Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Close Encounters of the Third Kind

I had never seen Close Encounters of the Third Kind.  Can you believe it?  Embarrassing, I know. Here was one of the major films of the 1970s, a sci fi classic from one of the greatest directors of his generation, and I had never taken the two hours to just sit down and watch it.  So after kicking myself profusely, I decided to do just that.

Close Encounters is the story of Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss), who one evening has a run-in with an alien spaceship.  It is a brief encounter, but the aftermath has done something strange to Roy.  He starts to become obsessed with a mountain, constantly picturing it, ranting about it, and even shaping it in his mashed potatoes.  What does the mountain mean?!  Meanwhile, scientists led by Frenchman Lacombe (played by legendary French director Francois Truffaut) are making contact with the aliens, using musical notes as communication.  What does that have to do with Roy?  And about those other people who have also had close encounters?  How do they figure into the puzzle?

So since almost everyone has seen Close Encounters, my review is going to go a bit into spoiler territory. For the few who have not seen the movie: here is my summary - in many ways, this film is a masterpiece.  But Roy is such a tedious main character that it kind of ruins the whole movie for me. There you go.

Now for more details.  SPOILER ALERT.

So does this film live up to its "masterpiece" status?  In many ways, absolutely.  There are some brilliant moments of supreme filmmaking.  Spielberg's direction is superb and inventive.  The appearances of the alien spaceships, for example, are ingenious. Take for instance Roy's encounter.  He sits in his truck in the middle of the night, lost and frantically looking at a map.  The headlights of a car pull up behind him and Roy waves him by.  The headlights don't go around; instead they lift up above him, and when Roy looks up he sees the UFO flying over him.  I was struck at such a creative and cool way to introduce the aliens.  The whole film is full of inventive moments like that. The spinning ships chased by police cars, the alien arrival at Jillian's house (which truly is a terrifying scene), the arrival of the mother ship at the end of the film.  Spielberg uses the same technique he did in Jaws in that he holds back from showing too much until the end of the film.  Until the climax, you don't see any aliens; the ships are either moving too fast or are hidden by clouds, and what you do see is a kaleidoscope of light (brilliantly filmed by Oscar-winning cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond). There are moments where the film transcends into something truly sublime; such as Lacombe's visit to India and the arrival of the mother ship.  That is when I felt like I was watching the masterpiece Close Encounters is reputed to be.

But there is a 'but.'  And it is a big one for me in this movie.  Roy Neary is a jerk.  His obsession tears his family apart.  And at the end of the movie, he happily accompanies the aliens to space and just leaves his wife and kids behind without a second thought.  Even Spielberg has said that this was probably a mistake and he would have played the ending differently had he made the film today.  But my problem goes back further, to even before the alien encounter fries Roy's brain. Because he is a selfish and obsessed jerk even before that.  Just look at the introductory scene, where he is playing with a giant train set assembled in his family's living room.  The house isn't that big and he's hogging most of the space with his trains.  His son needs help with his homework and Roy doesn't care.  His attention is completely on his models...and when he finally agrees to help, he tries to explain the math problem using the train set...in a way that doesn't even really make sense.  He already has a selfish and obsessed personality.  All the alien encounter does is amplify that.  So even if that makes the movie consistent, it still makes it hard to root for the guy.  He's just a jerk and not someone I want to follow around for two hours, even if I love everything else going on in the movie.  And the fact that he gets a happy ending that he frankly doesn't deserve...the fact that he basically tortures his family and then just deserts them and then gets to go live happily ever just really rubs me the wrong way.  And it sort of ruins the movie for me.

So there you go.  In some ways, this film is a real masterpiece, but Roy is too much of a problem and drags the movie down with him.

TRIVIA:
When designing the mothership, the special effects team hid all sorts of cool items on it, including model airplanes, a mailbox, a cemetery, and most awesomely, R2D2.

MVP:
I think I have to go with the Visual Effects team.  They really did some remarkable work that is still awe-inspiring today, decades after the film's release.  The use of the lights on the ships is a brilliant visual stroke, and beautifully executed.  And when you see those bright orange and red lights lighting up the clouds, it is truly an eerie site.  And I was in awe when I saw the giant cloud formation circling around the Devil's Tower, and then the mother ship emerging.  It was amazing.  When I heard it had lost the Oscar for Best Visual Effects, I was infuriated.  Then I saw that the movie that beat it was Star Wars.  So...well, okay then.  There's really no competition there!  It's Star Wars!!!

