Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Huntsman: Winter's War (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Hemsworth and Chastain Disappoint
Snow White & the Huntsman was a film that garnered much more attention than it deserved, purely because of the goings on behind the scenes between Twilight starlet, Kristen Stewart and director Rupert Sanders. The film itself was a hollow take on the classic fairy-tale that lacked the magic and sparkle of Disney’s wonderful animation.
It’s fair to say then that it never really deserved any kind of follow up, despite a charismatic performance from the wonderful Charlize Theron. Nevertheless, Universal Studios approved another film soon after its release. But is The Huntsman: Winter’s War better than what came before it?
Taking place before and directly alongside the events of its predecessor, Winter’s War follows Emily Blunt’s Ice Queen, Freya, as she struggles to come to terms with the death of her baby. She becomes so consumed by rage and guilt that she banishes herself to an ice castle, much like Elsa from Frozen, training an army of kidnapped children to pass her time.
Chris Hemsworth and Jessica Chastain star as two of these warriors, taken from their families at a young age and taught how to fight and how to block out any feelings of love – as per the Queen’s orders. Naturally, this becomes increasingly difficult and provides the film with its romantic subplot.
Unfortunately, the usually excellent Hemsworth and former Oscar-winner Chastain have next-to-no chemistry and their truly dreadful Celtic accents stop the film dead in its tracks. It’s a shame that Winter’s War relies so heavily on these two when Emily Blunt and a sorely underused Charlize Theron are much, much better.
So much better in fact that the screen comes alive whenever they are on screen, whether that is together or flying solo. Blunt suffers slightly due to the nature of her role, after all, she is known to be a bubbly and happy-go-lucky person, but her Ice Queen is mesmerising and heart-breaking to watch nonetheless.
Theron steals the show yet again, despite her lack of screen time and as she did in its predecessor, lifts Winter’s War well above its average plot and dialogue. Elsewhere, British favourite Sheridan Smith is a pleasant comedic break as a foul-mouthed dwarf.
The cinematography is on the whole very good, with pleasant landscapes, reminiscent of Harry Potter dotted alongside CGI castles, polar bears and goblins. The use of practical effects by first-time director Cedric Nicolas-Troyan is also a pleasure to see in this day and age.
Alas, the plot and dialogue of Winter’s War leaves much to be desired and the lack of screen time for Blunt and Theron hampers what could have been an interesting and unique backstory for this particular duo of films.
Overall, The Huntsman: Winter’s War is an average film hampered further by its two leading stars. Fortunately, the inclusion of Blunt and Theron manages to lift it slightly above the standard of its predecessor, but not by enough for it to warrant another follow up. However, the signposts throughout the 115 minute running time confess a sequel is more than likely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/07/hemsworth-and-chastain-disappoint-the-huntsman-review/
It’s fair to say then that it never really deserved any kind of follow up, despite a charismatic performance from the wonderful Charlize Theron. Nevertheless, Universal Studios approved another film soon after its release. But is The Huntsman: Winter’s War better than what came before it?
Taking place before and directly alongside the events of its predecessor, Winter’s War follows Emily Blunt’s Ice Queen, Freya, as she struggles to come to terms with the death of her baby. She becomes so consumed by rage and guilt that she banishes herself to an ice castle, much like Elsa from Frozen, training an army of kidnapped children to pass her time.
Chris Hemsworth and Jessica Chastain star as two of these warriors, taken from their families at a young age and taught how to fight and how to block out any feelings of love – as per the Queen’s orders. Naturally, this becomes increasingly difficult and provides the film with its romantic subplot.
Unfortunately, the usually excellent Hemsworth and former Oscar-winner Chastain have next-to-no chemistry and their truly dreadful Celtic accents stop the film dead in its tracks. It’s a shame that Winter’s War relies so heavily on these two when Emily Blunt and a sorely underused Charlize Theron are much, much better.
So much better in fact that the screen comes alive whenever they are on screen, whether that is together or flying solo. Blunt suffers slightly due to the nature of her role, after all, she is known to be a bubbly and happy-go-lucky person, but her Ice Queen is mesmerising and heart-breaking to watch nonetheless.
Theron steals the show yet again, despite her lack of screen time and as she did in its predecessor, lifts Winter’s War well above its average plot and dialogue. Elsewhere, British favourite Sheridan Smith is a pleasant comedic break as a foul-mouthed dwarf.
