Kingsman: the Secret Service (2015) Review

I love the superspy genre. The exotic locations, the fast cars, the beautiful women, and the diabolical masterminds make this genre the king of all blockbuster genres. The best era for superspies was the 1960s. Not only was Sean Connery playing Bond on the big screen, but spies were also on television in such imaginative shows as the Avengers (not the Marvel characters) and the Man From U.N.C.L.E. These shows were great because of their ability to take a familiar world, our own, and turn it into something exciting where danger and mystery lurked around every corner and Dom Perignon champagne flowed like water. There was a sense of escapism and comfort yes, but more importantly there was a playful imagination at work here that really hasn't been seen so much since. Matthew Vaughn, the director of Kingsman, must also feel the same way because this film is a love letter to superspies. a vulgar, blood-drenched, love-letter, but a love-letter nonetheless.

The film tells the story of a young man named Eggsy who finds himself in all sorts of nefarious activities. He had potential once, but due to the death of his father he, his mother, and his baby brother are struggling. Into all of this comes Harry, a superspy played by Colin Firth, who gets Eggsy involved in the super secret organization of the title. The rest you'll have to find out for yourself, but I will say that there is a supervillain played by Samuel L. Jackson and a henchwoman to rival any of the more recent Bond ones. this film is one of those examples where you know everyone making it must have been having fun doing so. Firth seems perfect for the role and he channels John Steed from the Avengers in every twist of his umbrella. Samuel L. Jackson also looks like he's having the time of his life playing his villain. The action, for the most part, is well executed in the most modern sense and the film has pretty much everything but the kitchen sink.

Unfortunately, sometimes you can get carried away when you're having so much fun. this film has so many different tones that sometimes the script doesn't balance them properly. The film also seems to overstay its welcome just a little bit. This is also not a movie for the family. The violence is extreme and the language is reminiscent of a Tarantino film. In fact this film feels like the Kill Bill of spy movies. Some people may find the violence upsetting and will not like the film for that reason and they may not be wrong. I, myself, felt that it went a little far sometimes.

That being said, one of the exciting things about this movie is its R rating. This allows it to tap into some uncharted territory when it comes to superspy movies and when it does this, it is at its best. Another great thing about this film is the actors which were enlisted to bring these characters to life. These respected actors give this film both a legitimacy and a sense of fun that is hard to deny.

My favorite parts of Kingsman were the subtle references to spy lore which were made throughout the film. These jokes and subversions are handled far more adeptly here than in almost any other superspy pastiche I've seen. because of this, Kingsman is not just another in a long line of superspy parodies but rather its own new product. a product that is not perfect and that will revolt some, but that will thrill many. 4/5

The Hobbit: the Battle of the Five Armies (2014) Review

Before I begin this review I will start with a short disclaimer. I have not seen the two previous Hobbit films, I have seen the original Lord of the Rings trilogy and read the book the Hobbit a long time ago, so long ago that I have pretty much forgotten the plot. With these things in mind, I understand that I come at this with a different perspective in that I am rating this film on its own merits and not in connection with the two that came before. I understand that some may view this perspective unfavorably or believe that I am at a disadvantage, so I just want to make sure it is known before we get into the meat of the review. I went into this film hoping for 2.5 hours of quality escapist entertainment with Martin Freeman's Bilbo as my guide and the world of Peter Jackson as my destination. Unfortunately, I found the experience disappointing.

I understand that I, who have not seen the previous two films, came at this with a disadvantage but it was not my lack of knowledge of the story thus far that disappointed me. It was rather the mechanics of the film itself. No matter how involved the stories that came before were, the story confined to this film felt drawn out and clichéd. The whole thing centered around a big battle much like Jackson's previous trilogy closer but here the battle felt long and uninteresting. The character development that occurred in this film also felt clichéd. I could predict where the story would go, what little actual story there was, and thus began to feel bored. This feeling was only accentuated by the drawn-out nature of several of the action scenes. The length of some of the fights harkened back to the long fights in a Zack Snyder film and I found myself wishing they would get to the point. I am willing to give the film the benefit of the doubt on some of the more emotional scenes because I am assuming the proper character development has been put in place for them to work. Even with that in mind the pacing just felt off to me.

