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.

Oppenheimer.

Review #2050: Oppenheimer.

Cast: 

Cillian Murphy (J. Robert Oppenheimer), Emily Blunt (Katherine "Kitty" Oppenheimer), Matt Damon (Leslie Groves), Robert Downey Jr (Lewis Strauss), Florence Pugh (Jean Tatlock), Josh Hartnett (Ernest Lawrence), Casey Affleck (Boris Pash), Rami Malek (David Hill), Kenneth Branagh (Niels Bohr), Benny Safdie (Edward Teller), Dylan Arnold (Frank Oppenheimer), Gustaf Skarsgård (Hans Bethe), David Krumholtz (Isidor Isaac Rabi), Matthew Modine (Vannevar Bush), David Dastmalchian (William L. Borden), Tom Conti (Albert Einstein), Michael Angarano (Robert Serber), Jack Quaid (Richard Feynman), Josh Peck (Kenneth Bainbridge), Olivia Thirlby (Lilli Hornig), Dane DeHaan (Kenneth Nichols), Danny Deferrari (Enrico Fermi), Alden Ehrenreich (Senate aide), Jefferson Hall (Haakon Chevalier), and Jason Clarke (Roger Robb) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk , #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises, and #1618 - Tenet)

Review: 

“I’m always pushing various things forward, but this is one where a lot of different planets aligned. Los Alamos, this place that will always live in history or infamy, was first a place where Oppenheimer and his brother loved to go camping. Suddenly, like a bolt from the blue, I’m looking at the most personal possible connection between a character and a massive change to the world that couldn’t be undone.” - Christopher Nolan

There is no way to state how damn good the film is besides saying it is a really great achievement that should be seen. Blah blah Barbie, you could see that any time in the next couple of weeks but consider Oppenheimer as early as one could possibly do. No really, see it as quickly as you can, the three-hour runtime is worth the time presented, and I am sure you will be rewarded by the experience that makes for a fascinating biopic. The story of J. Robert Oppenheimer has been argued to be one of a modern tragedy, and this film proves that very point by the time it even has built two-thirds of the scope required of three hours of breathtaking film. Lord do I wish it was easy to just say what I mean in less than a handful of paragraphs, but if one can say roughly over 900 words for a film involving humans and dolls, clearly one has to make sure to put in the hours to articulate the importance of watching a film (specifically Nolan, who wrote the screenplay) that took its inspiration from the 2005 biography of the famed Oppenheimer in American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin (incidentally, some of the subjects interviewed by Sherwin had been featured in The Day After Trinity, such as Haakon Chevalier). Oppenheimer is seen in various places besides Los Alamos in New Mexico, of course, such as his time as professor at thee University of California, Berkeley and his time spent after the war at the Institute for Advanced Study, while one other moment in history is seen under the cloud of Oppenheimer with the 1959 confirmation hearing of Lewis Strauss for the Secretary of Commerce, after having taken office via a recess appointment the previous year (the film obviously doesn't have time to mention everyone, but the scuttling of the confirmation had help from Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, whose disagreements with Strauss drove him to drive such an effort, complete with an ally in fellow Senator and committee member dealing with commerce in Gale W. McGee). You can thank the efforts of folks such as J. David Wargo and James Woods (both executive producers) for getting this film to the finish line, since plans for doing one based on the book had muddled for over a decade; the only film to feature Oppenheimer in a prominent role was Fat Man and Little Boy (as played by Dwight Shultz for a film released in 1989), which absolutely nobody remembers fondly, at least when compared to say, the 1980 BBC TV serial Oppenheimer, which had Sam Waterston as star. Nolan has stated the purpose of having scenes in black-and-white is meant to present an objective view of the story of Oppenheimer from the point of view of the one most seen in these scenes with Strauss.