The cinematography is on the whole very good, with pleasant landscapes, reminiscent of Harry Potter dotted alongside CGI castles, polar bears and goblins. The use of practical effects by first-time director Cedric Nicolas-Troyan is also a pleasure to see in this day and age.
Alas, the plot and dialogue of Winter’s War leaves much to be desired and the lack of screen time for Blunt and Theron hampers what could have been an interesting and unique backstory for this particular duo of films.
Overall, The Huntsman: Winter’s War is an average film hampered further by its two leading stars. Fortunately, the inclusion of Blunt and Theron manages to lift it slightly above the standard of its predecessor, but not by enough for it to warrant another follow up. However, the signposts throughout the 115 minute running time confess a sequel is more than likely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/07/hemsworth-and-chastain-disappoint-the-huntsman-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Wolfenstein: The Old Blood in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
Wolfenstein: The Old Blood is the latest entry into the long running series which saw its origins back in the days of the Commodore and Apple computers.
Following up last year’s Wolfenstein: The New Order, Old Blood serves as a prequel to the last game but players do not need to own the previous game in order to play.
The game follows series hero William BJ Blazkowicz as he must escape from the deadly Castle Wolfenstein and then recover some secret documents while thwarting the latest Nazi campaign of evil.
Old Blood brings more of the run and gun mayhem that the series has become famous for and does not deviate much from the successful formula of previous games in the series. Players still grab health, ammunition; armor, health, and overcharge all around them and off fallen enemies and the enemies are as nasty and endless as ever.
The game has some serious challenge even on the easier settings at times and players will find themselves with plenty of solid graphics and interesting locales in which to battle. I loved one battle from cable cars and another in a small village was quite thrilling. Enemies are varied from Commanders who can call in support to the standard soldiers and super soldiers who require some up close combat to bring down faster.
The game has a sense of humor as there are rest areas where players can take a break and play levels form the old Wolfenstein 3D with all of its pixelated graphics form the days before 3D cards which shows just how far games have progressed.
The game uses the same weapons from The New Order with the addition of a pipe which is a real universal go to in the game. The pipe can be used as a single piece to club enemies and be used as a pry bar for vents and grates as well as to slide across wires.
When it is used in two parts, the pipe is a great weapon to impale and beat down enemies and is also a valuable climbing tool which will come in handy throughout the game.
Like The New Order, Old Blood does not offer a multiplay feature but it does offer great graphics, a challenge, and plenty of action.
The game has a short run time as I was able to finish it in five hours, but considering the $19.99 price and the fact that the campaign portion of the last few Call of Duty games is roughly the same length you more than get your money’s worth.
Playing on the PC version I did experience two technical issues where the game locked up, but they were minor and did not hinder my completion of the game.
As the game built to a satisfying finale, I was reminded of just how much fun the series is and how we will hopefully see more games in the series in the near future.
For now, Wolfenstein: The Old Blood is a fun game that will keep fans of the series and action games in general happy.
http://sknr.net/2015/05/12/wolfenstein-the-old-blood/
Following up last year’s Wolfenstein: The New Order, Old Blood serves as a prequel to the last game but players do not need to own the previous game in order to play.
The game follows series hero William BJ Blazkowicz as he must escape from the deadly Castle Wolfenstein and then recover some secret documents while thwarting the latest Nazi campaign of evil.
Old Blood brings more of the run and gun mayhem that the series has become famous for and does not deviate much from the successful formula of previous games in the series. Players still grab health, ammunition; armor, health, and overcharge all around them and off fallen enemies and the enemies are as nasty and endless as ever.
The game has some serious challenge even on the easier settings at times and players will find themselves with plenty of solid graphics and interesting locales in which to battle. I loved one battle from cable cars and another in a small village was quite thrilling. Enemies are varied from Commanders who can call in support to the standard soldiers and super soldiers who require some up close combat to bring down faster.
The game has a sense of humor as there are rest areas where players can take a break and play levels form the old Wolfenstein 3D with all of its pixelated graphics form the days before 3D cards which shows just how far games have progressed.
The game uses the same weapons from The New Order with the addition of a pipe which is a real universal go to in the game. The pipe can be used as a single piece to club enemies and be used as a pry bar for vents and grates as well as to slide across wires.
