Who payed the critics

Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Upon Universal's Dracula becoming a huge hit, director Tod Browning was given an opportunity to make whatever he waned afterwards, which was to adapt the short story Spurs into a feature film, later entitled Freaks. By doing unconventional methods such as casting actual deformed circus performers amongst a cast of "regular" actors, the film was seen as too shocking to be released and was even cut from its original hour and a half long cut to just 64 minutes. Even at that, the film was not well received and became an infamously controversial film throughout the world. That being said, time has shown to be more kind to this film, as it has gotten more critical praise and attraction over the years, which I agree on.Set in a traveling circus, trapeze performer Cleopatra tricks the lovesick circus midget Hans into marrying her upon hearing about his inheritance so she can steal the fortune and run off with her lover, strong man Hercules. Upon hearing of this, Hans' friends and fellow performers, all of whom are deemed as freaks, decide to seek vengeance on both Hercules and Cleopatra to show them what it truly means to be a "freak." While the main story itself is pretty simple, it is intriguing enough to sit through, as it does detail how deformed people were treated back in the day (makes one wonder how the actors were treated on set). It's made clear that the so called "freaks" are not inherently horrid beings, it's really those who are prejudice towards them that are. As such, it makes the eventual ending obvious albeit disturbing once Cleo and Hercules finally get what's coming to them (although we'll never get to see the original ending where Hercules gets castrated).As for the characters, it's great that Browning was able to cast circus and sideshow performers to play the deformed beings, and they really do play off one another through their own distinct traits and personalities. Hans and his former fiance Frieda are probably the most endearing characters in the film, since while many of the other deformed beings get their fare share of taunts, we really get to see the pain and anguish shown in their faces and what happens to them really makes one feel sorry for the two. Cleopatra and Hercules are just appropriately despicable, for whether they lie to or openly insult the "freaks" themselves, their evil cunning nature is not too different to how greedy and downright malicious people were to deformities back then, or even like some people are now in general. The only "normal" characters in the film, Phroso and Venus, are much more relatable to a modern audience (or even Browning himself) as they understand the deformed being's pain and do wish they would just be happy.In addition to the main storyline, there are a few subplots revolving around other "freaks", such as Phroso and Venus' relationship, one part of Siamese twins marrying a stuttering circus clown, and even a bearded lady giving birth to the daughter of the human skeleton. Although they're charming and humorous in their own right, they mainly serve as superfluous to the main plot and come off as nothing more than filler. Phroso and Venus's arch is an exception since they do play a vital role in having a healthy relationship with the performers outside of Cleopatra and Hercules, and they do have rather witty banter with each other which makes for an entertaining couple. Considering the movie had roughly 26 minutes cut, it's possible that these subplots added up a little more in the original version, but as nonessential as many of them are, they do build up to the eventual climax, and boy do things get rough from there on out.Needless to say, Freaks holds up as an unorthodox shocking albeit insightful horror flick of Hollywood's pre-Code era for its share of warm-hearted and horrid characters, well timed tension and moral that says "freaks" may show much more honesty than a 'normal' people driven by greed, power and prejudice. If you're looking for a classic horror film that as much light to deformed beings as much as The Elephant Man and Mask, then give Freaks a watch. Similar to deformed beings of then and today, the film may have been reviled then, but its praises and even defenses are being sung now.

The audio was not great, probably because of the accents of the actors Harry and Daisy Earles. They were good actors. All the actors did well. All the freaks did well as well. As most reviewers here state, this film does not make the freaks out to be freaks. They are deformed. But human. I guess the best message of the film is that even though Cleopatra and Hercules were "Normal" humans, they were evil, the "Freaks" were presented in the good light. Up until the end when they realized that these normal humans were looking to kill one of their own. That's when they jumped into action. The best part of the film for me was the wedding dinner, and the end when the freaks were going after Cleo and Hercules. Rating is a B, 8 stars.

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.

Freaks is a shocking film. What makes this film so shocking is the fact that these are REAL people with REAL disabilities. You have to keep in mind when watching this film these people were real circus acts before they turned into actors for the film.As far as the story goes, it's fairly interesting. It's not a great story but it is somehow interesting - I would say due to the actors. If this movie was made with average actors then the film would not be nearly as interesting to watch (if I'm explaining it right).Horror? I think the real horror lies in living the way the actors in the film had to live. The ending provides extra shock and horror that is unimaginable.This is a movie you would have to see to get the full understanding of how shocking it is... even by today's movie standards.7/10