Showing posts with label David Schofield. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Schofield. Show all posts

October 22, 2025

The Wolfman (2010).

Review #2449: The Wolfman (2010).

Cast: 
Benicio del Toro (Lawrence Talbot / The Wolfman; Mario Marin-Borquez as Young Lawrence Talbot), Anthony Hopkins (Sir John Talbot / Wolfman), Emily Blunt (Gwen Conliffe), Hugo Weaving (Inspector Francis Aberline), Geraldine Chaplin (Maleva), Art Malik (Singh), Antony Sher (Dr. Hoenneger), David Schofield (Constable Nye), David Sterne (Kirk), and Simon Merrells (Ben Talbot; Asa Butterfield as Young Ben Talbot) Directed by Joe Johnston (#060 - Captain America: The First Avenger, #322 - Jumanji, #2023 - Jurassic Park III)

Review:

Well, the remake comes for every horror movie at some point. You might remember that George Waggner's The Wolf Man (1941) had been written by Curt Siodmak to a general success at the hands of Lon Chaney Jr as a star. Sure, the follow-ups with Chaney weren't so much direct sequels as basically shuffling chairs, but it did at least take a few decades to try and revamp the werewolf for a Universal horror movie, at least if one doesn't count stuff like The Monster Squad (1987) or Van Helsing (2004). Plans were first announced in 2006, and at least they got the star they wanted with Benicio del Toro from the jump. Mark Romanek was tapped to direct the movie by 2007 that saw him involved with pre-production (such as hiring Rick Heinrichs for production design to go along with location scouting)..he was out by 2008. Joe Johnston was hired to direct the film in February 2008, a couple of weeks before the film was to be shot in England, and he stated later that he took the job due to having a "cash flow problem"*. Rick Baker and makeup effects supervisor Dave Elsey won the film's only notch of mainstream praise for the makeup, although they were locked out of doing the transformation sequences, which was done in CG. While Andrew Kevin Walker wrote the initial screenplay, Johnston hired David Self to provide re-writes. The movie was delayed over and over again for release, going from late 2008 to early 2009 to, well February 2010. Made for a budget of over $100 million, the movie was not a success at the time, with the then-president of Universal Studios (Ronald Meyer) calling the movie "crappy" and among the worst movies they ever made (of course he thought Babe: Pig in the City (1998) belonged in the same category, so take those words with a grain of salt). For the DVD release, an "unrated director's cut" was included by Johnston, which added 17 minutes to the runtime that had been deleted so audiences "would get to the first Wolfman transformation sooner", which most notably had Max von Sydow and the origins of the silver cane-sword. 15 years later, Universal did a "reboot" with Wolf Man (2025). For the purposes of this review, I covered the uncut movie.

There are varying story beats in each film, as in both movies the Talbots are reunited to bury a newly deceased brother and both movies involve a climax of father and son confronting one another. Of course the older film used fortune tellers and even a spell to get to where it is, but there you go. Honestly, I get why some wouldn't be particularly big on the movie, but...I kind of liked it. Sure, you get the Gothic sensibilities of murky colors and period stuff (set in the final years of the 19th century in jolly ol' Victorian England) to go with CG effects, but it is a neat little romp that gave me what I was hoping for: a charmer. You can't exactly top John Landis' An American Werewolf in London (1981) or even Joe Dante's The Howling (1981), but you can still have a bit of fun anyway. It is a bit cut and dry with what to expect from a werewolf movie, what with the big thing about full moons, having one's clothes still wearable even after being a wolf (okay that was in the 1940s movie too), and naturally: not really going too hard about a woman falling for a man with big fur (okay I don't care about the last part, but maybe there are werewolf movies where people care about romance). But, really, how much "tension" do you need in a movie where you know there's going to be R-rated wolf-tearing? Johnson may have done the movie strictly for the money, but I think he did fine with the situation presented in making a useful thrill ride. Del Toro does a reasonable job with the material provided, managing to balance the tightrope of man and monster for decent tragedy that isn't making one just think back to Chaney. Hopkins chews the scenery up in hearty conviction to make the family drama of the food chain (and who merits being on top) a fashionable one to watch. Sure, they might overshadow Blunt, who tries her best to sell why anyone would in fact cling around to the situation presented that is sometimes believable (I suppose anyone can fall for those stuck in a situation they can't control). Weaving plays a character with a name inspired by the actual chief inspector Frederick Abberline, a prominent figure in the investigation of Jack the Ripper in 1888. He doesn't get much to really do but is at least fashionable for the eventual climax. In general, the movie rests on building to hairy mayhem and a few fashionable Gothic sensibilities that I was generally on board with. It never really kicks into high gear, but it satisfies most of the boxes one would hope to see in wolves and action, complete with finding a way to have two wolves face each other in good ol' fashioned hokum. Quality wise, it probably is a smidge about The Curse of the Werewolf (1961) for wolf movies and in general is about on par in the "amp up old monsters" category with The Mummy (1999). As a whole, The Wolfman is a fine remake, doing most of what you would hope to accomplish with taking a familiar focus and giving it some fresh air that may be worth looking into beyond calling it a missed opportunity.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Apparently it was four/three weeks of prep time. Cinematographer Shelly Johnson stated that he had two weeks of prep time hereThe American Society of Cinematographers | Bad Moon Rising: The…

September 2, 2020

Gladiator (2000).