OSCARS: Best Cinematography, Special Achievement Award for Sound Effects Editing

OSCAR NOMINATIONS: Best Supporting Actress (Melinda Dillon), Best Director (Spielberg), Best Visual Effects. Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing, Best Sound, and Best Original Score (an amazing score by John Williams that would have won the Oscar if not for...well, John Williams' Star Wars, only one of the greatest film scores of all time!!!) 

BEST LINE: 

Organist (while having a musical "conversation" with the mother ship: "What are we saying to each other??"

Les Miserables

Les Miserables 

Look, I'm not gonna lie.  I usually don't like musicals.   I respect them, and I appreciate the power of music to evoke emotion, but all too often I find the singing actually takes me out of the movie as opposed to emotionally connecting me.  There are exceptions, of course.  Singing in the Rain is a classic.  I really enjoyed both Chicago and Dreamgirls.  So what about Les Miserables?  Would this all-star film based on one of Broadway's most beloved shows be one of the few musicals that crosses over?

Les Miserables is based on the classic novel by Victor Hugo. I'll keep the synopsis vague as to not ruin anything for those who don't know the story.  Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) has just been released from 19-years imprisonment and decides to break parole in order to rebuild his life as a better man.  Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe) is a tough-as-nails soldier who devotes his life to catching the convict, ignoring all the visible signs of how Valjean's newfound compassion affects everyone around them.  It's an epic story, spanning decades, and even includes a climactic battle set during the Paris Uprising in 1832.

The story sounded interesting so I was definitely curious, especially with this superb cast: Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Russell Crowe, Eddie Redmayne, Amanda Seyfried, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bodham Carter...this is quite a cast.  And I was a big fan of director Tom Hooper's last movie, The King's Speech.  But unfortunately, Les Miserables did not totally win me over. 

First of all, there is a lot to like in this movie, starting with the cast.  Everyone is absolutely superb, both in the acting and singing department.  Hooper made a brave choice with the film by recording the songs live instead of recording them in the studio, which is the common practice with musicals.  This experiment pays off in spades, giving the music an immediacy and raw emotional power that is missing when the songs are "produced" in a studio booth.  Nowhere is this more evident than in Anne Hathaway's show-stopping "I Dreamed a Dream," which is about as raw as you can get.

I was also very impressed with the art direction and the overall look of the film.  It's a superb looking film, and I wouldn't be surprised if it scooped up most of the Costume and Art Direction Awards.

What I liked most about Les Miserables was the epicness of it all.  I truly felt like this movie was a massive journey and I had gotten to know these characters over two decades.  When the movie ends, you do not feel like you've watched a movie; instead, you've experienced something.  And that is kinda special.  Ironically, this epic length is also the movie's greatest weakness.  When the movie is not working, it just grinds to a halt...and it is those moments where I literally feel like I am spending twenty years with these people.  There were a few times where I thought, "oh, please, Jean Valjean, if you have any real compassion, you would just stop singing and get on with it!"

There are a few other things I don't like.  I had never seen the stage musical so a lot of this was fresh for me.  And the songs are all quite good and memorable.  But most musicals have dialogue between the songs.  Not Les Miserables.  This movie is all song. There might be all of six lines of non-singing dialogue in the whole film. I wouldn't mind this so much if the music were good, but I actually found much of the this 'inbetween' singing to be tuneless and meandering.  I know many of you are screaming and smashing at your keyboards: BLASPHEMY!!!  Look, I'm not badmouthing the music as a whole.  The major songs are all pretty good, some of them superb, but the music inbetween the big numbers is just kind of painful.

So there you go: Les Miserables in the end is a mixed bag.  When it is firing on all cylinders, it really is terrific.  Usually this is when the show's major numbers are featured: "I Dreamed a Dream," "On My Own," and "One Day More" are stirring and wonderfully performed, and showcase the raw power that musicals can have when done well.  But it just drags in a lot of other places, sometimes painfully so.  But like I said in the beginning of the review, take my opinion with a grain of salt because musicals just aren't my thing!

