Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Review #2308: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Cast: 

Robert De Niro (The Creation), Kenneth Branagh (Victor Frankenstein), Tom Hulce (Henry Clerval), Helena Bonham Carter (Elizabeth Lavenza Frankenstein), Ian Holm (Baron Alphonse Frankenstein), John Cleese (Professor Waldman), Aidan Quinn (Captain Robert Walton), Richard Briers (Grandfather), Robert Hardy (Professor Krempe), Trevyn McDowell (Justine Moritz), Celia Imrie (Mrs. Moritz), Cherie Lunghi (Caroline Frankenstein), and Ryan Smith (William Frankenstein) Directed by Kenneth Branagh (#041 - Thor)

Review: 

"Frankenstein feels like an ancient tale, the kind of traditional story that appears in many other forms. It appeals to something very primal, but it’s also about profound things, the very nature of life and death and birth—about, essentially, a man who is resisting the most irresistible fact of all, that we will be shuffling off this mortal coil. It was sent to me as I was rehearsing a production of Hamlet, and it seemed to me that the two things were linked. Hamlet and Victor Frankenstein are each obsessed with death. Hamlet’s whole story is a philosophical preparation for death; Victor’s is an intellectual refusal to accept it."

On November 4, 1994, audiences got their chance to see a big-budget adaptation of a classic novel that had seen a dozen (or so) films that cribbed from it since the 20th century began. You might remember that Francis Ford Coppola had spearheaded a production to make a lavish adaptation of a famous horror novel for which the result was the lavishly mediocre Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992). But one can't stop there as a producer, I suppose, as here we are looking at the other horror movie that had Coppola involved, albeit not as director; the source material, as one already might know, is the 1818 novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley. The movie was originally written by Steph Lady prior to Coppola buying the rights to it; he planned to direct the film before deciding to ask Branagh to direct the film while also saying the importance of casting Robert De Niro as the Creature. At the time, Branagh was rehearsing a production of Hamlet and he perceived links between it and Frankenstein when it comes to the obsession with death (you can inquire about Branagh's mindset prior to the release of the film here, for example) You might remember that the Belfast-born Branagh had trained at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art before eventually becoming a director with Henry V (1989), the first of several adaptations of the work of William Shakespeare. Frank Darabont was brought in to do a second draft by Branagh. Audiences didn't really go out in droves as compared to the folks that saw Bram Stoker's Dracula (it wasn't a failure of course with its $45 million budget). Darabont later called it "the best script I ever wrote and the worst movie I've ever seen", stating that Branagh was entirely to blame (or give credit to, if one liked the film) for what essentially became an "operatic attempt at filmmaking". According to Lady, his script was used by a friend who taught at a film school about when a good script is "in the hands of a bad director." The makeup from Daniel Parker, Paul Engelen and Carol Hemming at least earned attention, receiving an Academy Award nomination (and it certainly seemed deserving, the creature does look pretty good here).

There is something at work in one's soul to try and understand where it all went up for a monumental example of being forgotten. How do you manage to make a movie with such a noted actor like De Niro and not end up being thought of first or even second in Frankenstein-adjacent movies? How do you make a movie with loads of amniotic fluid and eels to go along with a deliberately phallic tube...and not have any great lasting appeal? Even the defenders of Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) can point to the style of the film as a lasting legacy (I personally put the legacy in that stupid look of its title character, but your milage may vary), but this is merely a movie that seems to fall by the wayside even with two memorable actors trying to lead the way. Branagh was once quoted as not being able to resist having a scene involving re-creating Elizabeth despite its difference from the novel because "it seemed to make psychological sense", one that could be different from the "high camp" from the two James Whale films. This seems to be amusing because of how much he figuratively seems to eat the movie right from under De Niro, gallivanting as if this really was a show for the stage. In his attempts to mine tragedy in what essentially is a war of creation, you get a performance that is purely in the middle-ground that (unfairly or not) really does remind one of better days with Peter Cushing as Frankenstein. Maybe that is just the curse of doing a Frankenstein film that ends up having to do things that might remind you of one of the more famous adaptations because you just expect it, even if it tries to repulse you with the idea of something that could just be possible somewhere beyond imagination. De Niro actually does pretty well with his performance (apparently, he studied stroke victims when it came to finding the voice for the Creature), it just so happens that he falls upon the strange double-edged sword that comes with being such a noted presence in acting that may be a bit lost among the makeup and the aforementioned bombast behind him. But the sequence with him taking shelter within a barn and a downtrodden family that features him seeing and learning about people on some sort of level is still a worthwhile one to view as a highlight, particularly with the end result of a creature that now has its worldview confirmed of hatred surrounding its existence. The dangers of the obsession with trying to win the game of creation pulls handily with Carter for a confused performance that at least has one shining moment: right around the climax, the book and film get to collide with each other in having a would-be bride be interrupted by the Creature...only here she gets her heart ripped out (okay, there's a scene right after that too, but it is more fun to let one be only a little bit surprised by revealing only the obvious moment of interest). The rest of the actors are left to sway at the weird execution of a film that veers between melodrama and disturbing (poor Cleese doesn't get much time underneath that wig, but I appreciate the effort), which mostly means Hulce and Quinn are left on the wayside a bit. The 123-minute runtime is probably a bit too much to really hold things together for what the movie believes itself to be in great tragedy, but at least it does try to keep the foot on the pedal of frantic filmmaking, for better or worse. Processing the film ended up where I liked the movie just enough. I don't know about calling it "profound" in being disturbing, but it is fairly entertaining even in profound averageness, so I suppose that is better than nothing. Highly ambitious even with its ultimate short-sighted execution, you might find something worth watching for a film that now can celebrate a third decade of anniversary. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Blair Witch 2.