Oppenheimer the man is presented in all of his epic qualities of contradiction of brilliance. He is the namesake for both a process and approximation in science (with collaboration with other scientists, naturally) that is also wracked in paradoxes that make the heart of the film. Pride really does come before the fall, especially for someone who was under constant surveillance by the FBI before and after the war. The man is presented as a man with qualities and flaws apparent to all of us, a man of brilliance, a man of guilt, a man of womanizers, a man fit to argue as one of great tragedy. There are so many performances in this film that one can't mention every single person that portray these figures (some of whom only appear for a time such as Gary Oldman as President Harry Truman or James Remar as Henry Stimson). It is easy to state however, that Murphy and Downey Jr rein in the best performances of the whole film, with each of their stories being told in such compelling detail. Murphy has the weight of the title role on his shoulders, but he handles it with such clear conviction that one sees him as Oppenheimer with perfect efficiency that makes it so one never sees an actor playing a man but just the man and all of his qualities thrust upon us, and it takes a most exceptional person to give the role justice with such persuasive power. We live in a world created by Oppenheimer's actions and we feel it firmly with his performance. Downey Jr is practically the mirror of Oppenheimer when it comes to how he handles being cast into the light of his own hearing. All great villains believe themselves to be in the right, ones who believe that power stays in the shadows because only amateurs chase the sun, and Downey Jr plays this with such devastating power that is conniving and breathtaking in the time he is on screen. His arrogance is breathtaking in the greatest of ways possible, one filled with pique that is accompanied in moments with Ehrenreich for fascinating interaction. Murphy and Downey Jr clearly deserve all the recognition they have gotten for this film already and I am sure they will endure in the years to come. Of course, the rest of the performers are magnificent as well in conveying the players to destruction necessary, mostly in the case of Damon and Blunt. The clash of hard-driving practicality in Damon clashes with the philosophical Murphy for such riveting tension and even more riveting in the respect you see between the two that comes out because of how effective it all is played out. Blunt and her own contradictions make for a worthy pairing with Murphy, one with razor-sharp timing and unwavering confidence that goes well when you consider how Murphy is presented with Pugh on the other side of feminine curiosity (which in of itself is useful to watch). You get the point about these performers, they are useful in all the ways that matter without distraction, which is bookended by Conti but also sees people such as Hartnett and Safdie shine too.

Nothing is more exhilarating than seeing Lewis Strauss not become a member of a cabinet. Nah, just kidding (fun fact: he was the first person not confirmed for a cabinet seat by the US Senate since 1925 - never let it be said that Movie Night does not try to deliver "education" beyond rambling), because the buildup to the Trinity test is one for the ages. The buildup to the bomb and the accompanying music by Ludwig Göransson is absolutely worth the price of admission, complete with the moment itself in its beautiful destructive quality (the film was done with minimal computer-generated imagery). Of course, other sequences such as expressing certain scientific aspects (remember that the real Oppenheimer made contributions to various theories such as black holes) is a reminder that seeing this film on the biggest screen possible really can be a rewarding time for all involved. The guilt is crushing in all of the ways that matter when it comes to the level of involvement one has in forming a bomb and seeing it go away from your hands or seeing the results of it. Of course, since the film includes the noted scene of President Truman mocking Oppenheimer of just who has "blood on their hands", the fascination will endure further in discussion of ethics and beyond. Far from just a biopic that goes from point A to point B, the film flourishes from the very get-go and never lets up in conveying the wonder that comes in seeing the Manhattan Project meet its destiny that intertwine with the destinies of both Oppenheimer and Strauss with their hearings. God do I love this film, and I can't say enough about just how brilliant it is or how devilishly well-timed it is to make the three hours pass by without a single complaint. It serves as both an informative feature of the time and also a warning to the danger that comes with living in a world that Nolan believes is one shaped by Oppenheimer, whether we like it or not.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Dunkirk (2017).

Review #980: Dunkirk.

Cast: 
Fionn Whitehead (Tommy), Tom Glynn-Carney (Peter), Jack Lowden (Collins), Harry Styles (Alex), Aneurin Barnard (Gibson), James D'Arcy (Colonel Winnant), Barry Keoghan (George), Kenneth Branagh (Commander Bolton), Cillian Murphy (Shivering Soldier), Mark Rylance (Mr. Dawson), and Tom Hardy (Farrier) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, and #062 - Batman Begins)

Review: 
I must admit, I did not know how long this film was going to be, in part because I had figured that a war film like this would be roughly two hours (or more), but as it turns out the film manages to run for 106 minutes; in any case, the movie (as stated by Nolan himself) is more of a suspense film than a war movie, but this is still a finely tuned film that achieves most (if not all of its goals). It shines especially on a technical level, from its structure to its editing to its cinematography, with the film having a great look and feel to it. The battles (along with the sequences in the water) are executed well as one would expect. It isn't a film that tries to show the horrors of war, but it does manage to have a lot of tension through the facial expressions of the characters along with sounds (such a ticking noise). The cast do a fine job, with the narratives each having something interesting to watch (aside from the tension that never lets up); Whitehead and the others within his narrative don't give any sort of great performance, but they are watchable enough to where one cares about their survival without having the film being about them (after all, we don't know any of the character's full name), and it works in delivering thrills in that regard; Rylance, Branagh and Murphy are fine standouts, delivering their roles with fine authority in the amount of time they have on screen. There is never a moment where you are taken out of the experience, it is an unrelenting film that approaches its subject matter with class and dignity (with the effects looking good as well). The best thing I can say about the film is that it is well executed in its vision by Nolan that surely will be up for some awards on a technical basis later in the year. It isn't a perfect film, but it is definitely a fine experience that is worth watching at least once.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Wild Wild West.

Review #454: Wild Wild West.

