Showing posts with label Nick Brimble. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nick Brimble. Show all posts

April 30, 2026

Frankenstein Unbound

Review #2534: Frankenstein Unbound.

Cast: 
John Hurt (Joe Buchanan / The Narrator), Raul Julia (Dr. Victor Frankenstein), Bridget Fonda (Mary Shelley), Nick Brimble (Frankenstein's monster), Catherine Rabett (Elizabeth Lavenza), Jason Patric (Lord Byron), Michael Hutchence (Percy Shelley), Catherine Corman (Justine Moritz), Mickey Knox (General Reade), and Terri Treas (The Voice of Computer) 

Directed by Roger Corman (#368 The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, #931 - Not of This Earth, #1007 - Attack of the Crab Monsters, #1039 - Five Guns West#1042 - War of the Satellites, #1136 - Gas-s-s-s, #1147 - X: The Man with the X-ray Eyes#1186 A Bucket of Blood, #1423 The Wild Angels, #1425 The St. Valentine's Day Massacre, #1674 - Machine-Gun Kelly, #1684 - Creature from the Haunted Sea, #1918 - House of Usher#2030 The Trip, #2113 - The Undead#2211 - The Intruder, #2275 - The Wasp Woman, #2295 - The Pit and the Pendulum, #2434 - The Premature Burial)

Review: 

Well, better late than never. Honestly, I wanted to do this film last November, but I just didn't have enough time to truly give the film the attention it deserved, even with the occasion of the film turning 35 years ago. Coincidentally, this month was the 100th anniversary of Roger Corman's birth (having been born on the 5th in 1926 in Detroit). Now, you might wonder, what the hell is Frankenstein Unbound? Well, it was the little-seen swansong of Roger Corman as a director. Sure, he had kept busy as a producer, but he had not directed a movie since the chaotic production of Von Richthofen and Brown (1971). Producer Thom Mount approached him with the idea to get back into directing and after a few years of ballooning budgeting (reported to be $11.5 million for a film distributed by 20th Century Fox in the US/Canada and Warner Bros. for the international market), Corman was there, complete with a $1 million fee. The film is loosely based on the 1973 novel of the same name by Brian Aldiss (whose other noted story that was turned into a film being "Supertoys Last All Summer Long", which served as the basis for A.I. Artificial Intelligence [2001]), for which F. X. Feeney, better known as a freelance journalist was tasked to write the adaptation, although Corman wound up being credited as a co-writer with his input on the script; Edward Neumeier (of RoboCop [1987] fame) apparently contributed to the script but was not credited. The movie was not a success with audiences (according to Aldiss, a screening he went to in London had just six people seeing it), managing to go to the video markets by February after being released in November. While Aldiss apparently was interested enough to want to do a "Dracula Unbound" to where he wrote a script, it never came to pass, and Corman stuck to producing all the way up until 2018. 

It almost pulls it off. As pulpy and as ridiculous as it might look, it really does almost work as a movie worth thinking about on the offbeat path when talking about Frankenstein-adjacent films. I imagine those who saw the Corman movies from three decades prior that freely had fun with the works of Edgar Allen Poe will have a bit of curiosity in seeing what Corman has to offer here...and just wish it all clicked more. So, what's the setting: in the future (insert yell here) of 2031, a scientist has made an energy beam weapon that could destroy an object on a molecular level that he thinks could lead to world peace only to have it cause bad weather and rifts in time. He just happens to be in his state-of-the-art talking sports car when he goes to 1817 and finds a scientist that not only exists along with Mary Shelley but also is totally not similar to him in developing a major scientific breakthrough with dangerous consequences. Of the main focuses, Julia seems to be the only one who is really pulling in an invested performance, having a solemn dignity in his delusions about being one above the rest as a creator that can't reckon with the idea of being wrong. this isn't to complain about Hurt, who is tasked to play an American for whatever reason, although Fonda isn't exactly swimming in praise when you consider that Rabett is meant to be the key force to setup the actual climax (to say nothing of the lack of things to really do for Patric or Michel Hutchence, best known as the singer of the underrated band INXS).

I can't say it is a compromised movie in producer interference, but it just seems to be out of step with really delivering on what it believes it wants to show in the perils of trying to play God in the guise of science. It just feels like a movie out of date despite its strange moments of charm that prove too fleeting for something that meanders far too many times to not earn its runtime (85 minutes). It has a few charming moments, at least; simply put, even goofy schlock is better than self-important slop. Nothing feels all that surprising or particularly involving besides the occasional splotches of gore (to say nothing of the curiously stretched makeup of the monster, which goes better than the lack of material for Brimble to chew on). After a climax of transporting people back to time and killing people off as swiftly as possible, it ends with a bunch of lasers going around to somehow deal with the monster, who then voices the last lines of the film about being "unbound" for whatever reason. And that's the last you see of Corman as a director, a...voice of the unbound as a guy goes to a crappy future looking for a city (speaking of premises that might have been better).  As a whole, Frankenstein Unbound begs to really cut loose in being a film besides the usual trappings of a Frankenstein movie that isn't bound enough in motivations or in energy to really rise to the occasion for entertainment. If you like to see curious last efforts or films that might be a hidden gem in the rough, this might just be up your alley.
 
Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.


*I really did want to watch and review it for November 7 to close out 7 Days of The Week After Halloween (2025), but I instead went with the doubleheader Mayhem and Suitable Flesh. So it goes.