When it is used in two parts, the pipe is a great weapon to impale and beat down enemies and is also a valuable climbing tool which will come in handy throughout the game.
Like The New Order, Old Blood does not offer a multiplay feature but it does offer great graphics, a challenge, and plenty of action.
The game has a short run time as I was able to finish it in five hours, but considering the $19.99 price and the fact that the campaign portion of the last few Call of Duty games is roughly the same length you more than get your money’s worth.
Playing on the PC version I did experience two technical issues where the game locked up, but they were minor and did not hinder my completion of the game.
As the game built to a satisfying finale, I was reminded of just how much fun the series is and how we will hopefully see more games in the series in the near future.
For now, Wolfenstein: The Old Blood is a fun game that will keep fans of the series and action games in general happy.
http://sknr.net/2015/05/12/wolfenstein-the-old-blood/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Fast & Furious (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
igh adrenaline films have always been a signature of the summer movie season and with a bevy of blockbusters lines up for the summer months, Universal has the opening salvo with the very impressive “Fast and Furious”.
Although the fourth film in the series, the film is in many ways is the first true sequel to the 2001 original as it reunites Vin Diesel and Paul Walker.
The film opens with a spectacular high speed heist where Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel), and his crew attempt to steal petroleum tankers. The amazing pacing and driving and stunt sequences is easily the best opening sequences in the series and had the audience at my press screening on the edge of their seats.
With the heat on Dominic, he decides to split up the group so they do not get busted when the authorities catch up to him. Unfortunately this means slipping away from his longtime love Letty (Michelle Rodriguez).
At the same time, F.B.I. agent Brian O’Conner (Paul Walker), is under the gun from his superiors to bring down a drug trafficker who has eluded all efforts to indentify much less capture but is known for his reputation for ruthlessness. With lead after lead coming up empty for his task force, O’Conner pursues a name that may just shed some light on the true identify of his target.
When events unfold that force Dominic to return to Los Angeles on a mission of revenge, his path crosses O’Conner and the two men renew the rivalry that has existed between them which hits the high gear when both men find themselves in an illegal street race.
The winner of the race gets to join the driving team of the drug trafficker that O’Conner is seeking, and with Dominic having his own motivations, the intense race through the packed streets is easily one of the most intense racing sequences ever captured.
In time the two men find themselves working with one another to bring down a common foe, but old issues still remaining between the duty driven O’Conner and the outlaw Dominick, especially regarding Dominick’s sister Mia (Jordana Brewster), who had a relationship with O’Conner before he revealed himself to be an undercover agent in the first film.
What follows is a pedal to the metal adventure that sets a breakneck pace and lets up only enough from the audience to briefly catch their breath.
Walker and Diesel make a dynamic team and unlike the previous films in the series, “Fast and Furious” has a plot that does not drag and holds the attention of the audience and serves as little more than filler between action sequences.
Director Justin Lin (Who helmed the last film in the series Tokyo Drift), balances the two leads with the awesome array of racing machines in the film without ever losing fact that this is a character driven story.
With a great cast and amazing driving sequences the film was a very pleasant surprise and has me looking forward to the next chapter in the series. Not only is this a strong comeback for Walker and Diesel but is easily the best film in the series and should delight the fans.
Although the fourth film in the series, the film is in many ways is the first true sequel to the 2001 original as it reunites Vin Diesel and Paul Walker.
The film opens with a spectacular high speed heist where Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel), and his crew attempt to steal petroleum tankers. The amazing pacing and driving and stunt sequences is easily the best opening sequences in the series and had the audience at my press screening on the edge of their seats.
With the heat on Dominic, he decides to split up the group so they do not get busted when the authorities catch up to him. Unfortunately this means slipping away from his longtime love Letty (Michelle Rodriguez).
At the same time, F.B.I. agent Brian O’Conner (Paul Walker), is under the gun from his superiors to bring down a drug trafficker who has eluded all efforts to indentify much less capture but is known for his reputation for ruthlessness. With lead after lead coming up empty for his task force, O’Conner pursues a name that may just shed some light on the true identify of his target.
When events unfold that force Dominic to return to Los Angeles on a mission of revenge, his path crosses O’Conner and the two men renew the rivalry that has existed between them which hits the high gear when both men find themselves in an illegal street race.
The winner of the race gets to join the driving team of the drug trafficker that O’Conner is seeking, and with Dominic having his own motivations, the intense race through the packed streets is easily one of the most intense racing sequences ever captured.
