REVIEW: Frankenweenie

As I've said time and time again, if there's one genre I'm willing to go to bat for it's children's horror. When we're young, the things that scare us can be some of the most spellbinding; when I was little, I was scared to death of the Xenomorph and Lon Chaney's Wolfman, but that didn't stop me from doing extensive research on various movie monsters during my middle school lunch breaks (thanks to the timeless and wonderful series of books from Crestwood House). Horror, as a genre, plays on such base, instinctual emotions, it's easy to see why so many kids like myself end up so inspired by the things that scare us at a young age. It's fun to be scared, especially around Halloween, which is why I find myself with just a teensy bit of positive bias when it comes to discussing films like Tim Burton's 2012 animated spoof, Frankenweenie.

Based off of Burton's 1984 short of the same name, the story follows a young science prodigy by the name of, what else, Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) and his pet dog, Sparky (the immortal Frank Welker). After Sparky is tragically hit by a car, Victor, overcome with grief, decides to exhume his best friend and resurrect him with a good ol' bolt of lightening. Once Victor's secret is revealed, however, all manner of chaos is unleashed on his sleepy hometown of New Holland once his classmates create monsters of their own. Truthfully, the most interesting part of the story is the monster mash climax, but that doesn't change the fact that this is one of the most loving tributes to the classic Universal age of monster movies that I've ever seen.

It's no secret that Tim Burton's output has been... shall we say, lacking, as of late. One only needs to compare his earlier films (Ed Wood, Beetlejuice, Batman, etc.) to his post-2000 work (Planet of the Apes, Alice in Wonderland, Dark Shadows, etc.) to get an idea of what I'm talking about. His penchant for originality seems to have fallen by the wayside in favor of putting Johnny Depp in an increasingly ridiculous series of hats. That said, Frankenweenie very much feels like a film that Burton wanted to make, rather than one he was, say, contractually obligated to make. Tim Burton's love for classic monster movies is more front-and-center here than in any of his other films (save perhaps Ed Wood). The whole thing is done in black and white, one of Victor's classmates looks and sounds like Boris Karloff, and there are references to everything from Gremlins to Gamera to Horror of Dracula. It's a veritable moving museum of horror history cameos and references.

Frankenweenie is, overall, a very feel-good kind of tribute to a timeless subgenre and feels entirely within Burton's classic wheelhouse; for anyone like me who adores his older work yet feels like he's lost his touch as of late, it's very much a ringing endorsement to Tim Burton's enduring talent as an artist. At the same time, I've got to appreciate how much this film commits to being a monster movie. For the most part it's a good-natured boy and his dog story, yes, but Frankenstein's creation is easily the most inherently gruesome of all the classic monsters. It's very possible to (forgive the pun) produce a relatively toothless vampire or werewolf story, but Frankenstein's monster, by default, always boils down to a collection of body parts being stitched together and ripped back from the afterlife by the cold hand of science. This is a children's movie that, despite its tongue-in-cheek tone, doesn't miss out on a few macabre gags and spooky moments; the creation scene is played 100% straight (and may have been my favorite moment in the entire film) and the climax is full of enough monster madness to give the kiddies a well-intentioned fright. It's a nice tonal equivalent to something like Ernest Scared Stupid or Monster Squad, in that it works as both a fun kids movie and a legitimate, all-ages monster film.

Truthfully, if there's one thing I really have to dock the film for, it's that it doesn't go far enough in terms of dour tone and story beats. Spoiler alert, but the dog lives (un-lives?) happily ever after. The movie constructs this potentially hard-hitting scenario; Victor refuses to admit that Sparky is gone for good, hence why he sneaks into the pet cemetery, retrieves his dog's corpse, stitches it all together, and hits him with a gigawatt. His parents explain that, although Sparky may be gone, he'll still live on in Victor's heart. It's at this point that we get what might be my favorite line in the movie: "I don't want him in my heart. I want him here with me." It's the one bit of emotion that hits hard and feels real; Victor comes off like an actual child experiencing his first encounter with grief. everything else admittedly feels a bit cheap and unearned. We're sad when Sparky gets hit by a car because Sparky is a dog and it's always sad when animals get hurt in movies. The film has a legitimate shot at something truly moving, but passes it by in favor of something altogether safer.