The acting in the film was alright and I think Freeman was a good choice for Bilbo. It's always fun to see Christopher Lee on screen and I think the performances from the rest of the cast seemed on point but the scripting and directing seem to have lost the magic that the original trilogy had. The way Jackson filmed this installment seemed to suck the magic out of what made the Lord of the Rings so incredible. That magic lay in its sense of grittiness and its sense of realism. The world in those films felt realized and inhabitable. Here, Jackson films the proceedings so that one feels as if one is watching a video game. If you enjoyed the previous films don't let me dissuade you from going to see the conclusion, but from my perspective, on its own merits, it is a disappointment. 2/5

Night at The Museum: Secret of the Tomb (2014) Review

The most moving moment in film this year came from the most unlikely of movies. That moment was Robin Williams' last scene in his last film, the third in the Night at the Museum series. The movie itself was okay in its own right but that final scene is something that transcends it. Oddly enough this third, and presumably final, Museum film also included Mickey Rooney's last scene on film, making it a kind of "in memory of" piece. For most audience members the film won't be more than just that, but it is neither a bad way to end the series or a bad swan song for Robin Williams.

I can honestly say that whoever outlined the plot of this last installment did a good job. Unlike the atrocious second film in this series, this film seems like an interesting and natural sequel to the first film. It allows us to meet up new characters but also for those characters to face new challenges. I don't really need to go into detail because if you wanted a synopsis you would just use IMDb. what I will say is that this film involves our heroes going to the British Museum in order to protect the magic which allows them, as museum exhibits, to come alive at night. The reason I think the plot is better outlined then the second film is that here the universe of the film is actually explored further and we get new perspectives of the characters we thought we knew. The second film was just a bad retreading of the first film.

I said the plot was "outlined" well because unfortunately the execution is very hit-and miss. Some of the jokes are alright, but some just go a bit too far, and some are just plain awkward. It's really a shame that the dialogue does not live up to the premise because this could have been a very good comedy, but, as it is, its just passably enjoyable. In terms of direction and acting there is not much to say. Ben Stiller carries the film pretty well and the supporting cast bring back their characters nicely. Robin Williams is by far the best of the lot and there is something powerful about seeing his last screen outing. Overall I recommend seeing this for that reason alone, that it is Robin Williams last film and that his final scene may be one of the most powerful things you see all year, 3/5

The Imitation Game (2014) Review

The Imitation Game is a prime example of a “Hollywood” biopic.  These films are movies that use as their subject a famous person, generally a hero, who is played by a popular and respected actor. In this case it is Alan Turing played by Benedict Cumberbatch. These films take historical events and turn them into classic narrative formulas (i.e. beating the odds, rise and fall). They are generally well directed and they have an agenda that they wish to promote. These assertions about the Imitation Game are neither positive nor negative but rather simply stating the formula which it follows. Luckily for viewers, the Imitation game follows this formula very well.

This story of the genius who helped crack the German coding machine is a narrative of highs and lows. We have scenes of great accomplishment as well as scenes of great despair. It all centers on Alan Turing, a man whose life was seemingly full of these moments of exhilaration and despair. Events from his childhood up until his tragic death are intercut to form this story and I was surprised at some of the skill with which the intercutting was done. What was most surprising to me was the amount of humor and wit laced throughout the script. It really helps to bring the audience into the story, which is something that is necessary for a film like this to work.

Another key to the success of a “Hollywood” biopic is the acting. Cumberbatch carries the film with his wonderful performance. There are certainly shades of Sherlock here but he makes Turing his own. The rest of cast does well but their characters are not as “fleshed-out” as Cumberbatch’s. This is one of my complaints about the film: some of its characters are simply uninteresting. These people act like people in a movie and thus are predictable. Turing is the only one that seems real, while the others feel like plot devices.