In time the two men find themselves working with one another to bring down a common foe, but old issues still remaining between the duty driven O’Conner and the outlaw Dominick, especially regarding Dominick’s sister Mia (Jordana Brewster), who had a relationship with O’Conner before he revealed himself to be an undercover agent in the first film.
What follows is a pedal to the metal adventure that sets a breakneck pace and lets up only enough from the audience to briefly catch their breath.
Walker and Diesel make a dynamic team and unlike the previous films in the series, “Fast and Furious” has a plot that does not drag and holds the attention of the audience and serves as little more than filler between action sequences.
Director Justin Lin (Who helmed the last film in the series Tokyo Drift), balances the two leads with the awesome array of racing machines in the film without ever losing fact that this is a character driven story.
With a great cast and amazing driving sequences the film was a very pleasant surprise and has me looking forward to the next chapter in the series. Not only is this a strong comeback for Walker and Diesel but is easily the best film in the series and should delight the fans.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Horrified: Universal Monsters Strategy Board Game in Tabletop Games
Aug 6, 2021
I was a child a long time ago. Okay, not THAT long ago, but I remember being frightened of a great many thing on TV: Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” music video, the TV show “V,” and so many others. I still to this day have not watched an entire old school Universal Studios Monster movie. However, I used to live in California for part of my childhood and my family had season passes to Universal Studios and we would go quite a lot, so I have always been familiar with the monsters. So when I saw a game was being crafted featuring these lovable, but in a nostalgic way, creatures I knew I just had to have it.
Horrified is a pickup and deliver, action points, cooperative game with dice and miniatures utilizing a variable setup. In it players take on the role of a hero in a monster movie – but not just A monster movie, but SEVERAL monsters will be haunting the town! It is the heroes’ goal to defeat the monsters before the Terror Marker reaches maximum or the heroes run out of time and the monsters take over the town.
To setup, place the board on the table and draw 12 Item tokens from the bag. Place these Items on the board in the specified location printed on the Item. Depending on how many players (for this review I will be using the Solo rules in the rule book) place the Terror Marker appropriately on the board – the photo above was taken before I realized that it starts on three in the Solo game. Choose the monsters to be faced and place their mats near the board. The rulebook states where the monster minis will start the game. Place the Frenzy token on the lowest Frenzy-numbered monster. Shuffle the Monster and Perk decks of cards separately and deal each player one Perk card. Each player chooses or is randomly dealt a character badge and places the standee in the appropriate location on the board. The game may now begin!
Players will be taking turns traveling the town, picking up Items, attempting to defeat the monsters per their defeat instructions on their mats, delivering villagers that randomly appear to their safe locations, and keeping the Terror Marker in the acceptable range. Each character has a certain number of actions that can be taken on their turns, but any Perk cards used are spent as a bonus action on the hero’s turn. The hero actions are: Move (one space along the lit pathways, even with a villager in tow), Guide (a villager one space away from the hero), Pick Up (Items from locations), Share (Items from player to player – not needed in a Solo game), Special Action (if the character being played has one on their badge), Advance (complete a task on the Monster mat to move one step closer to defeat), and Defeat (once all the tasks are complete and the player has enough Items to defeat the Monster at the same location). Once a hero has used up all their Action Points per their badge, it will be the Monster phase.
Monster phases begin with a draw from the Monster deck. Upon the card will be a number printed on the top which instructs players as to how many Items to draw and place from the bag. Next, players will read the text on the card and complete any instructions. Finally, the Monsters will strike. At the bottom of the card will be printed several icons pertaining to Monsters individually and also the Monster who happens to currently be Frenzied. These icons instruct players to move certain Monsters and if they share a space with a hero or villager, to roll the attack dice. One hit from a Monster defeats either a villager or hero (unless the hero discards any Item to block the attack). If a hero or villager is defeated, the Terror Marker moves up a space toward ultimate doom. Play then is passed to the players again. The game continues in this fashion until one of the game end conditions is met and the heroe(s) win or the Monsters succeed in their hostile haunted takeover.
Components. I’d like to start with the art. I love it. The art has a very 1930s Hollywood style and is simply beautiful. The colors are vibrant, where color is used, and the board is stunning. All of the cardboard components are top notch quality, and the Monster minis are fab. Obviously it would be great for all the heroes and villagers to have minis as well, but there is text printed on those standees that just can’t translate to a miniature. All in all, the components here are wonderful and high quality.