But all that said, I do want to address a few points in SPOILER territory.  For those who have seen the movie or know the play really well, here are the moments I liked and disliked.

Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bodham Carter stage the film's funniest scene when they perform "Master of the House," but with every subsequent scene they appear in, they become less and less amusing and more and more annoying.  Until by the end, they were just tedious.

Damn.  Hugh Jackman can sing.  And I was a bit terrified by his chest hair.  To be honest, I was surprised by most of the cast.  They all have pretty terrific voices.

Anne Hathaway just won her Oscar.  I am sure of it.  She isn't in the film for very long, but she is so heart achingly good in "I Dreamed a Dream."  It's downright haunting.

Almost as good is the relatively unknown (but not for long) member of the cast, Samantha Barks, as Eponine.  She knocks "On My Own" out of the park!

I do want to defend Russell Crowe for a second. He seems to be catching some heat as Javert.  I actually thought he was fine.  It's a different role for him, and while his voice doesn't necessarily sound Broadway to me, I thought his singing got the job done.  I think people are not responding well to him for a few reasons.  His introduction is handled clumsily, with his singing literally coming out of nowhere, causing some snickering in the audience.  And the director does not do Crowe any favors by staging his solo numbers in really goofy ways (i.e. always balancing on railings and silly blocking like that).  In fact, while most of the camera work is fine, I was distracted by the horribly quick pullbacks that seemed to happen whenever the actors hit a big note.  This was just awkward and clumsy and he does it to poor Russell Crowe constantly.  It just seems like they are setting him up to fail.

Speaking of Crowe, I really like the confrontation in the hospital when Javert explains why he refuses to believe in Valjean's reformation.  That Javert came from the same lowly background as Valjean, picked himself out of the muck, and transformed himself into a symbol of law and order...that explains a lot about his character and I think Crowe nails this moment.

Not meaning to go back to this, but those zoom outs really annoyed me!

And why the horribly gruesome bone-breaking sound effect when Javert dies.  It was so loud, it was almost comical.  And why do that to a poor character who just seemed to see the error of his ways??

I also have a problem with the very end when the whole cast appears on a super huge barricade, singing the People's song.  I feel the movie gets its themes mixed up.  Onstage, I'm sure this makes sense because it is a chance for the whole cast to come out and sing one more time. But in the film, it just muddies the waters.  It makes it seem like this whole movie was about The People, the need for Revolution, and the Paris Uprising.  Really, the uprising is just a plot device - and it only really matters to Marius.  And actually, even then, it doesn't seem like it really means that much to him since he is about to abandon the revolution in order to chase after Cosette.  Cutting back to the barricade at the finale, and including Fantine, Cosette and Valjean with the group just doesn't make much sense to me.

Okay, SPOILER OVER.

MVP:
Well, I think I've already made it clear that my MVP is Anne Hathaway.  "I Dreamed a Dream" is usually belted out by powerhouse singers.  Every time I've heard it, it's produced as a big, huge number for a singer with a powerhouse voice.  That doesn't make much sense in the movie, since Fantine is weak, desperate, and dying of tuberculous.  Kinda hard to hit the big notes when you have tuberculous. So she takes the opposite approach.  She doesn't push the song out, she pulls it in, makes it personal, ignores the power and just focused on the anguish and emotion.  It's a remarkable performance.  And yes, she is good in her other scenes, as well.  But it is this performance that wins her my MVP (and probably the Oscar, too).


TRIVIA: 
A lot of actresses auditioned to be in this movie.  For Eponine, you had the likes of Scarlett Johansson, Hayden Panettierre, and Rachel Evan Wood.  Supposedly, Taylor Swift was really close to getting the part.  No offense to any of these ladies, but I think they cast this role perfectly.  Samantha Barks, who had already played the part on stage, was perfect.

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed!

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed

So after the disaster that was Frankenstein Created Woman, I went into Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed with very small expectations.  But I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised.  The movie has some serious problems, but it is ten times better than the previous entry.

Well, it seems Baron Frankenstein is up to his old tricks again.  He finds out that a former colleague, Dr. Richter, is in a nearby insane asylum.  Frankenstein blackmails one of the asylum doctors, Karl (Simon Ward, Three Musketeers) and his fiance, Anna (Veronica Carlson, Dracula Has Risen From the Grave) into helping him release and cure the doctor so they can collaborate on their life creating experiments.  Of course, things never work out as they should...