The direction of the film is quite good and brings across the message quite well. This message is brought through with a power that never borders on preaching. The Imitation Game is a good film and a perfect example of a formulaic biopic but due to its stock characters it does not surpass the formula. For most however, it won’t have to. 4/5

Interstellar (2014) Review

There was an article that I read a while ago in which Christopher Nolan was interviewed. He was asked about how he felt when people on the internet or in other places discussed the "plot holes" in his films. Nolan said he was aware of the plot holes but that he was surprised his films receive so much scrutiny on that end. With all due respect to Mr. Nolan, who is an incredibly talented filmmaker, he sets his films up to be scrutinized in that nature. In fact, he practically begs his audience to do so. How? by making his films with a self-seriousness and gravity which is found in almost no other blockbuster film. This is one of Nolan's strengths, that he makes blockbusters that can actually be intellectually interesting. It is also his curse because it means that his blockbusters are held to a higher level of scrutiny. He doesn't help matters by going around and comparing his latest film to "2001: a Space Odyssey" either.

So what of Interstellar, Nolan's latest film in which the director set his sights on the final frontier. To me this move has all the hallmarks of a recent Nolan blockbuster. It's full of ideas, Its visually stunning, and it has a bombastic score from Hans Zimmer. It is also on the long side, has a few story issues or "plot holes", and  unlike his more recent work it doesn't completely stick the ending. Nolan deserves lots of credit for creating another inspiring spectacle that makes you think at the same time, the trouble is that this time around the film seems to weaken under the burden of its own intellectual weight. While watching I was completely enthralled and exhilarated but after the credits had rolled and I allowed myself to digest what had actually happened in the film, I kept finding myself searching for plot holes. I can't say that I've found many that I could point out but I find it interesting that I was searching for them. I think this might have to do with some of the thematic burdens the film places on itself. It is striving to express so much that I think the film doesn't fully "flesh out", either visually or through dialogue, the ideas that it is expressing.

The truth is that all this thinking happens after the film and the film-going experience itself is incredible. It's emotional, it's suspenseful, and it's also very human. There's even a little more humor here than in many of Nolan's other films. As a theater-going experience it's hard to beat the exhilaration this film provides. Even if the film may falter a little intellectually, it has to be recommended for the sheer power it has up on the big screen.  I  found the film viscerally satisfying but I don't know if it accomplishes everything it set out to.  4/5

The Complete Frankenstein 2: Son of Frankenstein and Ghost of Frankenstein Review

Son of Frankenstein (1939)

After 1935's Bride of Frankenstein Universal Studios decided that they wouldn't make anymore monster movies. When a couple of years later they found that their revival screenings of Dracula and Frankenstein were doing really well they decided to resume production of their iconic monster films and begin what is commonly referred to as the "second phase" of Universal Horror. There is no doubt that the majority of the films made in this phase were of a lower quality of those in the first phase. A lot of this had to do with World War 2 which took away some of the talent in front of and behind the camera. The films of this phase would eventually be mostly B films but Son of Frankenstein, which kicked things off, certainly was not.

Son tells the story of the son of Henry Frankenstein returning to his homeland and soon finding that he can't help but delve into his father's past experiments, you can imagine where it all goes from here but there is certainly a lot of fun along the way. Those familiar with the classic Mel Brooks film Young Frankenstein will be delighted to see that much of the source of that film comes from this one. Certain references that I did not get before in Young Frankenstein are now clear to me and it only makes that film even better. Son is a pretty good film in its own right and has a great cast. Basil Rathbone is perfect in the role as the son of Doctor Frankenstein and Bela Lugosi does a fine job as the assistant Ygor. It is interesting to not that Ygor did not appear as a character in the first two films. Lugosi was never really able to recapture his Dracula performance but Ygor might be the closest he came to a comeback. Karloff is fantastic in his final turn as the monster but unfortunately is not given as much time on the screen here as he was given in the previous outings. The monster is also less emotive besides one scene involving a mirror. Karloff could tell that soon the monster would be nothing more than a machine in these films and he picked the right time to exit the series. Lionel Atwill plays a police inspector in this film and he gives a great performance. Atwill is one of those character actors who pops up in every B horror and mystery film you can think of. It is notable that he eventually faced-off against Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes as professor Moriarty.