The gameplay is also wonderful and high quality. The solo game from which these photos are taken I randomly drew the Mayor character and decided to hit the town with Dracula, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, and The Invisible Man. That’s a Standard game in the rules. The Mayor is great because she is able to take five actions on her turn (plus Perks), but she has no special abilities. That is both a blessing and a curse and wonderfully balanced. I would say I finished the game needing just one or two more Monster cards to draw before all three baddies were defeated. But, that’s the difficulty of having three Monsters showing. With just two Monsters I would have won handily, but maybe would not have enjoyed it as much and written it off as too easy. Luckily I always learn games on normal standard difficulty first.
Traipsing around town picking up Items and ushering villagers to their safe spaces sounds relaxing, but when the Monsters are on your trail and ready to Strike it adds a layer of anxiety that is just delicious. I admit I probably spent too much time trying to save every villager and that’s partly why I failed at this one game. Also I miscalculated how many extra Items to have on hand when attempting to Advance the Monster tasks. Couple those with my strategy to concentrate on defeating one Monster at a time and, well, that’s a losing strategy it seems.
The gameplay is so much fun, and the components are so wonderful to play with, it’s really no surprise I enjoy this game as much as I do. I have purposely left out some rules for readers to enjoy discovering themselves, but this is a tight game with pressure from different fronts to complete objectives. It’s the kind of game where even with a loss you find yourself wanting to try again right away. And that’s a sing of an excellent game. Purple Phoenix Games gives this very high ratings, even as a solo experience. If you need more horror-style adventure games in your collection, please check out Horrified. It’s not really that scary to play, but you will certainly be haunted by your choices you make throughout the game.
Horrified is a pickup and deliver, action points, cooperative game with dice and miniatures utilizing a variable setup. In it players take on the role of a hero in a monster movie – but not just A monster movie, but SEVERAL monsters will be haunting the town! It is the heroes’ goal to defeat the monsters before the Terror Marker reaches maximum or the heroes run out of time and the monsters take over the town.
To setup, place the board on the table and draw 12 Item tokens from the bag. Place these Items on the board in the specified location printed on the Item. Depending on how many players (for this review I will be using the Solo rules in the rule book) place the Terror Marker appropriately on the board – the photo above was taken before I realized that it starts on three in the Solo game. Choose the monsters to be faced and place their mats near the board. The rulebook states where the monster minis will start the game. Place the Frenzy token on the lowest Frenzy-numbered monster. Shuffle the Monster and Perk decks of cards separately and deal each player one Perk card. Each player chooses or is randomly dealt a character badge and places the standee in the appropriate location on the board. The game may now begin!
Players will be taking turns traveling the town, picking up Items, attempting to defeat the monsters per their defeat instructions on their mats, delivering villagers that randomly appear to their safe locations, and keeping the Terror Marker in the acceptable range. Each character has a certain number of actions that can be taken on their turns, but any Perk cards used are spent as a bonus action on the hero’s turn. The hero actions are: Move (one space along the lit pathways, even with a villager in tow), Guide (a villager one space away from the hero), Pick Up (Items from locations), Share (Items from player to player – not needed in a Solo game), Special Action (if the character being played has one on their badge), Advance (complete a task on the Monster mat to move one step closer to defeat), and Defeat (once all the tasks are complete and the player has enough Items to defeat the Monster at the same location). Once a hero has used up all their Action Points per their badge, it will be the Monster phase.
Monster phases begin with a draw from the Monster deck. Upon the card will be a number printed on the top which instructs players as to how many Items to draw and place from the bag. Next, players will read the text on the card and complete any instructions. Finally, the Monsters will strike. At the bottom of the card will be printed several icons pertaining to Monsters individually and also the Monster who happens to currently be Frenzied. These icons instruct players to move certain Monsters and if they share a space with a hero or villager, to roll the attack dice. One hit from a Monster defeats either a villager or hero (unless the hero discards any Item to block the attack). If a hero or villager is defeated, the Terror Marker moves up a space toward ultimate doom. Play then is passed to the players again. The game continues in this fashion until one of the game end conditions is met and the heroe(s) win or the Monsters succeed in their hostile haunted takeover.