Review #1524: Gladiator.

Cast: 
Russell Crowe (Maximus Decimus Meridius), Joaquin Phoenix (Commodus), Connie Nielsen (Lucilla), Oliver Reed (Antonius Proximo), Derek Jacobi (Senator Gracchus), Djimon Hounsou (Juba), Richard Harris (Marcus Aurelius), Ralf Möller (Hagen), Tommy Flanagan (Cicero), David Schofield (Senator Falco), John Shrapnel (Senator Gaius), Tomas Arana (General Quintus), Spencer Treat Clark (Lucius Verus), and David Hemmings (Cassius) Directed by Ridley Scott (#100 - Blade Runner, #530 - Alien, #739 - The Martian, and #1076 Thelma & Louise)

Review: 
"I'm a yarnteller. My job is to engage you as much as I can and as often as I can. I love the process and still continue to adore the process, actually. I don't get attached to anything. I'm like a good antique dealer. I'm prepared to sell my most valuable table."

A director of many trades in genre can be a valuable voice worth seeing their vision. In the case of Ridley Scott, he has managed to do a variety of interesting films within science fiction, adventure, and drama. After all, Scott started with a historical drama in The Duellists (1977), a culmination of having spent years making television commercials in his native United Kingdom and graduation from the Royal College of Art (where he made his only short in 1965 in Boy and Bicycle). One surely must hope to find inspiration in paintings when it comes to creating something of their own. In this case, it was the painting Pollice Verso (Gérôme) by Jean-Léon Gérôme that was shown by producers to Scott that inspired him to do the film before they even handed him a script, as he felt that image spoke to him of the glory and evil of the Roman Empire that interested him in its duality of grace and savagery. There were three writers credited for the film, with David Franzoni having the initial pitch that became the first draft of the script done in 1998, which was inspired by Daniel P. Mannix's 1958 novel Those About to Die alongside reading history about Roman emperors while doing travelling across the world. Scott and Franzoni looked into films besides the traditional "sword and sandal" movies of the past, such as All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) while citing Ben-Hur (1959) and Spartacus (1960) as influences on his youth Numerous re-writes would be done during the production, with even cast members providing input. A second writer was brought in with John Logan that dealt mostly with the first act and increasing Maximus' motivation through the death of his family. William Nicholson was brought in a little later on in order to make the main character more diplomatic.

There is a mix of history and fiction as one could expect from an epic that wants to stick out from previous films of its kind like The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964). For example, Maximus is fictional but is inspired by several figures of history. Commodus really was a loon who actually fought in the arena, although his end was strangulation by Narcissus (which was the name the first draft used for its lead). Of course it still quibbled enough with clothing and weaponry that one historical consultant hired for the film quit. I guess for me it is like Titanic (1997), with its attempts at sweeping away quibbles of history with intensity and ambition, which may work better or worse depending on one's preference for sword combat over romance (which is the case for me). The Colosseum is shown here as a mix of fragmented reconstruction of the first tier of the famed building for filming in Malta while using CGI (as done by The Mill) to finish the rest. Other effects to note involve composited tigers on bluescreen, mixing real and CGI for crowds, and a digital body double for Reed after his death in May of 1999 (at the age of 61) before his scenes were all finished.

Sure, Crowe (known previously for rising roles in Australia and abroad) may have had his trials and tribulations with handling a main role that requires brooding intensity and a tough hand without an immediately satisfactory script to start. But he manages to do well here, hefting the film along with dignity that commands our curiosity in resonating stature that handles a sword and others quite well as a noble warrior. Phoenix delivers a great intensity on the other side of things, one hungry for power and love with the talent required to make his presence quite convincing in all that is needed, particularly when it comes to the final battle between the two of them. Nielsen accompanies the proceedings with decent results in what is needed when doing a double act of protector and advocate with care. Reed does well with a crucial segmented role, capturing gravitas with appropriate gruffness required. Jacobi and Hounsou each lend a bit of measured interest to the proceedings within bureaucracy and combat, while Harris lends momentary experience suited for the first quarter of the film.