First, let's talk about what the film does right!  I have to say it looks gorgeous, casting off the cheap and dull look that Frankenstein Created Woman suffered from.  Terence Fisher, the franchise's go-to director (who must have been sleepwalking through the previous entry) is back in fine form, moving the film along at a good clip and playing around with some terrific camera angles.  Fisher's introduction of Baron Frankenstein is easily the character's best entrance in the entire franchise.  I also like how the series finally clarifies its approach to the Frankenstein character.  There is some debate about whether the mad doctor is truly evil or not.  After all, he is just obsessed with furthering medical science!  He's not trying to hurt anyone.  But to me, it all goes back to the question of whether the ends justify the means...and this is why the good Baron will always be a villain to me...and Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed gets that.  Starting from the very first scene, this Baron is a ruthless, vicious man, and Cushing plays him to hilt, bringing all his malicious arrogance to the forefront.  And this is a lot of fun to watch at first, until they push the cruelty too far in the second half of the movie.

What doesn't work is everything related to Karl and Anna.  This is in no way the fault of Ward and Carlson, both of whom are fine performers.  I just felt their characters were extraneous.  I think they just added the young lovers' storyline to attract a wider (and female) audience.  But the gambit fails.  Anything they contributed to the plot could have been done in a different, more economical way.  And once they have outlived their usefulness to the story, they just stick around, weighing the movie down.  With nothing real for the characters to do, the producers just stick them in situations to be abused by Frankenstein and this gets annoying really fast.  This includes a random and uncomfortable rape scene, filmed against the objections of Cushing, Fisher, and Carlson.  The scene makes no sense, is out of character for Frankenstein, and is never mentioned again for the rest of the movie.

Really, this scene is just a good example of what happens in the second half of the film.  The whole enterprise just starts to fall apart.  All the characters start acting in ways contrary to what we have been watching in the first hour, and you just find yourself asking, "well, now why are they doing that?!" every five minutes.  If not for the moving performance of Freddie Jones (Dune) as Dr. Richter during the film's climax, the whole second half of the film would have been a complete disaster.

I was also profoundly disturbed by the unnecessary, undeserved and sadistic treatment of Anna.  It really bothered me.  And it is a shame because there is so much to like in Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed - the general look and feel of the film, the performances, the general concept.  I have very mixed feelings about this movie.  I suppose it is worth watching at some point, but don't rush out to see it!

MVP:
Freddie Jones gets my MVP.  Cushing almost wins, especially for his awesome entrance, but they put him through too many uncharacteristic antics in the second half.  But with very small screen time, Freddie Jones makes quite an impact as Dr. Richter.  The scene to watch is when he goes to visit his wife and tries to explain what has happened to him.  It's a moving, heartfelt moment, and probably the best scene in the film.


BEST LINE: 
Upon overhearing an ignorant conversation from gentlemen at the inn's common room:

Frankenstein: I didn't know you were doctors.

Guest: We're not doctors.

Frankenstein: I beg your pardon.  I thought you knew what you were talking about.

Guest: That's damn rude, sir.

Frankenstein: I'm afraid stupidity always brings out the worst in me.

TRIVIA:
So the rape scene was filmed after most of the film was complete because producer Michael Carreras thought audiences would want more violence and sadism.  Terence Fisher, Peter Cushing and Veronica Carlson were all adamantly against the scene, and you can see their discomfort up on the screen.  Because it was filmed and included after the fact, that is why they act like it never happened in the rest of the movie.

Frankenstein Created Woman

Frankenstein Created Woman

Frankenstein Created Woman is a bit of an odd duck, and a divisive one at that.  There are those who champion the film, calling it one of the more inventive and creative films of the Hammer Horror canon.  Martin Scorsese is one of these - while admitting it is not one of the best Hammer movies, he says the film's "implied metaphysic is close to something sublime."  Then there are others who think it is absolute rubbish, and a clear indication that Hammer was on the downward spiral.

