handicapped and physically scarred people, Tod Browning was!). It's also impacted movies like Batman Returns; as well as many others. The fact that Freaks came out over 90 years ago and is still indisputably one of the most powerful and disturbing horror movies ever made is a testament to it's effectiveness and to the talents of ousted filmmaker Tod Browning.

Movie is watchable, with a few notable scenes, but overall impact torpedoed by some really amateurish acting. Surprising pre code dialogue and suggestive scenes helped retain my attention. And the intense climax in the rain, lightning, and mud was really effective.

If you can sit through black and white - you'll never see anything like this. For horror/crime fans only. But a memorable and creepy experience