My Pet Monster: Now With Actual Pets

We probably won't see another year in which we get two Tim Burton films, so I'd be a fool to pass them both up. So, after Dark Shadows, we now have Frankenweenie, based on the short film he did back in '84. 

Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) is an introverted young man, with his only friend being his faithful dog, Sparky. One day, Sparky is hit by a car and Victor is distraught. He soon hits upon the idea of bringing Sparky back to life through lightning, and soon enough, his canine companion is back from the dead. Word soon gets out, and Victor's classmates determine what to do with this newfound information...

The better of the two Burton films (but remember, I didn't hate Dark Shadows and I will happily buy it on DVD one day). That being said, there are quite a few flaws.

First off, the film's setting. The film is in black-and-white and invoked a 50's suburbia setting, which is fine. The problem is, some pieces of dialogue indicate it takes place in modern times, like the use of the term “computer simulation” and someone brings up Pluto's demotion. It's a bit off-putting, the mix of nostalgia for the old days and throwaway references to the modern times. I'd have preferred it to stay on the side of the 50's, it would seem more convincing.

This universe actually brings up a question I have for the movie: do the events of this movie mean that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein doesn't exist? Is this like the universe of Sherlock, in which he and Watson are in the modern day, with no stories within the universe written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle? What of Dracula and all the other creatures?

My other problems with the film involve the ending, and while it's probably easy to predict how this will all play out, I'll put the spoiler tag here now. So, spoilers.

The ending moral message is a poor choice. At one point, after Sparky's resurrection has been revealed to Victor's parents, his father (Martin Short) is concerned that Victor has tampered with the natural order. Towards the end, however, after Sparky has died again (this time sacrificing his life to defeat a monster cat-bat), Victor's father offers to help bring him back to life again, even though this time Victor was ready to accept Sparky's death.

So... what kind of message does that send to the younger crowd? “Hey kids, when someone you love dies, keep using electricity to bring them back! Doesn't matter if you come to accept their death, or even if they want to stay dead, just zap them!”
Also, they're going to have to keep doing this every time he dies. Does it work regardless of method of death? If he eats something foul and keels over, will electricity still work the same? Actually, CAN he die via that method? I mean, he's technically a zombie dog...

Also, said ending is very abrupt. When Sparky comes back to life yet again, he runs up to the dog he's sweet on (who now sports a Bride Of Frankenstein style 'do, thanks to an earlier encounter with Sparky. It's a cute little reference) and they play and make cute faces at each other... and that's it. Movie's over, nothing left to see here folks! What was the point of bringing him back to life, and imprinting the moral message mentioned above, only to pull the curtain?

And one last gripe, a minor one: the movie keeps hinting at Victor having a crush on his neighbour, Elsa (Winona Ryder), and her vice versa, but they don't really do anything with it. It's just kinda... there. And that's another reason the abrupt ending doesn't help, makes all the development for naught. And the movie's barely 90 minutes long, including credits!

Despite all that, there are things to love about the film:

The stop-motion work is as impressive as always, but some of the creature designs especially impress, like the giant turtle and the cat-bat I mentioned above. Now I want to see a stop-motion old fashioned monster movie. Or... Godzilla in stop-motion! That'd be neat!

The voice cast is splendid, particularly Catherine O'Hara and Martin Short in their roles (and they each have multiple roles, though for O'Hara, her stand out is the gym teacher, and for Short, Victor's father), and the aforementioned Charlie Tahan and Winona Ryder.

The stand-out, however, is Martin Landau as Mr. Rzykruski, Victor's science teacher. It's easy to guess who he's modeled on (and whoever did the work on him, you deserve a raise or something because that's some excellent work), and he's a veritable barrel of excitement. Not so much the character, but the feeling he invokes in not only the students, but the audience. He's pretty much the only adult with a brain in this movie, and his talking down to the adults in one scene is the best part of the movie. He openly insults their intelligence, and the whole thing reads like a criticism for people who mistrust science or learning in general. The guy's a hoot, so it's a pity the character is dropped halfway through the film.

And overall, the relationship between Victor and Sparky is really sweet, especially since he's a nice kid. And the dog is just ever so playful. So it really does resonate with the audience, what the two of them go through.

I could go over more aspects of the film (like how confusing it is that the other kids can bring back their dead animals and they go evil, bar one, even though they did nothing different to Victor. So, just because Victor did what he did out of love, that makes it OK? He still messed with forces behind his comphrension, and acted out of a somewhat selfish desire) but what you need to know is it's a nice film, with Burton doing what Burton does best: combining the mundane and the fantastical with good natured humor and a good heart. 3.5/5

OK, eight more films to review before I've reached fifty. Time to go through my DVD's for six of those and await the last two to arrive at the cinema.

