The Munsters (2022).

Review #2090: The Munsters.

Cast: 

Sheri Moon Zombie (Lily; Donna Doomley), Jeff Daniel Phillips (Herman; Shecky Von Rathbone; Zombo), Daniel Roebuck (The Count; Ezra Mosher), Richard Brake (Dr. Wolfgang; Orlock), Jorge Garcia (Floop), Sylvester McCoy (Igor), Catherine Schell (Zoya Krupp), Cassandra Peterson (Barbara Carr), and Tomas Boykin (Lester) Written and Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007), #1590 - House of 1000 Corpses, #1751 - Halloween II (2009), #1756 - The Devil's Rejects, #1920 - 3 from Hell)

Review: 

“The Munsters’ was exhausting. That was an exhausting movie to make. It took almost five years of non-stop pushing. And then, being in a foreign country during the height of COVID was not as much fun as you would think! So the whole experience was very draining.”

As surely mentioned at least one person familiar from old television in your life, The Munsters was the show to go when it came to horror makeup on a sitcom as created by Allan Burns and Chris Hayward (with development by Norm Liebman and Ed Haas). Well, when you come from folks that had been involved with The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends (while being produced by the duo that had created Leave It to Beaver), I'm sure you can understand what the show generally felt like, and, well, yes, it was fine for the time. And yes, it is the kind of show that once had a quote about the only thing that "matters is the size of your heart and the strength of your character." Anyway, here we are with a Universal film with Rob Zombie...well, I take that back. It isn't so much a Universal Pictures project as it is a co-roject of Universal 1440 Entertainment (known for such vaunted films as Bobbleheads: The Movie) and Spookshow International Films, complete with select filming in Budapest that had a release of both Netflix (you know the reaction I have) and on video, but it falls just over the line from the direct-to-video stuff you'd see in the 2000s...barely. Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised Rob Zombie directed the film, because he once did a song called "Dragula" (as named for the dragster car in the show) that had a music video mimicking a car ride by the Munsters. It is the first theatrical film involving the show since Munster, Go Home! (1966), after a handful of television movies and one TV remake. The story of the film, if you didn't already guess, is really more a prequel than an adaptation of the series, since, well, there's no child Munster involved here. The film was mandated to be filmed in color rather than black-and-white like the show (aside from the closing sequence), so Zombie elected to shoot in vibrant color, citing it as seeming like a "live action cartoon". Zombie has stated his plan to not make another Munsters film, citing the rough production. 

Honestly, the film isn't even as good as Munster, Go Home!, which I'm sure you remember as the only other time that the Munsters have been featured in a theatrical format. If the original series was like a piece of candy corn that was sweet if not just a tad bit light, the film is essentially that same corn but made with cotton candy to hide the fact that there is less of the candy to go around. It is a strange film to mark in Zombie's line of work because it is the only one as of now that you could show to your children, because the rest of his stuff is, well, not PG-rated fluff. I can see the energy present in why he would want to make a movie based on a show that he seems to really love, but I also see that the film exists as an example for people to hold against him as something he either shouldn't have undertaken or wrote by himself. It seems to be a case where the cast and crew seem to be having more fun than the person watching it. Simply put: for a film full of corny jokes and a bit of spiffy makeup, you would think there was an actual body full of life in there, and yet it all comes out stiff. I understand the desire for having it focus on the core three members (Phillips, S.Zombie, Roebuck), but the general story around them doesn't make for a whole film when the jokes are not as funny as the source material that it tries to play tribute to. Of those three, it is only Roebuck that seems to get a grasp at the character as originally played by Al Lewis. He has that conniving but warm spirit that inspires a good deal of the actual chuckles generated from the film. You might wonder the fairness of trying to compare actors playing a role once inhabited by people from a half-century ago, but, well, Yvonne De Carlo and Fred Gwynne were solid picks in 1966 but Phillips and S.Zombie probably wouldn't have made for good second choices in 1966. Simply put, they don't make great presences in roles that should feel familiar and they don't really make a solid presence for a newcomer to see for laughs anyway. Phillips plays it too much like a ham, chomping at the bit to raise the voice for what ends up seeming like a video parody while S.Zombie somehow seems anywhere other than where she should be. It is that kind of bland haughty spirit that seems ripe for (wait for it) parody rather than an interpretation of familiar ground. Lewis and Gwynne were just so good together in comedic chemistry back then, and Phillips and Roebuck here don't even get to attempt to try and be funny together. The fact that McCoy may be the most interesting supporting presence before being turned into a bat is probably the punchline said on the burial of this coffin. I can't even fathom why the film has a whole plot about a castle takeover, unless they were so confident that scenes in Translyvania were more interesting than actually getting along to the familiar looking mansion from the show (spoiler: if you can cut the fat, why not do so?). Brake and Garcia seem like fine folk, but you could cut them and Schell and possibly not lose much in the way of chuckles for what seems too long at 110 minutes already. The film at least does use its color choices for useful effect to make amusement in tacky quality (again, the overall film is tacky, but the look is better than the jokes).