I am firmly in the second camp.  Frankenstein Created Woman is just absolutely horrible.  And it is a shame considering the presence of Hammer's "A" Team of director Terence Fisher and actor Peter Cushing.  The plot is also somewhat interesting on paper.  Baron Frankenstein has now mastered the art of creating life.  But something is missing.  His creations keep going crazy and killing people.  He realizes what has been missing is the soul.  He can transfer a creature's brain, but without the soul, what good is it?  That is the metaphysical concept that I think fascinates Scorsese, and it is a good idea.  But the execution is horrible.  And this genuinely intriguing notion becomes such a small part of a film that pretty much plays like a Tales from the Crypt or Twilight Zone episode.

Here is what the film is really about.  This is heavy SPOILER here, so skip the paragraph if you don't want to know.  Hans (Robert Morris, Five Million Years to Earth) is the assistant of Baron Frankenstein and Dr. Hertz (Robert Morley, Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed).  Hans is in love with the deformed and disabled innkeeper's daughter, Christina (Playboy playmate Susan Denberg).  But some village meanies are always making fun of her.  And then they kill the innkeeper and Hans is implicated and executed.  Distraught, Christina drowns herself.  Although Dr. Hertz is upset about the whole situation, the always practical Frankenstein senses an opportunity to prove his theory.  He revives Christina (and magically transforms her from ugly duckling to the Playboy playmate teenagers were paying tickets to ogle) and implants Hans' soul into her body.  So will his experiment work?  Or will this monster also go on a murderous, vengeful rampage?   SPOILER over.

But did you notice how I barely mention Frankenstein in this synopsis?  The mad doctor is wasted, vanishing from the film for vast stretches of time while we watch the young lovers frolic.  Even worse, the night of the murder, we are subjected to watching the village meanies act like jerks in the inn's bar for what seems like an eternity before they even get around to killing him.  Literally, this murderous, ponderous evening takes up a good half hour of the short film's runtime.  If they intended to do this in an attempt to ramp up the tension, then they failed miserably, because the villains lack any...I don't know, villainy?  They are just annoying, plain and simple.  And very boring, too.  

There is some good stuff in here. Cushing is reliable, as always, even in limited screen time.  The score by James Bernard is among his best.  And the "soul transfer" theme is genuinely interesting, and they really should have played that up more.  So whose soul is really in Christina's body?  What does that imply for the existence of an afterlife?  If it works, what would Frankenstein even do with this knowledge?  These are interesting questions that the film never thinks about.

All in all, I would steer clear of this movie.  There are those who love it, but I think it is easily one of Hammer's worst.

MVP:

James Bernard was one of the go-to composers for Hammer Films, composing thrilling music for the Dracula franchise, as well as several of their stand-alones.  He outdoes himself here, composing one of his best themes for the doomed lovers.  I can guarantee that if anyone in the audience felt an ounce of sympathy for Hans and Christina, it is because of what James Bernard brought to those scenes.  It's a superb score, and this movie doesn't deserve it!


BEST LINE: During Han's trial:

Inspector: What is your occupation?

Frankenstein: I am a doctor.

Inspector: Of Medicine?

Frankenstein: Medicine, Law and Physics.

Heckler in the crowd: And Witchcraft!

Frankenstein: To the best of my knowledge, doctorates are not given for Witchcraft, but in the event they are, I shall no doubt qualify for one.

TRIVIA:

This film was originally intended as a follow-up to Revenge of Frankenstein back in the late 50s, in order to take advantage of the huge Roger Vadim hit And God Created Woman.  Numerous delays kept pushing it back until 1967.  I'm assuming audiences still got the pun...

The Revenge of Frankenstein

The Revenge of Frankenstein

Now that is more like it!  I was sorely disappointed with The Curse of Frankenstein, the classic British film that ushered in the Golden Age of Hammer Films and revitalized the Gothic Horror film genre.  While I appreciated what the movie was trying to do, I just wasn't wowed by it.

Due to the success of The Curse of Frankenstein, Hammer rushed into production on this sequel, with much of the same cast and crew, including star Peter Cushing, director Terence Fisher, and writer Jimmy Sangster.  Usually rushing into a sequel can create problems, but in this case, it must have spurred a flush of creativity, featuring a storyline that I found much more engaging and innovative.