Undeniably, this could have been a long slog at 155 minutes with a lesser director (while also perhaps being thought of as a worse Braveheart (1995), as opposed to just being thought of as at least close to its level). But with Scott here, he manages to cultivate a tale of vengeance and what it means to be a man of the people in the time of mob rule that generally hits the mark fine. What we have is a film that blazes through brutality and spectacle without too many stumbles in plot detailing, where the experience of believing one to be entertained or wincing in feeling like one is in Rome is likely enough to win over a few narrative stumbles. On the whole, I quite enjoyed the film for what it aspired to do in a sword-and-sandal epic with capturing excitement and the terror that could come from making a mythic tale of Rome. Scott and the cast do well enough with capable effects and music to back them up enough to inspire further films in the decade. If it doesn't quite reach the peaks of the great sword films of the past, it at least does its part in setting a new century on a good start for film with worthwhile ambition.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Here we are again, the ninth edition of Tribute to the Decades. We welcome the 21st century with 30 films for the month, which I hope you will enjoy.

July 4, 2020

An American Werewolf in London.

Review #1465: An American Werewolf in London.

Cast: 
David Naughton (David Kessler), Jenny Agutter (Nurse Alex Price), Griffin Dunne (Jack Goodman), John Woodvine (Dr J. S. Hirsch), Don McKillop (Inspector Villiers), Brian Glover (Chess Player), David Schofield (Dart Player), and Lila Kaye (Barmaid) Written and Directed by John Landis (#328 - Trading Places, #410 - Coming to America, #513 - Spies Like Us, #1114 - Animal House, and #1462 - The Blues Brothers)

Review: 
"What no one understands, ideas are a dime a dozen. An idea has no real value. It's all about the execution of the idea."

"The thing that I find so fulfilling about my job is I like the fact that you start with something that's just an idea in your head. You read the script and right away you visualize something and you see that thing that at one point was just an idea in your head looking real and alive. It's exciting and is a little bit like being Dr. Frankenstein. I want to scream "It's alive!"

John Landis was a tremendous showman director for his time, one that generally knew how to reach his audience with humor for a career that started with such modesty. He was inspired to be involved in films from a young age, citing The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958) as a key influence. He subsequently worked his way up in film production, starting as a mailboy before taking other parts such as stunt double and dialogue coach. After getting the chance to be an assistant director for Kelly's Heroes (1970), he found inspiration for what would become this film from a chance viewing of a gypsy ritual (while in Yugoslavia) being done in a burial in which they tried to make sure the body wouldn't rise from the grave). At the age of 21, he began production on his first directorial effort in Schlock, which was released two years later in 1973 with him in the title role alongside writer-director. It was his first work with a young makeup artist in Rick Baker. Baker was in his third ever assignment in film with makeup, having started his career with costume work on Octaman (1971). The highlight of the film was done from Baker, who became the first winner of an Academy Award for Best Makeup (several people had been given honorary awards for effects in the past before a formal category was created), and he would win six more in a career that has spanned over four decades.

The film languished for a decade because of the perception that it was either too scary to be comedy or too funny to be a horror film, with Landis stating that "People keep calling it a comedy, it's very funny I hope, but it is a horror film." It is a fairly morbid film at times, taking inspiration from the classic Universal horror films with clear interest in making a London film with atmosphere, complete with plenty of moon songs that set the film well (or whatever one feels about the choice of "Blue Moon" after a swift finale) that makes a well-earned classic for the night as one of the higher-achieving werewolf films. Landis stages a fine film well, and Baker makes it all worthwhile with the special effects utilized to depict the werewolf that proved to be a tremendous highlight for practical effects in a decade fitting for it, even if it took plenty of makeup and time to make it all come out right (the transformation scene took nearly a week to finish due to all the time spent on getting the makeup on and off), utilizing its real and unreal elements such as fake patch of skin and hair and robotics to make for an iconic moment for effects.

One watches the film to see the transformation sequence come out in the midst of a 97 minute film with care to build its creeping humor in its look upon the wolf of the night and the curse of the undead that come from it. In this case, our main trio is fair game to go with that horror challenge. Naughton (picked because of his four year work with Dr Pepper and their "Be a Pepper" ad campaign by Landis) does a fine job with being our person of interest, a take on the anguished man in despair over potentially being a wolf and a killer, approaching the material with care and fine timing without needing being overshadowed completely by effects or gags. Agutter (known for her television and film work in Britain and abroad) makes a sensible pairing to all the fuss, calm but attentive to the last. Dunne proves amusing while spending a good deal of time on screen in makeup, which makes him a charmer to see on screen with Naughton, such as with the scene in the theater confronting what to do about trying to end the curse (and the methods one could do it with, suggested by the several dead folk). On the whole, the film builds itself fine with playing with the horror genre with some creepy imagery and useful makeup and effects, and while it could've had a stronger climax, it ultimately does prove worth it in the long run, a casual classic worth a watch for those who appreciate craftsmanship done the natural way and those looking for a chill.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.