Old Man, Look At My Life, I'm A Lot Like You Are

With less than two months to go until the end of the year, and ten movies left, I'm in the last lap now. But I really gotta get into gear, so most likely, the posts you'll see will be those movies. So, after this, just nine more to go to get to my goal of fifty.

In the year 2044, a group of young men carry out assassinations for crime lords from the year 2074, the year in which time travel was invented. The crime lords send the targets back in time to dispose of all evidence.

One of these “loopers” is Joe Simmons (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a young man with a blasé attitude towards life and heavy dedication to his job. Eventually, his adult self (Bruce Willis) gets sent to him, to “close the loop”. Old Joe, however, gets away and starts making a plan of his own.

That's the abridged version, and I know I left out a key player or two, but I'll get to them.

The third film by Rian Johnson and yet another solid effort (in case you're curious, his first two films are Brick and The Brothers Bloom, with the former being in my top 100 films of all time. Though I really need to readjust that list for all the stuff I've seen since I first created it).

One small aspect I like about the film is despite being set in the future, it doesn't look THAT different to the present day, just maybe a little flashier in the vehicles and the currency's changed. Oh and telekinetics but I'll get to that too. I think by now we've come to expect the future to not look like The Jetsons (and honestly, do we want it to? If you have vertigo, you'd HATE it) and all the better.

Acting-wise, the cast is top-notch. Since I didn't mention her above, Emily Blunt is sensational as Sara, mother to a child that may be an important figure in the year 2074. I actually didn't recognize her at first, mostly because of her Southern accent. She's a strong character too, her first words being threats against Joe (we know it's Joe but she doesn't) about what she intends to do if he doesn't leave, something she says while holding a gun. As she gets to know Joe, her defenses lower, and we learn just how much she cares about her son, a boy who is convinced that her deceased sister was his mother.

Speaking of the boy, though... he's the weakest aspect of the film. His name is Cid (Pierce Gagnon) and I'm sorry to say that he's a terrible actor. He never pulls a convincing moment, he either acts above his age (think Dewey in Malcolm In The Middle, minus the ability to act with a sweet disposition) and thus looks condescending, or he yells. A lot. And you hate him. And you really wish Old Joe (who is heading for him) would hurry up and get there. He's also telekinetic so he's being built up as a special child, which doesn't help. Hopefully the actor will improve over time but when I get this on DVD, I'm probably going to end up muting any part he's in minus the very end.

But naturally, the stars of the show can be counted on to deliver the best performances. I'd comment on the individual performance of both Joseph and Bruce, but I can sum it up with what I feel is the film's crowning glory: Joe and Old Joe alternate between being the hero and the villain, swapping roles with the snapping of fingers. Old Joe's goal once he's in 2044 is to prevent his wife from dying in 2074. Joe's goal is to close the loop, like he promised his employers, and get his payment (which comes in gold bars instead of the usual silver for other kills. I actually think it would have been more interesting the other way, kind of symbolic that you get 30 pieces of silver for betraying oneself. Or maybe I'm just an idiot. Probably that).

Later in the film, the tables get flipped. Joe's new goal is to protect Sara and Cid from Old Joe, because Old Joe (spoiler here) is coming after them, believing Cid to be the Rainmaker, the most powerful crime figure in 2074. So, Old Joe goes from someone fighting for his wife's survival to a child killer. Yeah, that's a bombshell. Yet you can't fully hate him.

Both Joseph and Bruce dominate the screen, alone or together, and help sell the film. The action sequences are nice, showing a sort of “passing the torch” from an old pro like Willis, to a young up-and-comer like Levitt. Though I'm hoping Bruce has still got a few more years in him, he's one of the better stars of the action circuit (also because a Red 2 would kick arse).

Highly recommended, and yet another notch for Johnson. A man to watch as the years continue, he's sure to deliver more A-game stuff (and even though it's only a rumor, can he PLEASE direct the Batman reboot, if that should come to pass?). 4/5

OK Shamblers, Let's Get Shamblin'

Yeah, I know it's two weeks after Halloween, but I watched these movies over Halloween and I wanted to share my thoughts.

When I started out, one of my earliest posts (my second, if memory serves) was about the zombie craze, and not long after that, I did one for my fave horror movies. Well, this year, I'm going to be combining aspects of those, so to speak. This year, I'm marathoning movies again, only this time I only have one night off, and decided to make the most of it with a theme. It came down to a choice between zombies/flesh eaters and Troma. Zombies won out due to Troma having some films in their library that aren't exactly horror, and some of their horror bordering on horror-comedy. That's not to say that makes them less legit, just that I wanted something with outright horror, with maybe a little comedy for balance (a couple of movies in this marathon are Troma films, so they're still represented).