Chariots of Fire.

Review #1464: Chariots of Fire.

Cast:
Ben Cross (Harold Abrahams), Ian Charleson (Eric Liddell), Nicholas Farrell (Aubrey Montague), Nigel Havers (Lord Andrew Lindsay), Ian Holm (Sam Mussabini), John Gielgud (Master of Trinity College), Lindsay Anderson (Master of Caius College), Cheryl Campbell (Jennie Liddell), Alice Krige (Sybil Gordon), Struan Rodger (Sandy McGrath), Nigel Davenport (Lord Birkenhead), and Patrick Magee (Lord Cadogan) Directed by Hugh Hudson.

Review: 
"The artist is a credulous animal. He is often a dreamer. And if he finds someone who appears to share his dream, or, even better, someone with the means to realize that dream, then that artist tends to believe in Santa Claus."

Sometimes you just need a film about the will to win. I suppose if anyone had to try and make a sports film about the triumph of victory with perseverance and faith, it might as well be one from the British about something historical. Whether that makes for a true classic or not is up to the viewer, who no doubt will have heard that one tune from Vangelis that starts the film up, one that is inspirational and all the jazz. This was a co-production between Warner Brothers and 20th Century Fox (international) that was spearheaded by British producer David Puttnam, having been behind films such as Bugsy Malone (1976) and Midnight Express (1978) that wanted to do a film in the mold of A Man for All Seasons (1966) - where one had to follow their conscience, which just happened to fit the mold of the story of the 1924 Olympics that was written by actor-turned-writer Colin Welland. The director tasked to do the film was Hugh Hudson, a first-time film director mostly known for advertising and documentaries. If they managed to accomplish an accurate film, let them enjoy the fruits of said attention, even if there had to be certain liberties taken to get to this point: One can't really be serious to believe a runner wouldn't know about a heat being on Sunday right before going on a trip to compete in the Olympics. Two characters are based on folks that refused permission to have their real names to being used, while a romance for one of the leads is actually ten years too early. There is a mix of established and young faces, with Cross, Charleson, Farrell, and Havers being backed up by Holm, Gielgud, and Anderson. The sentiment must have paid off, since the film won four Academy Awards (one each for Puttnam Vangelis, and Welland), including Best Picture (over films like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Reds - a punchline in it of itself).

If one really gets a tremendous inspiration from the story of two runners making their mark on the world through their faith and courage, go right on ahead. It has all the things one could for appeal for the traditionalists (with a modern electronic music touch) that goes for the inspirational without leaning on extreme sentiment or anything with too much contrivances - entertainment or otherwise. And yet, here I am, trying to figure out why it proves so average in my experience - a picture of illusion and platitudes that nearly choke out the air of actually finding something to really say anything meaningful about liking it. In other words, it feels like someone pulled over a bag over my head and somehow got me to the market while I only saw a bunch of decent images in the bag. We are talking about a "sports film" of running, after all. It seems like the kind of film people rush to elevate on a pedestal when trying to make a "prestige picture" that only just balances its story of Liddell and Abrahams to where I appreciate the effort and some of its aspects that go with it while not really reaching a high point. David Watkin does well with the cinematography, and Cross and Charleson are at least calm enough to make their struggle one to care for. Gielgud and Richardson are exactly what you could expect from the college angle, dignified and with reason even when doing a scene about expressing certain doubts about Charleson and his methods to glory. Holm proves to be most enterprising of the bunch, endearing in steadfast conviction that we care to see for what we see spliced in from time to time in teaching to victory without falling to all the clichés. In the end, it just depends on what one really sees the film in the prism of entertainment. Some people really get swept up in a film that is all about conviction and country - I just see it as not too far removed from other "sports films" that have their own little foundation of courage for the underdog, where you might as well call it Rocky (1976) for British people and running. If you are into a film of the stiff upper lip in the face of adversity for 124 minutes, this may very well be for you.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

eXistenZ.