Once again, the focus of the film is on the evil Baron Frankenstein, played with relish by Cushing.  While The Curse of Frankenstein attempted a loose and only sort of successful adaptation of the original novel and also left Frankenstein's character and motivations somewhat confusing, Revenge just embraces the doctor's obsessions.  Posing as Dr. Stein, the Baron now has a thriving medical practice.  He also donates much of his time to a charity hospital, where he cares for the sick and poor.  And by caring for them, I mean he is harvesting their body parts so he can continue his experiments!  He is still obsessed with creating life, and having his abominations recognized by the scientific community, but doesn't understand why a little murder should be such a bad thing.  He is helped in his cause by another doctor, Hans Kleve (Francis Matthews, Dracula: Prince of Darkness) and a hunchback Karl (Michael Gwynn,  Cleopatra).  Also on hand, and perhaps in the way, is the wealthy and kind-hearted Margaret Conrad (Eunice Grayson, Dr. No), who volunteers at the clinic, but is not yet aware of Dr. Stein's hobby.

I really must stop calling Frankenstein "evil."  That isn't necessarily the right word.  Technically, he isn't necessarily evil.  He's just heartless, obsessive, and egotistical. To him, the ends always justify the means - and if that means amputating innocent people's limbs for the sake of what he thinks is science, then so be it!  Actually, I guess that is pretty damn evil!  And Cushing vanishes in the role, creating a memorable and focused take on the Baron.  The other actors are also solid, if not up to Cushing's level.  The script and music are both spot on, and the direction from Fisher is right on target, a clear example of why he was Hammer's most dependable director.

I'll be honest, part of me isn't sure why I enjoyed The Revenge of Frankenstein more than The Curse of Frankenstein.  I suppose part of it is that the writers are now removing iconic characters from their source material and seeing what kind of new adventures they can have.  This leaves a lot of room for stupidity, but if done well, it can be very exciting and full of surprises.  I really enjoyed The Revenge of Frankenstein.  I definitely think everyone should check it out!

BEST LINE:

Janitor: Now take the animals in the jungle.  They don't wash none and yet you never hear of none of them getting sick.  Cause why?  They be good and dirty!

MVP:
Peter Cushing wins, without even the slightest competition.  He just owns the movie.  Aristocratic, cold, and brilliant, Baron Frankenstein is a dominating force of the film.  And Cushing knocks it out of the park.  Here is a minor spoiler moment from early in the film, but a good example of why I like Cushing here.  While attempting to unearth a coffin they need, Frankenstein and Karl come across some grave robbers.  One of them has a heart attack and dies, falling into the dug up grave.  Frankenstein checks to see he is breathing, and shrugs a nonchalant, "oh, well" and then just leaves him the grave without another thought.  This scene was hilarious, not just because the shrug was funny and a cute bit of funny timing, but also because we the audience are now being invited to laugh at, or with, Frankenstein's brand of villainy.  And Cushing just kills it.  He's great.  And he is the movie's clear MVP.

TRIVIA:
In 1958, the Daily Telegraph was so horrified by the film that they suggested the BBFC create a new category for the film, labeled "For Sadists Only."

Now, I have to say, the film's sadistic qualities are really not that bad, at least not by today's standards.  Lots of the gruesomeness is actually sort of cheesy, like the eyeballs that are floating in a fish tank in Frankenstein's lab.  Here's a picture.  Take a look at these suckers.  They are so cheesy, that I completely laughed that whole scene off!



 

The Curse of Frankenstein

The Curse of Frankenstein

A few years ago, I took it upon myself to watch and review a whole slew of Hammer Films, the iconic British studio that revived the classic monsters like Dracula and the Mummy in the late 1950s.  You can see my little writeup on the series here.  To be honest, it was one of the more fun experiments I have done since I started writing reviews.  But I was missing one of the most important pieces of the horror series: the Frankenstein franchise.

The Curse of Frankenstein is one of the most important films in Hammer history.  It was their first real foray into true classic horror and the film was a massive hit worldwide.  The film established the template for what made Hammer movies so appealing - lots of bright colors (especially red), gruesomeness, and sensuality (though very tame by today's standards). With the success of Frankenstein, Hammer launched Mummy and Dracula franchises, also to dizzying heights of box office gold.  The Curse of Frankenstein is now considered a classic.