Son benefits from its great actors and fantastic sets. The sets are done in an expressionistic style which reminds one of old silent German cinema. The make up is, as always, exceptional and all the actors work well together. Unfortunately, Son of Frankenstein does not work as well as the previous two efforts. It's plot is alright but it isn't enough to justify the film's 94 minute run time, which is the longest of the three films. the film begins well and then drags a little bit in the middle. The conclusion however is one of the best parts of all three films so far. It is gripping and suspenseful and really allows Karloff to shine on the screen in what was arguably his greatest character. In the end, Son of Frankenstein is a really good Frankenstein film and it should definitely be watched and enjoyed even if it isn't as good as the first two 3.5/5

Ghost of Frankenstein (1942)

I don't have much to say about Ghost of Frankenstein. By the time it was made in 1942 Universal's monster movies were now strictly "B" pictures. The budget is lower and Karloff is no longer playing the Monster. The film shows a definite drop in quality and despite a few decent moments Ghost is an utter failure.

The story involves the "other son" of Frankenstein taking control of the monster and this time he wants to give it a better brain. This idea is a logical one when you think about the mythos the films had created, but it is not enough to hinge a plot on, even if the film is only an hour and seven minutes long. This time the cast is not as good as the previous ones. Lon Chaney Jr. plays the monster in a way that really makes you wish Karloff had continued and maybe gotten the script changed. Chaney just isn't Karloff and he sticks out like a sore thumb. Lionel Atwill gets far too little screen time in his new role as a villain and Ralph Bellamy plays a completely uninteresting romantic lead. In fact, the romantic sub plot of this film doesn't even exist really and yet the two romantic leads are shown escaping in the last shot of the film. The woman at least gets a couple scenes where she is the main one on screen but Bellamy's character is completely undeveloped. They could've at least put together a cheesy love scene to make the end of the film have ANY emotional impact. Even Lugosi seems tired as Ygor and this is only his second appearance.

As it stands there are a couple of interesting scenes involving the monster but they are mostly one's we've seen before. There is an interesting twist at the conclusion which at least keeps the whole thing from being soporific. In the end, on its own, it probably is a fun little "B" picture but when viewed in context it really demonstrates a lowering in quality 2/5

Stay tuned tomorrow for my review of the monster mash-ups Frankenstein Meets the wolf Man and House of Frankenstein!

The Complete Frankenstein 1: Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein Review

It's been far too long since I have written a review for this blog. There are several reasons why I took such a long break, mainly work and school. Now that I am on fall break I'm going to be coming out with reviews at a furious pace. My first series will be a review of every single Universal Studios Frankenstein film (Including the monster mash-ups). This is in honor of Halloween and because I have four days to kill and I can't think of a better way to do it!

Frankenstein (1931)

After the success of Dracula, Universal Studios turned to Mary Shelley's creation for their next horror film. This one would cement the studio's legacy as one of monsters. Frankenstein was originally supposed to be played by Bela Lugosi, who played Dracula, but thankfully for us movie-goers Boris Karloff was given the role. The opening of Frankenstein is interesting because it involves a pre-credits message from Edward Van Sloan warning us that what we are about to see "may even horrify us" from then on the storyof Doctor Frankenstein and his creation keeps us glued to the screen.

Everybody knows what the plot of this film is so there is no need to summarize it. Some have criticized this film for straying from the original book so greatly. I actually believe that by stream-lining the story this version improves upon the book. The main theme is not lost in many drawn out pages of description which dilute its impact as it is in the book. Of course, having a great cast helps and Frankenstein is nearly flawless on this front. Colin Clive makes for an iconic Doctor Frankenstein and his exclamation of "It's alive!" is still memorable. Boris Karloff gives a truly incredible performance as the monster which I would argue is one of the greatest performances in the history of film. The  emotion and feeling he is able to bring to the character gives the monster incredible dimensions. This is aided by one of the most famous make-up jobs of all time.