We're given a moral about how we shouldn't fear or reject things simply because we don't understand them; Victor clearly doesn't understand death, yet he subverts it at every opportunity. Sparky lived a full life and a full afterlife; he brought joy to those around him and even managed to save everyone in town once things started to get out of control. It would have been much more fitting and meaningful, I think, had Sparky actually perished saving Victor during the climax. Not only would it mimic the classic tragedy one finds in so many classic monster movies, but it would also bring the overall message full-circle. Victor learns to accept Sparky's passing and keep his furry friend alive, not through mad science, but through his thoughts and memories. You could even have a little end bit where it's revealed Sparky had puppies with Winona Ryder's dog; Son of Frankenweenie!

Then again, that's me looking at this movie through the eyes of an adult. For its target audience (i.e. children), this is sure to be a Halloween standard. Sure, it's a little safe in terms of content. It's not particularly deep in terms of story or characterization, but it makes up for it in sheer gumption and love for its inspiration. I, a jaded twenty-something film student, came away wanting, yes, but a kid on a monster kick is going to absolutely adore Frankenweenie. Maybe it'll even inspire younger generations to explore the classic monster films it was based on? If that's the case, then I'd say it most definitely did its job. Check it out, it's a cute, upbeat little flick.

REVIEW: Kong- Skull Island

"Cinematic Universe" seems to be the defining phrase in this era of film history. Considering the runaway success of the MCU, it's not exactly difficult to understand why studios seem so smitten with the idea of tying their various franchises together in massive, theatrical crossover events. However, the idea of mashing profitable properties together is hardly a modern one; after all, Frankenstein's monster met the Wolfman long before the Avengers ever assembled (and that's counting the comics, too). Monster Mash films like Godzilla vs Mothra and House of Frankenstein were immensely popular all throughout the 40's, 50's, and 60's. Now that shared universes are making a comeback, studios are taking note by resurrecting the monsters who started it all. While Universal's upcoming reboot of The Mummy seems to be mimicking the superhero action of the Marvel films rather than sticking to the franchises' horror/suspense roots, Legendary's MonsterVerse (which began with 2014's Godzilla) skews much more towards presenting classic monster movie tropes and conventions with modern style and sensibilities. This remains true for the second film in this new series, Kong: Skull Island. It's a classic monster adventure with flair to spare, and I absolutely loved it.

The film acts as a reboot of the King Kong franchise, introducing Kong to this new continuity through an original story, rather than retelling the classic tale of beauty and beast. Set in 1973 right at the end of the Vietnam War, the film follows a team of scientists, government agents, and military personnel on a research expedition to the enigmatic Skull Island (recently discovered by Landsat satellites). As one might expect, our crew of explorers get more than they bargained for once they reach the island, running afoul of the local fauna (most notably, a 100-foot tall ape deity known as Kong). The plot is as straightforward as it gets and the characters are, for the most part, static and paper-thin. However, it's the sheer amount of care and competence that this movie was obviously made with that makes it work so well.

The film's visual style completely took me by surprise; the folly of so many modern blockbusters is an over-reliance of CGI to the point where everything looks flat and unimpressive (despite the immense amount of man-hours and artistry required to bring these effects to life). Imagine my shock when this offbeat, schlocky monster reboot ends up taking visual influence from everything from Apocalypse Now to Princess Mononoke. Skull Island is brimming with life, looking both organic and fantastical at the same time. Director Jordan Vogt-Roberts opted not to use dinosaurs, instead populating Skull Island with a number of bizarre but brilliantly-imaginative creatures and monsters. Early on, John Goodman's Bill Randa (an agent for the Monarch agency from Gareth Edwards' Godzilla) describes the titular island as "a place where God never finished creation", and everything from the vegetation to the inhabitants most certainly looks the part. Kong himself is more of a mythic beast than a big gorilla (no offense meant to Peter Jackson's loving 2006 tribute), covered in moss and algae as he lopes around his South Pacific home.

This is a movie that isn't afraid to get weird and inventive with its cinematography, and I feel the creativity at work here really pays off. During the initial helicopter battle with Kong, we are treated to a wonderful POV shot from inside a downed chopper. Our view of the outside world is restricted to an open side door, as we see the landscape slowly shift while Kong lifts the helicopter above his head. A hapless soldier falls into the ape's mouth and the film immediately hard-cuts to a research technician biting into a sandwich. Moments like these set the artistic tone for the entire movie; a larger-than-life adventure with dazzling contrasts of warm and cool colors shot from dynamic, engaging camera angles. There are several moments that I think would make for excellent posters (though I of course chose the bombastic Japanese variant for this Review); it's clear that the shots and visuals were composited with great care and attention to detail. Moreover, the film doesn't waste an ounce of its 1970's framework, enveloping its atmosphere in the iconography of the era.