Rather than be in-depth analysis (like I'm good at that anyway), they'll just be short opinions on the films I watch, of which there are seven. None of them are 2012 releases though, but I'll be returning to that shortly, especially since I only have two months left. Looper should be the next post, along with Frankenweenie, but since I finally got my own copy of The Cabin In The Woods, it could go either way.

But with all that out of the way, let's get to the films

• Zombie Flesh Eaters: it takes its time, but by the end, you'll be rewarded. The make-up/costuming for the zombies is just fantastic (especially for the zombie with worms in his eye). The scene with the splintered wood going through the eye... damn!
  Acting-wise, no one stands out but no one is crap, either, so I have no complaints.
  Gore value, pretty damn good. Might actually work as a bridge between Dawn Of The Dead and Day Of The Dead (though not directly bridging the two, obviously), kinda like a comic mini-series only filmed instead of printed.
  Also, shark vs. zombie= one of the best things I've seen this year. 3.5/5
  
  
• Burial Ground- Nights Of Terror: pretty much everything I have to say about Zombie Flesh Eaters above applies here, minus the shark and the stuff about being connected to Dawn Of The Dead. The zombies once again look fantastic, and the gore is exquisite. Even the musical cues are pretty good, too. Kind of lacking in dialogue, but hey, we're here to see zombies get their eat on, and the gettin's good.
  But that Michael character... OK, that's just creepy. He's supposed to be 10, yet he doesn't look it, and the dubbed voice makes him sound older... the Hell happened there? Not to mention the incestuous overtones with him and his mother...
  Anyway, another good one. 3.5/5

• Zombie Holocaust: first off, that's a misleading title on both counts. There are barely any zombies in it (and don't tell me that the brain-transplanted cannibals count since they were technically dead, since they're not exactly undead. Plus, I don't think they're all recipients of brain transplants.) and considering the low body count, holocaust is pure hyperbole. Cannibal Holocaust would have been only slightly more accurate, and it would have forced the film with that title to change theirs (this film predates it by a year at least).
  But then, the American title, Dr. Butcher, isn't that much more accurate either.
  Anyway, it's an alright film. The mad scientist is actually very sedate, and kind of a fascinating character. The gore isn't as impressive as the films above, but still, there are some good moments here and there. 3/5

• Redneck Zombies: first Troma film in the marathon, and honestly, it's a little all over the place. It starts off with some wacky humor, and it's enjoyable, albeit it with characters that aren't properly fleshed out. By the end, the humor's all over the place (as is the acting), all culminating in a final act that's rather slow and nearly painful to watch. Not a waste of time but not something to scour the globe for either. 3/5

• Survival Of The Dead: If you view the last three “Of The Dead” films as a second trilogy, I'd say they're like the Star Wars prequels as a whole: not terrible but considering the fanbase and how eager they were for more, the end result isn't pleasing (though I loved Revenge Of The Sith so maybe this wasn't the best choice of metaphor. Maybe even less considering Diary Of The Dead and where it fits in the canon of the series).
  At any rate, I really couldn't get invested in this film, particularly the characters. The concept of getting the zombies to actually try and eat other living beings is a nice one, but otherwise, this isn't a great entry for the series.
  Romero has two more sequels planned that he wants to do back-to-back and one can only hope they'll be an improvement. 2.5/5
  
  
• Cannibal Holocaust: Now, here's some gruesome action for you! Seriously, not for the easily squeamish. I mean, it wasn't banned in many countries for nothing. Humans, animals, no one is safe. And for a movie with this name (just one up from Zombie Holocaust in terms of title accuracy), it certainly delivers a lot more than you bargained for. The kills are highly realistic-looking (except for the animals, which ARE realistic) and I dig the style the film was shot in, with a lot of it looking like a pre-cursor to the found footage style that is prevalent today.
  Can't say I sympathize with the plight of most of the protagonists but considering their own actions, I'm not entirely sure we're supposed to. If you want gruesome stuff, this should fit the bill. 4/5
  
  
• Cannibal! The Musical: actually not all that grisly, but still very entertaining. The songs are great (especially That's All I'm Asking For), it's hilarious and goes in very unexpected paths. It's a Troma film, but you wouldn't know it from looking at it. With the creators of South Park at the helm (this was before the show aired, if memory serves), you're in good hands. 4/5
  Well, that concludes this marathon. I really should do another one some time soon. Maybe I'll blog about it, I still have a whole bunch of horrors and such. In the meantime, must plow through the remaining 10 movies for 2012.