How is it that you can't make a more compelling adaptation of an show than the two Addams Family films (1991, 1993)? Not to veer too off-topic, but those films took a subject (neat little family looks strange to outsiders) already familiar to audiences with them from a decades-old show and newcomers to make for interesting entertainment. Here I just find a middling film that doesn't seem to really have a grasp of what the show really seems to be about. Yes, it was a sitcom, and yes, it had a few (?) corny jokes, but it also had a strong core cast and also a strong grasp of fun for family entertainment that emphasized just how cool it was to be around these cheerful folks despite the odd things that came from the folks who reacted around them. The film may be bright and it may look nice at times, but it doesn't gel well to justify anything other than a rental for those who need to fill time with something light. I can't give it a positive recommendation, because simply watching the show would be the best way to start one's autumn than doing so with a movie not worth your time.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Dracula (1979).

Review #1293: Dracula.

Cast: 

Frank Langella (Count Dracula), Laurence Olivier (Professor Abraham Van Helsing), Donald Pleasence (Dr. Jack Seward), Kate Nelligan (Lucy Seward), Trevor Eve (Jonathan Harker), Jan Francis (Mina Van Helsing), Sylvester McCoy (Walter Myrtle), Janine Duvitski (Annie), Tony Haygarth (Milo Renfield), and Teddy Turner (Swales) Directed by John Badham (#086 - Short Circuit)

Review: 

1979 was an interesting time for films with Dracula. There were at least three major releases involving a variation of the character released that year: Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) and Love at First Bite, with two minor films also being released that year named Nocturna and Dracula Blows His Cool. It shouldn't prove surprising, considering that the 1970s had already had numerous Dracula films, with a good deal of featuring Christopher Lee - who was featured in eight films as the title role, which ranged from the Hammer films to comedies. Dracula even had its own blaxpoitation film (another time, another year), so why not another Univeral Dracula film? Much like the 1931 film, it is based on both the 1924 play of the same name by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston and the 1897 novel by Bram Stoker. The screenplay was done by W. D. Richter, who you may remember as the writer of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), so there does seem to have a bit of promise. Langella, like Lugosi before him, had starred in the Broadway production of Dracula, with macabre illustrator Edward Gorey behind the sets and costumes that mostly consisted of black-and-white with red accents. The original book had a title character that is animalistic, while the play revised it to being more suave and polite that doesn't loom in the background as much. In that sense, one wonders how a stylish and slightly more polished Dracula proves to be. For me, I find myself in the middle, where I can applaud the attempt at trying to make something interesting with this character, but it can't quite work as a love story nor as a horror film, managing to be as average as the Hammer films that did less with the character before it. It definitely ranks below the aforementioned Nosferatu film in trying to depict a lonesome Dracula, this much is for sure. One can only feel underwhelmed when it comes to the excitement levels of this movie, where disappointment and quiet acceptance run the same street with this film, and it starts with Dracula himself. Langella does fine with the suave nature of such an alluring one to follow, particularly with the way he stares at others on screen. But I feel that he doesn't really come off as a threat in the scenes where the film needs it the most, right down to the lack of fangs (same with Lugosi, but with a different result) and a bizzare love sequence involving a blood red tunnel. Everything else seems so dry in comparison, where camp really sometimes does need to be king. Olivier seems ready to be in some other production for a different time while being a bit too quiet in comparison to the smaller featured Pleasence (who accepted the role of Seward over Van Helsing due to it seeming similar to his role that he played in Halloween the previous year), who also is just okay. Nelligan can't quite make this a riveting quartet for her side as well, where I never really seem to care all too much in this romantic angle. This is a film that needs panache for flavor, and instead one gets expired refreshments. The Hammer films may have varied in quality when it came to the title character (especially in their escalation of ways to kill him), but at least I felt that there was some sort of terror that lurked beyond that cape, where I actually want to see what could happen to the disposable- I mean the supporting characters. The climax is swift, but it's attempt to bait with its last shot is a bit too silly to make it really matter - at least try to be definitive if you only have one shot. The film has certainly an interesting history on how to be found. The original version of the film had warm colors, differing from Badham's desire to film in black-and-white. For future releases, the color timing was altered to de-saturate the look of the film, and a release of the original print has only just begun to be released onto markets. Honestly, one can hope their brightness level is where they want, or be curious over how it looked back in 1979, a time for Dracula like no other. Ultimately, this is an average film, just not having enough in its blood besides style to really deliver passion or scares meaningfully to win out. It could prove a curiosity if one wants to see another rendition of the most famous fictional vampire, for better or worse.

Next Review: The Blair Witch Project.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.