And so it is very odd to me how underwhelmed I was with this film, especially considering the film featured Hammer's "A" Team (director Terence Fisher, writer Jimmy Sangster and actors Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee), who also collaborated on The Mummy, The Horror of Dracula, and The Gorgon.  The acting is fine, the atmosphere is gothic and chilling, and the dialogue is enjoyable (especially the winner of my best line award, below).  They also made an interesting decision to refocus the film, and the franchise, not on the monster like in earlier adaptations, but on Frankenstein himself, who instead of the misguided and obsessed hero he is in the original novel and in other movies, is actually downright evil.  The majority of the film involves his quest to create new life, no matter who stands in his way.  The monster only shows up briefly in a handful of scenes.  I actually think this is an interesting and bold choice to create a whole franchise based around an evil character, though I think it pays off more in the sequels.

Ultimately, I think getting the film to delve into this new direction is also what causes its biggest problem.  The Curse of Frankenstein wants to show us the descent of Frankenstein from an overly obsessed lover of medicine to a murderous and evil mad scientist.  But that descent makes no sense and comes out of nowhere.  If your film is going to focus on a bad guy as its main subject, you either make him sympathetic or you make him deliciously evil so we can enjoy the ride.  The Curse of Frankenstein sort of tries to do both, and that ends up hurting the movie because Frankenstein comes out as just a humorless and mean douchebag.  They should have just embraced his villainy like they do in The Revenge of Frankenstein. That would have been much more fun.

I also don't like the way women are handled in the film.  While I understand how they want to use Frankenstein's love affair with his maid (Valerie Gaunt) as a central skipping stone to his eventual embrace of evil, the whole subplot just seems out of character and random.  And his wife Elizabeth (Hazel Court) is kind wasted and here for no reason.

I don't want to say the film is all bad.  There is a lot to like.  The acting is good, especially from Robert Urquhart as Frankenstein's partner, Christopher Lee as a monster who seems more confused than murderous, and especially Cushing.  Even though I have problems with the character's presentation, Cushing is as always a pleasure to watch.  I also love the creature design.  The first appearance of the monster is truly staggering.  And I have to give a special shoutout to the super cool shot of Frankenstein working while the creature hangs on a meat hook behind him.  It is one of my favorite shots of any Hammer film ever.


Ah, well.  Maybe my expectations were too high.  The film was such a huge hit and is considered such a classic, that I just felt it should have been more on the ball.  Overall I think it is only okay.  Certainly worth watching, but definitely not the classic I expected.


BEST LINE:
Paul: I thought I'd find you here.

Frankenstein: That was very intelligent of you.  Well, now that you have found me, what do you want?

Paul: You killed the old man, didn't you.  And now you are mutilating his body.

Frankenstein: Mutilating?  I removed his brain.  Mutilating has nothing to do with it.

MVP:
Philip Leakey, the makeup artist who designed the creature makeup.  As soon as the production was announced, Universal immediately threatened to sue if Hammer used anything even closely resembling their now iconic creature design, so Leakey had to start from scratch.  After several failed attempts, Philip Leakey finally completed his terrific design literally the day before filming began.  I personally love what he came up with: patchwork person, with irregular features and a blind eye.  I wish the monster had been featured more, actually!











TRIVIA: 
Though Cushing and Lee had been in two films together already (Moulin Rouge and Hamlet), they never really talked or knew each other.  Inbetween takes on Frankenstein, the two passed the time and relieved the tension from all the gruesomeness around them by exchanging favorite Looney Tunes quotes back and forth.  And that was the beginning of a lifelong friendship. 

X-Men: First Class

X-Men: First Class

I have mixed feelings about the X-Men movie franchise.  Maybe I was just picky because the X-Men were my favorite comic team when I was growing up.  And while I felt Bryan Singer did a fairly good job with the first two X-Men movies, they never truly soared like say Spiderman 2 or The Dark Knight.  They were just two really solid comic films.  And then the third movie came out, a horrid, ill-conceived mess, and I became very worried about the direction of the franchise.  When they announced First Class, I was wary.  I did not think going back to do a prequel was a very good idea.  I wanted the studio to fix the mess they had made with Wolverine, Rogue, and Storm.  I didn't want to go back and see why Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr became Professor X and Magneto.