Cast
Will Smith (James T. West), Kevin Kline (Artemus Gordon and Ulysses S. Grant), Kenneth Branagh (Dr. Arliss Loveless), Salma Hayek (Rita Escobar), M. Emmet Walsh (Coleman), Bai Ling (Miss East), Ted Levine (General "Bloodbath" McGrath), Frederique van der Wal (Amazonia), Musetta Vander (Munitia), Sofia Eng (Miss Lippenrieder), and Garcelle Beauvais-Nilon (Belle) Directed by Barry Sonnenfeld (#005 - Get Shorty, #077 - The Addams Family, #078 - Addams Family Values, #211 - Men in Black, and #212 - Men in Black II)

Review
This was adapted off the classic television show The Wild Wild West, though judging by how they apparently changed significant aspects of the film, I'd cross out the word adapted. Will Smith is usually charming, even in the cliched Independence Day, but not even he can give any life to the way his character is portrayed. Kevin Kline is okay at best, but to say this would be a step down from A Fish Called Wanda is an understatement. Kenneth Branagh...playing an southern scientist with no legs was odd enough...but the thing that takes the cake is...the spider. Yes, a Mechanical Spider, in the Wild West. You might wonder how it could feasibly be made, I'm just wondering how no one ever mentions seeing it after the film's end, though I suppose Grant wouldn't want "I saw a giant spider, while opening a railroad. No I am not insane." being the last line of his memoirs. The effects have more merit then the story and it's a bland  stand still of a film, disappointing western buffs, action buffs, and of course, Wild Wild West fans.

The film was terrible enough to inspire Robert Conrad (the star of the original show) to accept the film's five Golden Raspberry Awards in person, and I can't blame him for doing that. In conclusion, the best way to sum this film is one quote: "I made a mistake on Wild Wild West. That could have been better. ... No, it's funny because I could never understand why Robert Conrad was so upset with Wild Wild West. And now I get it. It's like, 'That's my baby! I put my blood, sweat and tears into that!' So I'm going to apologize to Mr. Conrad for that because I didn't realize. I was young and immature. So much pain and joy went into The Fresh Prince that my greatest desire would be that it's left alone." And when that comes from Will Smith himself, that just makes this sad film even worse. Avoid this film like it's the plague.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

Review #118: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

Cast
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Kenneth Branagh (Gilderoy Lockhart), Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Richard Harris (Albus Dumbledore), Jason Isaacs (Lucius Malfoy), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Toby Jones (Dobby), Warwick Davis (Filius Flitwick), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Richard Griffiths (Vernon Dursley), David Bradley (Argus Filch), Bonnie Wright (Ginny Weasley), and Matthew Lewis (Neville Longbottom) Directed by Chris Columbus (#038 -  Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, and #117 - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)

Review
The film has good acting and an alright story, filled into...2 hours and 40 minutes. The lesson is that a film does not need that much time to make a film unless you have an excuse (Ben-Hur), or else you get an overstuffed film. My point is that this film is a bit overlong (The longest in the series next to Goblet of Fire), with a weird and partially grating character that is Dobby. The film is decent as it follows the book as usual. The reason that this film is not better then the first is because it feels similar with partially different things with longing length that still has a bit of charm. It's a good film, just not as great, but it at least sets the tone for the next film...This ends Part II of Harry Potter Week. Stay Tuned for Part III...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Thor.

Review #041: Thor.

Cast
Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Natalie Portman (Jane Foster), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Anthony Hopkins (Odin), Stellan Skarsgård (Erik Selvig), Kat Dennings (Darcy Lewis), Clark Gregg (Agent Coulson), Colm Feore (King Laufey), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Ray Stevenson (Volstagg), Tadanobu Asano (Hogun), Josh Dallas (Fandral), Jaimie Alexander (Sif), and Rene Russo (Frigga) Directed by Kenneth Branagh.

Review
Greetings fellow viewer who clicked the link from the review of Thor: Ragnarok (2017) or simply wanted to see an old review. To provide some context, I have written a small piece of memories from this film, having seen it when I was 14.

In retrospect, I will say that Thor (2011) is a decent film, but it definitely pales a bit when compared to Iron Man or the film that followed this one, Captain America: The First Avenger. That's not to say that this is a mediocre movie, but it definitely has its issues, such as some of its human characters along with taking a bit of time to really get going. Hemsworth does a capable job, however, and Hiddleston and Hopkins are also fairly good standouts in a movie that has some dazzle in what proves to be fair entertainment.

The film is a exciting film that won't put you to sleep, as the film has action that is done well. The acting is good, especially from Hemsworth. The only flaw I find is that the film takes a little time to go, especially after Thor is banished to Earth. In a way, this is the penultimate film before The Avengers (The final being Captain America - #060).

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.