Review #1127: eXistenZ.

Cast: 
Jennifer Jason Leigh (Allegra Geller), Jude Law (Ted Pikul), Ian Holm (Kiri Vinokur), Don McKellar (Yevgeny Nourish), Callum Keith Rennie (Hugo Carlaw), Sarah Polley (Merle), Christopher Eccleston (the Seminar Leader), Willem Dafoe (Gas), Robert A. Silverman (D'Arcy Nader), Oscar Hsu (Chinese Waiter), and Kris Lemche (Noel Dichter) Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future)

Review: 
Believe it or not, this review has been delayed quite significantly by roughly a week. It was supposed to be completed before the review of Legacy of Blood. However, I found that it was easier to come up with thoughts for the plethora of reviews that have come out in the past week. I hope that this review is satisfactory to the standards that I try to have for this show. 

What does it mean to live in reality? Particularly in our day and age, where virtual reality seems more than just a pipe dream? For something like this, a science fiction body horror film, eXistenZ likes to throw questions and gooey things at its audience, and it is the ways that it plays games with its viewer that help in seeing if the film actually succeeds in telling its intriguing ideas. It's a mind-game of a movie, filled with gooey imagery and a fairly game cast willing to showcase this weird world and its situations, and it isn't hard to see why this could be considered a cult classic. For me, it borders on the line of average, but there are aspects of the film that are fairly interesting, along with parts that aren't as bright. Undeniably, the best one to shine in this film is Leigh. She has a certain energy to her that has its shares of cynicism and intrigue (such as when talking about the plot) that makes her a person worth following, which makes sense even now with how people treat creators of things that certainly spring creativity of any kind - whether in technology or some other field.

The same can't be said as much for Law. Perhaps it is the nature of the character that makes him a dry one to follow (being a PR guy) that makes him not as interesting to go along with, although Law can prove decent at times at reacting to the weirdness that this film can verge itself into. Holm and McKeller prove okay, providing the kind of support you'd expect in a situation presented like this (if that makes sense, anyway). Dafoe proves a fine highlight for the time he is on screen, being the most interesting person playing off Leigh and Law for most of the film. This is a movie where people put squid-looking things in their lower back. In an age where people like wear big headsets to experience "VR", who can judge? People certainly love the creations that invite creativity and imagination, whether it blurs the line between fantasy and reality or not, much like how a filmmaker creates the world that encompasses a movie. The film moves at a casual pace in its 97 minute run-time, having a look and feel that plays against expectation that feels welcome in a sense. Where one might expect darkness and jargon, one finds a different sort, a weird energy of events and things that has a fine cinematography from Peter Suschitzky (who had done work on films such as The Empire Strikes Back and other previous Cronenberg films such since Dead Ringers in 1988) to go with it. The ending likes to twist itself with a sort of relish for trickery and mystery, and while I'm not the biggest fan of it, I will say it ends the film without turning it into a joke.

The best way to describe the film is to imagine a philosophy lecture with a professor that happens to have goo in its presentation. For a general crowd, it could prove frustrating, particularly if one doesn't have much patience for something that is suited for examination and discussion a bit more different than a usual talk about a general movie. It certainly isn't something like Tron or The Matrix, that's for sure. But if one takes the film and looks under the surface, I think they will find something that is worth the game it wants to play with the mind.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Hamlet (1990).

Review #913: Hamlet (1990).

Cast:
Mel Gibson (Prince Hamlet), Glenn Close (Queen Gertrude), Alan Bates (King Claudius), Paul Scofield (Ghost of Hamlet's Father), Ian Holm (Polonius), Helena Bonham Carter (Ophelia), Stephen Dillane (Horatio), Nathaniel Parker (Laertes), and Michael Maloney and Sean Murray (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) Directed by Franco Zeffirelli.

Review:
I had read this play when I was in senior year of high school (are you surprised?), and I felt that it was a great play, though (naturally) I read it just once. Around two years later, it only made sense that I get around to seeing the 1990 version of Hamlet, compliments of my British Literature class. Whether one interprets the play as one dominated by an inability to act or one of revenge, the movie Obviously the movie takes liberties with the play (after all, it only lasts 134 minutes), but the best thing I can say about the movie is that it is competent enough in the right areas to overcome any doubt of feeling not needed. I will admit, the first half of the movie did not exactly give too much hope; it wasn't a terrible half, but it didn't exactly inspire too much confidence in Gibson (nor the film) having the right kind of passion. However, the second half of the movie does bring itself some well needed tension, where Gibson, Close, and Bates get their chance to show their talents in the climax. It's a swift and satisfying one, where the fencing sequence with Gibson and Parker being a key highlight, obviously.