May 5, 2025

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

Review #2376: Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

Cast: 
Kevin Costner (Robin Hood), Morgan Freeman (Azeem Edin Bashir Al Bakir), Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (Lady Marian), Christian Slater (Will Scarlett), Alan Rickman (the Sheriff of Nottingham), Geraldine McEwan (Mortianna), Michael McShane (Friar Tuck), Brian Blessed (Lord Locksley), Michael Wincott (Guy of Gisborne), Nick Brimble (Little John), Harold Innocent (the Bishop of Hereford), Walter Sparrow (Duncan), Daniel Newman (Wulf), Daniel Peacock (Bull), and Jack Wild (Much) Directed by Kevin Reynolds (#1081 - Waterworld)

Review: 
Okay, so Kevin Reynolds did other movies besides Waterworld (1995). Actually, the San Antonio native got his start in film with co-writing the script with John Milius for Red Dawn (1984). His first film as a director came with Fandango (1985), which actually sprung from a film he had made when at USC Film School that was inspired by his experiences at Baylor University. The production, featuring a young Kevin Costner as the star, wasn't a hit, but Reynolds found further work with The Beast (1988). Reynolds later served as a second unit director with Dances with Wolves (1990)*, significantly with the buffalo hunt scene. Naturally, the two united for a movie that sprung from British people. Well, okay, British writer-producer Pen Densham wanted to do a Robin Hood movie that went on with the idea of not just being a rerun of the famed 1938 film of the tale in adventure, instead billing it as "Robin Hood a la Raiders”. He wrote an outline with John Watson that attracted attention and getting Reynolds basically meant getting Costner involved. Reynolds apparently wanted to avoid making "Indiana Jones" with the tone. With a rushed production schedule to try and make sure they were not beaten out by a rival Robin Hood movie and not be stuck in England winter, the result was, well, funny. Apparently, preview screenings had people say that Rickman's sheriff was their favorite character rather than Costner. They then replaced editors with a team that trimmed and beefed-up certain scenes that saw Reynolds leave the production prior to the final editing/scoring. Interestingly, a 2003 DVD of the movie has an extended version of the movie that runs at 155 minutes (i.e. 12 minutes of restored footage, most notably showing the parentage of a certain character).

Sure, the tales of Robin Hood is a folktale of British origin. Sure, there is no straight-to-the-point version of what the myth is beyond a man who can use arrows and/or swords. There is no one person that inspired folks to talk about a bandit that dealt with the rich beyond people who were outlaws in some way. The movies did their own thing, suffice to say. Hell, people even made ballads about Robin Hood. The only ballad people will make of this movie is how ridiculously all over the place it all is. Sure, I got a kick out of the movie more often than not, but its flaws are evident to even those who don't care about a certain degree of violence or the tone of the whole thing. The fact that Kevin Reynolds elected to work with Kevin Costner again with Waterworld (1995) after this means that people really do have plenty of patience to share with each other. I have no time to really quibble about Costner *the American* playing Robin Hood, because freaking Errol Flynn was an Australian (incidentally, did you know James Cagney was supposed to play the role before Flynn?). I will, however, quibble about the fact that someone thought it was a problem that Rickman overshadows him in the movie. What the hell was his performance before they did the edits, a stronger block of wood?** To be clear, I don't really care that much about if Costner varies in trying to do an accent, because, well, meh, but I will quibble with the fact that he barely has any charisma in the first place. I think he just coasts better with alleged classics like Bull Durham (1988) when he has some sort of actual breath of fun with actually doing something besides looking into the distance and doing a hobby shop Clint Eastwood impression. And yet...the movie does what it does in spite of his okay qualities. I at least see the interest that comes with a lead that sees the Crusades and all that comes from it and decides, no, life isn't about chasing glory. Freeman accompanies this with a zest to play with the idea of enjoying this quest and sticking out like a sore thumb (as one does when being referred to as a "Moor") in staid charm. And then of course there is Rickman, who saw the script and proceeded to come up with (read: enlist the help of writer friends such as Ruby Wax and Peter Barnes) better lines for himself (the "cancel Christmas" line, for example). His menace in chewing the scenery and zeal for doing exactly what he feels is both damn funny and also absorbing in a way that saves the movie in showing energy beyond just doing the same adversarial bit. What can I say, I like ham (for reference, the Sheriff in the 1938 version was played by Melville Cooper, but it's easy to forget when Claude Rains and Basil Rathbone play the real threats of that film), particularly when sharing time with the amusing hack mysticism of McEwan. Mastrantonio has exactly one interesting scene: her introduction, when she fights under a mask for a bit. She then coasts along as just an adequate observer to the growing absurdity (except for the climax, which has her wail while Rickman aims for extra-cooked ham and Costner sifts into "sword" mode). Slater basically pops in and out to play a brat with the most evident twist necessarily, but McShane and Brimble at least make the merry band of men (okay, not all men) have energy to make these people seem like you would actually want to be there in the British countryside (insert your own British joke here, guv'nor). The movie does strain in the credibility of an okay (read: generous) lead backed with a far more capable cast (read: one really good actor and a few names to like here and there) and some action that I'm actually okay with. Some will find it joyless, some will find it a pleasure they can roll with in the sheer bombast that comes through for some useful adventure that I can appreciate. It's the ultimate "love it or hate it" kind of movie that you might find worth stumbling onto or stagger away from.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*That would be the *overrated* Dances with Wolves, released in 1990. Sure, fine movie, but I will never understand how Costner's efforts with a movie outdone by, well, pick a random Eastwood Western, was the best movie by a certain Academy.
**And who wanted to see his bare ass?