Bucking the usual King Kong motif of "lovestruck beast martyred by the greed of man", Skull Island presents a positively Aliens-esque Vietnam parallel involving headstrong military types travelling to an unknown land to fight an enemy they don't understand. The film's antagonist, Lieutenant Colonel Preston Packard (Samuel L. Jackson), suffers from disillusionment and denial after US forces are recalled from Vietnam. Whereas all of his men are just thankful to go home to their families, Packard is left questioning the point of his sacrifice and service (as he explains to Brie Larson's wartime photographer, "we didn't lose the war, we abandoned it"). He's a soldier without a war to fight who happens to find an enemy in Kong. Despite Kong merely defending his territory from bomb-dropping intruders, his retaliation still wipes out a good amount of Packard's men. The best kind of villains are the ones with motives we can sympathize with; Packard is clearly consumed by a desire for vengeance, but we can completely rationalize his motives (to a point, of course). When a film's conflict boils down to "man vs nature", it's important for the human element to not be irrationally cruel. If the antagonist is a strawman who hates nature "just because", the audience will fail to see any reflection of themselves in the villain and the conflict loses all sense of interest and nuance.

That said, while I appreciate Skull Island's engaging stylistic choices and classically straightforward plot, I can't really defend the flat, uninteresting cast of characters. The film assembles an incredibly talented stable of actors (Tom Hiddleston, John Goodman, Brie Larson, Samuel L. Jackson, John C. Reilly, etc.) and then gives them nothing particularly interesting to do aside from escape from an island full of monsters. Samuel L. Jackson was an effective antagonist (though the role is very clearly in his comfort zone) and no one really gives a bad performance, but no one really stood out too much either. The script isn't anything to write home about (aside from a few good action movie monologues and one-liners here and there) and there are simply too many characters who are spread too thin in terms of motivation and emotional appeal. I didn't particularly care when anyone died and I was moreso engaged in Kong's conflict rather than if our team of protagonists could make it off the island. The only exception, unexpectedly enough, was the comedic relief played by John C. Reilly. He plays a US Air Force pilot who crash landed on Skull Island during World War 2 and has been living among the natives ever since (as you'd expect, there's culture shock jokes galore, a surprising amount of which hit). He actually gets a really nice amount of characterization and pathos, and I was really pulling for him to make it home; out of the entire cast, his was the only character that actually made me think "I hope he makes it out alive". Not to say that I actively wanted to see anyone die (like I said, the performances are all strong enough), but I wouldn't have necessarily cared if they did. This is a tremendously fun monster movie, but it could have really been something special if it had a stronger sense of focus when it came to the human element.

Kong: Skull Island is, shortcomings aside, an absolute blast. Is it a totally original movie? No. But is it a well-made movie? Most definitely. While the cast of characters is somewhat lacking (with John C. Reilly and Samuel L. Jackson carrying most of the weight), it's clear that this is a movie made with a loving artistic vision. It may not be as groundbreaking as the 1933 original or as epic as Peter Jackson's 2006 remake, but it's enjoyable in its own way, paying tribute to classic monster films both new and old. This is by no means a movie which attempts to reinvent the wheel; it knows exactly what it wants to be and exactly what it wants to do. It's made up of existing genre conventions, all executed with a great deal of finesse and style. The only question is, is that enough to make this worthwhile? I definitely think so; if you're looking for something to scratch that giant-monster movie itch, Kong: Skull Island is a worthy choice. While it's no eighth wonder of the world, it's still a ton of fun.

REVIEW: Shin Godzilla

The Godzilla franchise, I feel, is one that doesn't get nearly the respect it deserves. Yes, we're all too familiar with the hilariously bad dubbing jobs and overwhelming silliness of the 60's and 70's, but Godzilla represents a very culturally significant moment in the history of Japan. The first film was released in 1954, not even a decade after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The first film, while somewhat quaint in terms of its special effects budget, represents a national catharsis. Godzilla was created as a symbol of nuclear destruction, bathing the landscape in a hellstorm of atomic fire. Despite the sometimes corny special effects, the original film is played entirely straight. There's very little levity and it all comes off more like a natural disaster than a goofy sci-fi monster flick. It wasn't until later that the franchise took a cue from Gamera and recast the Big G as a friend to children and champion of the Earth. After countless sequels, reboots, and re-imaginings, we finally have a new Godzilla film from Toho, the studio that started it all. With Legendary Pictures' Monsterverse seeking to establish its own, Westernized brand of Godzilla movies in the coming years, is there still a place for homegrown kaiju action? At the end of the day, does Shin Godzilla deserve a place at the table?

Like many Godzilla films before it, Shin Godzilla is a complete and total reboot. The events of all prior films are ignored, even those of the 1954 original. Unlike many of the later Godzilla films, however, the plot is as straightforward as they come; after a massive aquatic creature makes landfall near Tokyo Bay, the Japanese government amasses every expert available to assess the situation. By the time a response is readied, the creature has seemingly evolved into a larger form before returning to the sea. Research indicates that the creature is the result of genetic mutation, dubbed "Godzilla" by the United States. By the time Godzilla reappears, he is twice his original size and still showing signs of evolution; the world flies into a panic and the UN proposes using nuclear weapons to stop the impending threat. It's up to a small team of Japanese researchers to develop a means of stopping Godzilla before the rest of the world drops the bomb, sacrificing all of Tokyo in the process.

It's amusing to compare this to 2014's Godzilla, as it suffers from many of the same problems. Mainly, a lack of interesting characters. We're introduced to a great many scientists, government employees, and military personnel over the course of the film, but very few are all that memorable. No one truly gets a chance to develop, since the threat of a giant monster and nuclear annihilation takes precedent in the plot. There isn't really anyone for the audience to latch onto and connect with, though I also feel that the movie isn't exactly going for anything particularly intimate. It sacrifices in-depth character development for a massive scale and scope, and in those aspects it definitely succeeds.

Godzilla, in this film, is treated like a pure force of nature (even moreso than Legendary's take on the character). This Godzilla is an inexpressive, deep-sea abomination, bane of all mankind. A monster in every sense of the word. This is a movie that definitely gets what makes Godzilla scary and understands how to convey him as a legitimate threat (even his doofy, huggable early forms). There's a specific moment in which we first see his iconic atomic breath put to work; where Legendary's take on this classic ability was unquestionably awesome, Shin Godzilla manages to turn something as absurd as a giant dinosaur firing laser beams from his mouth into a legitimately shocking, horrifying moment. The destruction on display here never feels cheap or over-indulgent. If there's one thing this movie gets right, it's the tone.

Just as the original Gojira was inspired by a nuclear tragedy, so was Shin Godzilla. Despite being released in 2016, it's clear that it took some direct inspiration from the infamous Fukushima disaster of 2011. The sense of destruction, the displaced civilians, the trail of nuclear fallout; it's all clearly meant to put the viewer in a specific kind of headspace. Even moreso when one considers the snide social commentary at play here, taking digs at the way the Japanese government responded to the disaster. When Godzilla first makes landfall, precious time is wasted in the name of decorum. The PM takes his sweet time to convene with his advisers, attend various conferences, and essentially do everything in his power to delay making a difficult decision. When the time finally arrives, it's far too late, and Godzilla is nigh-invincible. 

While there isn't much going on with the characters, the story has more layers of meaning than one would expect from a giant monster movie. It was directed by Hideaki Anno and Shinji Higuchi (known mainly for their work on Neon Genesis Evangelion), and their influence is definitely felt here. The film espouses the virtues of teamwork in the face of crisis; the group of researchers assembled to stop Godzilla are told outright from the beginning that titles and decorum no longer matter. Those who remain hung up on protocol and procedure when the situation has clearly escalated beyond such trivial matters are resigned to failure. Meanwhile, it is those who are able to sort their priorities and think outside of the box who eventually save the day.

Shin Godzilla is notable for receiving overwhelming praise within its native Japan and a more lukewarm reception everywhere else. Having given it some thought, I have to side with the Japanese on this one; Shin Godzilla is an excellent movie. It's by no means perfect (the characters are for the most part bland and some of the dialog scenes can drag here and there), but it represents a true return to form for the King of the Monsters. Boasting surprisingly excellent special effects (considering it was made on roughly a tenth of the budget of Legendary's Godzilla) and an engaging plot, Shin Godzilla is a true treat for any kaiju nut. Whether you're new to the franchise or a long-time fan, this is an exemplary monster flick, not to be missed.