The direction by James Whale is good, if not as experimental as his next Frankenstein film. The sets are incredible. What's truly surprising about Frankenstein is that for a movie from 1931 (generally considered part of the "talkie" period) it still holds up. It may not be as frightening today as it must have been back then but certain sequences still evoke chills to this day. Even more impressive is how much depth is able to be packed into a 1 hour and 10 minute run time. When today, a Transformers film can be 2 hours and 45 minutes it is refreshing to see a film pack so much story into less then half that time.

If there is one minor flaw with the original Frankenstein it is that there is a male character, Victor, who appears in the beginning of the film and who seems to serve no purpose but to build romantic tension. It is forgivable because he helps to provide some necessary exposition but he is still a very flat character. That flaw not withstanding this is a fantastic film and one of the jewels in Universal's crown. It's Alive and well 5/5!

The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

By 1935 Universal had produced several more horror films and was unquestionably the "house of horror". Much in the film industry had changed as well. Movies were evolving to allow for musical soundtracks during a sound film and directors as well as actors were experimenting more with the form. It was the perfect time for director James Whale and stars Colin Clive and Boris Karloff to reunite for another Frankenstein film and, boy did they make the most of  it! Setting the template for how to make a great sequel the Bride of Frankenstein not only stands up to its predecessor, it surpasses it.

The opening of Bride is brilliant. It begins on a stormy night with three of the foremost ambassadors of English literature of the 1800's, Byron, Shelley, and Mary Shelley. Byron and Shelley both tell of how thrilled they were by the first story of Frankenstein and Mary tells them there is more to the story. She then begins to narrate  this new tale of Frankenstein. This opening serves to bring the viewer right back into the action and gives the viewer the feeling of being told a legend by the fireplace on a stormy night.

The film then goes on to show how the monster got a Bride and many other adventures which you will just have to see for yourselves it you haven't before. This film is sheer genius. It continues to delve into the ideas proposed in the original while expanding upon them and developing tis characters. It even does this while also introducing new and truly memorable characters to the mix. If that weren't enough this film has every emotion from the classic scares to self-referential comedy to tragedy to pathos, even more incredibly none of these elements overpowers the others Finally, what's truly staggering is that it does all of this in 1 hour and 15 minutes. Very few films are a perfect example of their genre but Bride of Frankenstein approaches perfection.

A lot of credit for this has to go to three people, Director James Wale, Boris Karloff, and Franz Waxman. Whale uses some truly inventive directorial techniques which help to give the film even more life then its predecessor had. He utilities some incredible special effects to their maximum and the different angles of shots are superb. The lighting and composition of the film is almost a character in and of itself bringing some incredibly inventive sets to life and given that great feeling of gothic horror to other scenes. Boris Karloff gives his best performance here as the monster. He is given the chance to speak in one of the greatest scenes in film history, the scene where the monster meets the blind man. This scene was taken from the original novel and it is executed perfectly here, giving the monster true humanity. Karloff's performance is uncanny and it truly helps one ot understand why he became so sought-after for horror films. Franz Waxman is the composer of the perfect soundtrack to this film. Every cue is interesting and exciting and it really adds to the film.

There is so much more that could be discussed about this film but this review would go on for far too long. The make-up of both the monster and the Bride is iconic and exceptional. Some may watch this film after reading this review and think that I have "over-hyped" it and that is the danger of writing a review where there is almost nothing you can give but praise. Nevertheless, the Bride of Frankenstein is the best monster film Universal Studios ever released and it is one of the best of its genre. It is also a prefect companion to the original making it a truly worthy sequel. I can't recommend this one highly enough 5/5!

Stay Tuned tomorrow for my review of Karloff's last outing as the monster Son of Frankenstein and the last solo outing of the Monster in "the Ghost of Frankenstein"!