This is the kind of movie that may vary heavily depending on how one views Gibson in the role of Hamlet. It took me a while to really get invested in Gibson, but he manages to excel at times when having to make madness feel mad. His take on the famed "To be, or not to be" soliloquy has a degree of raw sincerity that works with the carnal nature of the film. Close and Bates are acceptable, with the former being good at showing the motherly love that creeps into the psyche and provides for a particularly interesting scene in the last half of the film. Bates does a decent performance, managing to balance a demeanor of power and sinister nature pretty well. The sets and costumes look well made, looking deft without being too distracting. For me, the movie is well crafted and slick enough with its energy that work in the right places. But I can't find myself wanting to watch this film again, and I think it's because it would be like trying to read Hamlet again; sometimes you just have to let things lie where they are. It is a movie worth recommending for at least one viewing, though I should note there are numerous adaptations of the play as well. There is the 1948 version with Laurence Olivier (which won Best Picture and three other Oscars that year) or the 1996 version by Kenneth Branagh that was the first unabridged theatrical film version of the play (which runs at just over four hours). Of course there's also the 2000 version that updates the setting to the modern day...or the story done with lions in The Lion King. Whatever the case, this is a decent enough film.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Alien.

Review #530: Alien.

Cast
Tom Skerritt (Dallas), Sigourney Weaver (Ripley), Veronica Cartwright (Lambert), Harry Dean Stanton (Brett), John Hurt (Kane), Ian Holm (Ash), Yaphet Kotto (Parker), and Bolaji Badejo (The Alien) Directed by Ridley Scott (#100 - Blade Runner)

Review

Alien has its shares of influences such as (#519) The Thing from Another World or (#331) It! The Terror from Beyond Space, but beneath all that is a wonderfully dark masterpiece. The set design by Ron Cobb and Chris Foss is really well done, it doesn't distract from the movie, but it is wonderful. The alien (and other accompanying elements) by H. R. Giger works so well because the design doesn't look like a suit for somebody to be in, it's a big and long suit that is so unconventional and yet so cool looking. Ridley Scott does a good job directing, his best decision in this film is not showing all of the Alien throughout most of the film, which keeps the suspense and terror of the Alien intact. The actors (insert your John Hurt as the War Doctor reference here, which I won't do out of choice in the name of peace and sanity...oops.) are well suited for a film like this, especially Sigourney Weaver, who certainly can act with terror all around her. Even Bolaji Badejo does a good job, his movements of the Alien from inside the suit are more natural looking and menacing. This is a tense and effective horror film that would later have three sequels and a...film in the same universe as Alien but not a prequel. Whatever the case, Alien is still a terror to behold 35 years later.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Move Night: Ratatouille.

Review #158: Ratatouille.

Cast
Patton Oswalt (Remy), Lou Romano (Alfredo Linguini), Ian Holm (Skinner), Janeane Garofalo (Colette Tatou), Peter O'Toole (Anton Ego), Brian Dennehy (Django), Peter Sohn (Emile), and Brad Garrett (Auguste Gusteau) Directed by Brad Bird (#083 - The Iron Giant, #128 - Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, and #153 - The Incredibles)

Review
This film is flawless in its presentation, with good voice acting and good developed characters in this lush and beautiful film. As a movie reviewer, I have to mention Anton Ego and it's voice by the legend Peter O'Toole. In many ways, the work of a critic is indeed easy and the film is enjoyable to say the least. This film has a good appetite of everything as Pixar continues its traditions of good characters, good story and good films (which may or may not have ended with Cars 2). Nonetheless, Brad Bird has made another good flick.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Fifth Element.

Review #027: The Fifth Element.

Cast
Bruce Willis (Korban Dallas), Gary Oldman (Zorg), Mila Jovovich (Leeloo), Ian Holm (Vito Corneilus), Chris Tucker (Euby Rhod), Charlie Creed-Miles (David), Brion James (General Munro), Tricky (Right Arm), and Tom Lister Jr. (President Lindberg) Directed by Luc Besson.

Review
This film is not like other Science Fiction films, like Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (#113), 2001: A Space Odysesy (#93), Alien, and many others. It's a weird breed with flying cars and more in a futuristic tale (Not like another one with cars that fly. But that had some sort of organic robots) It's a strange plot, but it's a little creative, and the acting (Save for Chris Tucker, who gets the award for least subtle preformance ever) One odd end to mention is that the main hero and villian never meet. Overall, the movie is a weird breed, but it all works in the end, making this a good film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars..