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: Logan

It's almost easy to forget just how old the X-Men film franchise is. The first movie came out back in 2000 and very few things since have stayed consistent (especially when it comes to both quality and continuity). After nearly two decades, we've had some excellent films (X2, Deadpool) and some not-so excellent films (X-Men Origins: Wolverine, X-Men: Apocalypse), as well as more in-universe reboots, retcons, and time-travel shenanigans than anyone could have predicted (X-Men: First Class, X-Men: Days of Future Past). Throughout all of these sequels and prequels and alternate timelines, there has been one constant in each and every X-film (with the exception of Deadpool); Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. For the past 17 years, Jackman has been the only actor to portray Logan on the big screen; he made the role his own and now, in Logan, he sets out to give the character the swan song he deserves in his final appearance as Wolverine.

The year is 2029 and mutants are all but extinct. The X-Men are a distant memory and Logan (Hugh Jackman) finds himself working as a chauffeur to support an ailing Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart). The years haven't been kind to them; Logan's healing factor isn't what it used to be and Xavier is suffering from a degenerative brain disease (which, considering his telepathic abilities, makes things far more dangerous and complicated than one would hope). Their quest to escape persecution and live out their remaining days at sea is interrupted by the introduction of Laura (Dafne Keen), an 11-year old mutant who's on the run from the shadowy Transigen corporation. At Xavier's insistence, the three set off on a cross-country road trip to shepherd Laura to safety, all the while being pursued by Transigen's head of security, Pierce (Boyd Holbrook), and his team of Reavers.

This is the very definition of a multi-genre film. Naturally, it's a comic adaptation, and while it falls into the superhero genre, it's far more low-key than something like The Avengers. This is the story of a broken man learning how to be a hero once more, and the overall themes of sacrifice and redemption are core ideals of the superhero archetype. At the same time it's also a western, taking inspiration from classics like Shane and employing hefty doses of Johnny Cash music and iconography throughout. The dusty, southwestern landscapes give things a vaguely post-apocalyptic feeling, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary (Las Vegas is as popular as ever and limousine services are still in high demand); as far as Logan and the Professor are concerned, the world may as well have ended years ago. 

Director James Mangold also took inspiration from classic film noir and German expressionism, citing their similarity to comic book panels in terms of lighting and framing. As a result, we have an utterly gorgeous film that manages to leave a real visual imprint, and all without a single destroyed city or exploding setpiece. The action here is purely in service of the story and characters (rather than what will make for a good "wow" moment in the trailer), so every fight scene feels both necessary and incredibly visceral. Wolverine's most obvious superpower is built entirely around slashing and stabbing, and here we finally get to see that power at its goriest. Similarly, the stakes are far lower than your standard superhero fare. Like Deadpool, this is a film where the world isn't hanging in the balance; the conflict is far more personal, allowing us to form a more intimate connection to our protagonists. This is a film that isn't afraid to get close to its audience and sink its proverbial claws right into your heart.

It might sound like a laugh to call this a family road trip movie, but that's not an entirely inaccurate description. The X-Men series is very much about family; in Logan, we see Professor X and Wolverine coping with the loss of that dynamic. With the addition of Laura (who has never been able to experience life as a normal little girl), the three are able to come together and rediscover what it feels like to love and be loved. It's fitting how Logan, a film starring a character whose mutant power is regenerating from wounds, is thematically all about healing after past traumas. Logan, Xavier, and Laura all have their crosses to bear, and they gradually learn to make peace with themselves over the course of the film. It's a really excellent character study that doesn't miss a beat; I sometimes found myself surprised by just how invested I had become whenever the tension flared up. This is a movie that will make you feel things, especially if you're one for parent-child dynamics.

Of course, all of that emotion is thanks largely in-part to a stellar lineup of actors. The supporting cast members all do their jobs well (Holbrook is easy to root against and Stephen Merchant wields a surprising amount of dramatic energy as Caliban), but this movie is very clearly all about the main trio of Logan, Charles, and Laura. These three are so good that I really can't decide who I liked more. Hugh Jackman meant for this to be his swan-song as Wolverine, and I honestly can't think of a more fitting send-off for the role. As I mentioned, he's played the part for the past 17 years. In that time, he's completely captured every aspect of Logan's personality; both the tortured immortal and the feral beast. We've watched him portray this character for nearly two decades, and every ounce of emotion implied by that statement is visible in his performance. 

Meanwhile, Patrick Stewart takes the character of Charles Xavier in a very different direction. Normally the calm, collected voice of reason, we now see Xavier's age starting to get to him. His mind isn't what it once was and Logan is forced to assume the role of his primary caregiver, very much in the way that many adults are eventually forced to care for their elderly parents. Gone are the days when Charles Xavier owned and operated a school for gifted youngsters; now he needs physical assistance to use the bathroom and get into bed. It's a humbling portrayal of a character who acted as a mentor to generations; children who saw him command the X-Men in 2000 are now adults themselves. His is a situation that is all too real, and is sure to hit close to home for many (myself included). This is just as much of a send-off for Patrick Stewart as it is for Hugh Jackman, and I wholly believe this is something they can (and should) be proud of. That said, the standout of the main cast for me was newcomer Dafne Keen as Laura (better known to comic and fighting game aficionados as X-23). This is her film debut, yet she manages to match the intensity and emotion of Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart (who are both very much on their A-game here). That feat alone, I feel, is worthy of note; I hope to see her in more.

What else can I say about Logan? It's basically a perfect film. Plenty of condescending snobs will say things like "Logan is an excellent film, despite being a comic book movie" or "surprisingly, Logan manages to transcend its superhero trappings and deliver something of genuine quality". Not only are statements such as these unapologetically pretentious, they're also completely missing the point; Logan hits as hard as it does, not in spite of its comic book origins, but because of them. Had this film existed on its own with no X-Men franchise behind it, it would still be a well-made, well-acted movie. But the fact that this feels like a culmination of 17 years' worth of ups, downs, and blockbuster iconography (and manages to exceed all expectations to boot) adds a vital element that simply wouldn't exist, were this not part of a long-running superhero franchise. More to the point, Logan is proof that comic books can lead to films that amount to more than a series of expensive CGI laser beams being fired at a bland villain. This is proof that a superhero blockbuster need not rely on city-leveling climaxes and sneaky sequel teasers in order to make money and please an audience. Moreover, Logan is proof that, when a film is motivated by artistic vision rather than by revenue, movies about superhumans can end up being the most human stories of them all.

REVIEW: Ed Wood

It's no secret that I'm a tremendous fan of the early works of Tim Burton; while his more recent turnout has left me wanting, it's inarguable that the man possesses a great knack for thematic styling, showcasing the strange and unorthodox in the spotlight it is so frequently denied. Like Batman and Beetlejuice, Ed Wood is the story of a societal outcast in a world that seldom understands or appreciates what they have to offer. Unlike those other films, however, I believe that Ed Wood alone holds the distinction of being Burton's finest work of all time.

Taking the form of a pseudo-biography, the film follows the man who would go on to be known as the worst director of all time, Edward D. Wood Jr (Johnny Depp). Struggling to break into the film industry, Wood finally gets his shot after befriending aging horror icon, Bela Lugosi (Martin Landau); even though Lugosi's career was essentially over, his remaining star power is enough to jumpstart production of Wood's first feature film, Glen or Glenda. What follows is the story of an eternal optimist, never giving up on his dreams despite essentially the entire world imploring him to do so. While the events shown in the film aren't exactly 100% accurate (it's been said that the real Lugosi never possessed such a penchant for profanity), the overall story is put together in such a fashion that capturing the spirit of Ed Wood and his cohorts is the primary goal (which the film accomplishes soundly).

Surprisingly, this is one of the few Tim Burton films that lacks the more recognizable staples of his signature aesthetic. As the plot is based on a true story, the whole thing is more reliant on the characters to drive the tone and emotion. Burton's visual flair is still very much present, just moreso understated and subtle than usual, and the film is better off for it. Shooting the film in black and white is a stroke of brilliance; like Young Frankenstein, this is a movie that simply would not work nearly as well had it been shot in color. The grayscale adds just the perfect old Hollywood tone that completely immerses the viewer in the time period. There's also some truly magnificent camerawork and shot composition at play here; for instance, take note of the first and last times we see Martin Landau as Bela Lugosi on screen. Scenes and shots from Wood's various films were recreated with admirable attention to detail, and it's the clear amount of effort given to seemingly negligible minutia like this which makes this film so much fun to watch. It's a feast for the eyes that manages to establish a strong emotional connection to the viewer to boot.

The performances here are all top-knotch; not a single weak link exists within this cast. The role of Ed Wood was the part Johnny Depp was born to play; there's not a single person who comes to mind who could do the job better. Depp's notorious for being something of a chameleon when the part is anything beyond "weird guy in a weird hat", and Ed Wood is no exception. He completely buries himself in the part; everything from his inflections to his eyebrows convey his tireless optimism and dedication to making his movies, no matter the cost. Martin Landau's portrayal of Bela Lugosi won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, an accolade that is well-deserved. He plays Lugosi in a way that is hilarious for the same reason it's so heartbreaking; we get to see this iconic actor end up a foul-mouthed, misanthropic old has-been, which is really quite funny, except for when it's not. The film doesn't shy away from Bela Lugosi's very real battle with morphine addiction, and it never ceases to cause a chill whenever it's brought up. Depp and Landau share a magical chemistry on-screen, resulting in one of the most genuinely feel-good cinematic friendships I've ever seen.

The supporting cast is littered with great talent like Sarah Jessica Parker, Bill Murray, and Jeffery Jones. Special consideration must be given to George "The Animal" Steele, for his spot-on portrayal of Tor Johnson; whether this is a testament to his acting ability or an unintended insult, he does an amazing job regardless. Vincent D'Onofrio has a short cameo as Orson Welles, with an uncredited Maurice LeMarche providing the voice. While the dub is a bit jarring at first, the effect is really quite uncanny and made for one of my favorite scenes in the entire film. As I said before, this is very much a character-driven film, so it's monumentally important that the cast is as strong as it is. If the majority of the performances were mediocre, the majority of the film would be mediocre. Fortunately, the performances here are fantastic, and the rest of the film follows suit.

Ed Wood is an all-around wonderful film. It's a look at one of the most bizarre visionaries to ever live that manages to be just as earnest as its main character. While the films of Edward D. Wood Jr are remembered as "so bad they're good" at best, Ed Wood does not seek to make fun. Rather, it celebrates the titular director's legacy, not for what it was, but for what he as a filmmaker represented. The integrity of an artist's vision, the tireless pursuit of one's dreams, and the constant reminder that you should always appreciate your own work, as there is no guarantee that anyone else will. If you haven't seen this yet, you're truly missing out. It's a love-letter to the underdogs that fits like a fresh angora sweater. Check it out.

REVIEW: Mad Max- Fury Road

Having never seen any of the original Mad Max films, I had little interest in seeing Fury Road for the longest time. The trailers dropped, received limitless praise, and I figured this would be one of those summer movies that I get around to seeing eventually. What I didn't expect was for my introduction to the world of Mad Max to be one of the most technically and visually impressive films I'd ever seen. The fact that this film also contains absolutely stellar performances, writing, and direction is just the icing on an already delectable cake.

The story concerns the lone road warrior, Max (Tom Hardy). Haunted by visions of his deceased daughter, he wanders the post-apocalyptic wastelands of Australia, managing to do little more than survive. After being captured by the automobile-themed cult known as the War Boys, Max finds himself wrapped up in the plans of Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron); the one-armed official has gone rogue, commandeering a war rig in an attempt to usher the Five Wives of King Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne) to freedom. What follows is a two-hour long chase through an arid wasteland as our protagonists flee the massive army of weaponized vehicles that pursues them in search of revenge. The plot is simplistic, but this is the kind of film that is moved forward by compelling characters rather than a compelling story. The entire thing can be summed up as a chase through the desert, but such an oversimplification of what occurs throughout the film's runtime is an injustice to the final product. The performances, characters, and action all take center stage here; while the effects are some of the most astounding I've seen in any movie before, they never take precedence over the characters. A visual or action sequence can be as cool as it wants to be (and by god are the visuals and action sequences in this movie cool), but there isn't any tension behind the events on screen if we don't care about the people involved. Luckily, the main cast of this film manages to be truly interesting despite how wild and out-there the situation they're in happens to be.

The real protagonist of the film is, oddly enough, not Mad Max himself. Tom Hardy feels much more like a supporting character, which is honestly one of the only gripes I've got with the film; while what we get is really genuinely good, I would have loved to have seen more of Max. As it turns out, Charlize Theron's Furiosa is the real star of the show. Both protagonists are interesting and enjoyable to watch on screen, but Theron simply does more in regards to the plot; Max is just sort of along for the ride. It says a lot about the quality of the film when the biggest complaint is "the already great protagonist isn't quite as great as the really great secondary protagonist". For me personally, however, the highlight of the cast was Nicholas Hoult as Nux, one of Immortan Joe's War Boys. Like all War Boys, the character is a fanatical follower of Joe, convinced that if he serves his great purpose, he will one day join the heroes of legend in the afterlife of Valhalla. All his life, he's been indoctrinated with Joe's ideology; this kind of insane outlook is literally all he knows. I don't want to say anything more for sake of spoilers, but the character ends up being easily the most interesting facet of an already truly interesting movie. The villains are really quite enjoyable as well; they don't have much more depth beyond "evil bourgeoisie dictators of the wasteland", but they don't really need to be anything more than that for the film to work like it does. Their motivation is clear and understandable; they're kings of the end of the world and want to keep things that way. This is a movie in which really compelling protagonists rise up against really awesome-looking antagonists and it all works flawlessly because, at the end of the day, it's not about the villains. They are simply yet another source of death and misery in an already desolate, unforgiving environment. It's about our protagonists and how the journey they've embarked upon affects and changes them as things progress.

Of course, a monumental amount of praise needs to be given to everyone responsible for the visuals in this movie. From the artists who designed each manic vehicle, to the effects coordinators who made everything explode properly, to the stuntmen who risked life and limb, this movie is the absolute epitome of the phrase "a feast for the eyes". The film uses mostly practical effects, giving everything a very organic feeling of grit and danger; when CGI is employed, it meshes with the actors seamlessly. Filmmakers everywhere take note; this is how you make an action movie. Every bit of machinery, architecture, and gear employed in this universe is just so absurd and strange, yet it all makes perfect sense within the film's own logic. One might look at some of the trailers and promotional images and wonder "what purpose could a mobile amp carrying a guitar-playing lunatic possibly serve? What is the point of those goons on the sway-poles brandishing chainsaws?"; believe me when I say, it all makes perfect sense within the movie's own logic. It's all completely ridiculous, but it's not unreasonable to imagine a scenario where this could actually happen; the culture surrounding this post-apocalyptic wasteland is strange, yet familiar at the same time. It all feels like a world that, long ago, was once like the one we're living in now.

Mad Max: Fury Road feels like a breath of fresh air in the realm of modern action flicks. Where it seems nowadays that everything attempts to crank the spectacle up to eleven with nothing more than absurd amounts of lifeless CGI, this is a film that manages to be truly imaginative, confidently securing the wow-factor with breathtaking effects, interesting characters, and strong direction. Word is that there's more Mad Max in the pipeline if this film proves successful; if Fury Road is a sign of things to come, then I sincerely hope these films never stop coming.