But the studio was smart, bringing a crew together that wouldn't hack a movie together.  Matthew Vaughn (Kick Ass) was a fine choice as director, with a fun style and strong visual flair that generally enhances his storytelling instead of distracts from it.  Vaughn went on to assemble a remarkable cast, including James McAvoy (Atonement), Kevin Bacon (Footloose), Rose Byrne (Troy), January Jones (Mad Men), rising star Jennifer Lawrence (The Hunger Games), and my favorite up-and-coming actor Michael Fassbender (Prometheus).  Together, they really put together a stylish and fun flick.

During the height of the Cold War, Erik Lehnsherr (Fassbender) is a Holocaust survivor, traveling the world and using his mutant abilities to control metal to hunt and kill escaped Nazi war criminals.  His primary target is Sebastian Shaw (Bacon), the German scientist who killed Erik's mother and performed horrible experiments on the boy in his concentration camp laboratory.  But Erik is not the only one seeking out Shaw.  Special agent Moira MacTaggart (Byrne) suspects Shaw is playing the USSR and the US against each other in an attempt to jumpstart World War 3.  Once she discovers she is dealing with mutants, she asks for help from the world's foremost mutant expert, telepath Charles Xavier (McAvoy).  The stage is set.  Let super heroics ensue! 

There is a lot to like here, but what I like the most is that the film really gets to the heart of what the X-Men are all about – how can the world deal with the existence of mutants?  Vaughn and Company touch on with some of the smarter issues from the comic, such as the debate of assimilation vs. segregation.  Some mutants can “pass” as normal; some look too bizarre to ever really join the rest of humankind.  I also like how they play off Xavier and Erik's opposing philosophies.  Xavier is a man of peace and acceptance.  He fights for a world where mutant and man can live in peace and harmony.  To Erik, that is a load of crap.  He lived through the Holocaust and he knows the horrors that mankind is capable of, and he will not forgive them for that capability.  The X-Men were always an allegory for prejudice and discrimination, and First Class does a terrific job of making that struggle central to its story.  

Not that the film is all serious.  It still has fun.  Vaughn has created a cool retro vibe, successfully recreating the 1960s with a fun James Bond feel.  The sets have iconic Ken Adams' influence all over them.  And that is super cool.  The actors all put in terrific work, especially McAvoy, Bacon, and Fassbender.  I will say the movie is not perfect.  There are some things that keep it from achieving the greatness of the BEST comic movies...at times, I found the scenes with Xavier's young mutant recruits a bit superfluous.  The actors are all fine, but their scenes occasionally drag.  Besides, the heart and the meat of this movie are both firmly with Magneto and Xavier...the actual "First Class" is almost a distraction.

I also HATED the makeup for The Beast.  He looked like a giant blue Ewok.  I just couldn't take most scenes with him seriously because of this.  Kelsey Grammar's Beast makeup in the previous X-Men film was much better, and I was surprised to see these kind of effects taking a step backwards.

But these are small complaints, right?  Overall, the movie was really quite good and I definitely recommend it.  Not only did they make a smart and fun super hero movie.  They saved a franchise.

MVP: 
McAvoy is superb, so the choice is not as easy as I would have thought, but this is still Fassbender's movie.  He gets my MVP for playing Erik.  He puts in superb, conflicted work as a good man at heart who is understandably twisted into eventually becoming the villainous Magneto.  I like how seriously Fassbender embraced the conflicted nature of the character.  And while the rest of the movie is good, the first half hour features the best sequences of the film, by far – and I am referring to Erik's ruthless hunting down of Nazi criminals.  I seriously could have watched an entire film called Magneto: Nazi Hunter.  So that makes for a decisive MVP win for Fassbender. 

P.S. Between his performances in Inglourious Basterds and X-Men: First Class, it is clear that Fassbender should be the next James Bond.  Daniel Craig is terrific and I am in no rush for him to retire, but I hope Eon has their eye on Fassbender for taking the mantle when the time comes.

BEST LINE:

Xavier: We have it in us to be the better men.
Erik: We already are.

TRIVIA:
Once cast as Charles Xavier, James McAvoy immediately shaved his head...only to learn that the film intended to feature Xavier with a full head of hair.  For the first month of filming, he had to wear hair extensions.  Oops.