Components. I’d like to start with the art. I love it. The art has a very 1930s Hollywood style and is simply beautiful. The colors are vibrant, where color is used, and the board is stunning. All of the cardboard components are top notch quality, and the Monster minis are fab. Obviously it would be great for all the heroes and villagers to have minis as well, but there is text printed on those standees that just can’t translate to a miniature. All in all, the components here are wonderful and high quality.
The gameplay is also wonderful and high quality. The solo game from which these photos are taken I randomly drew the Mayor character and decided to hit the town with Dracula, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, and The Invisible Man. That’s a Standard game in the rules. The Mayor is great because she is able to take five actions on her turn (plus Perks), but she has no special abilities. That is both a blessing and a curse and wonderfully balanced. I would say I finished the game needing just one or two more Monster cards to draw before all three baddies were defeated. But, that’s the difficulty of having three Monsters showing. With just two Monsters I would have won handily, but maybe would not have enjoyed it as much and written it off as too easy. Luckily I always learn games on normal standard difficulty first.
Traipsing around town picking up Items and ushering villagers to their safe spaces sounds relaxing, but when the Monsters are on your trail and ready to Strike it adds a layer of anxiety that is just delicious. I admit I probably spent too much time trying to save every villager and that’s partly why I failed at this one game. Also I miscalculated how many extra Items to have on hand when attempting to Advance the Monster tasks. Couple those with my strategy to concentrate on defeating one Monster at a time and, well, that’s a losing strategy it seems.
The gameplay is so much fun, and the components are so wonderful to play with, it’s really no surprise I enjoy this game as much as I do. I have purposely left out some rules for readers to enjoy discovering themselves, but this is a tight game with pressure from different fronts to complete objectives. It’s the kind of game where even with a loss you find yourself wanting to try again right away. And that’s a sing of an excellent game. Purple Phoenix Games gives this very high ratings, even as a solo experience. If you need more horror-style adventure games in your collection, please check out Horrified. It’s not really that scary to play, but you will certainly be haunted by your choices you make throughout the game.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Dracula (English) (1931) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Where it all began...
Contains spoilers, click to show
The year was 1931: Two years after the success of The Jazz Singer and the final introduction of sound movies into the mainstream, sound was still revolutionising the industry. But in 1931, a bit like 3D now, there was still much confusion over to how make films, with directors, producers and actors alike, were still moving over from the suddenly dated silent era, with varying success.
Tod Browning was a man who would unfortunately find little success in the sound era, but not necessarily because he couldn't move with the times, but because his career was derailed a couple of years later by his disturbing horror pic, Freaks.
Dracula was shot THREE times. One, this one, was the conventional sound version that we all know. An other was shot at night and in Spanish for the benefit of that audience, which the studio supposedly preferred. This was quite common at this time, but little known nowadays. And the third was a straight forward silent version for the many theatres still un-equipped to handle sound.
But the styles of the silent era are all over this film. From the long silent reactions shots and the over acting, especially by Bela Lagosi in the titular role. This was also the adaptation of the stage adaptation of Bram Stoker's chiller, and was faithfully adapted from that source, hence the lack of more complex special effects, with bats on strings and fog machines, over more cinematic effects.
The transformation scenes for example, where the Count morphs from a bat to the undead human occur off-screen, rather than some form of cross fade etc. Is this a choice driven by lack of money? Lack of cinematic ambition of a choice to stick to the stage material? To be honest, I have too little knowledge or experience of Tod Browning's work to suggest a reason, but when all's said and done, it did work.
Let's be honest, this is 80 years old and is not the least bit scary and it is hard not to laugh, but in context, I'm sure it worked well at the time and the story is well conveyed. Lagosi's undead performance is hammy by today's standards but he was somewhat likable. He was very deliberate, slow and the silent era has certainly left its scars, as the subtly of sound performing was yet to take hold.
But this is the sort of film were silent melodramatic acting still worked. This is of course a piece Gothic Horror, the home of melodrama if ever there was one. This is surly a product of its time, both as the industry went through one of it's most dramatic changes, which ended so many careers as well a created so many new ones, but it's also, let's not forget, the first direct adaptation of Bram Stoker's book, besides the 1922 German version, Nosferatu, which changes a fair few details to try to get around the copyright, failing to do so mind, resulting in failed bid to have every copy of the film destroyed.
This is the film that ingrained the image of the Dracula that we know today into popular culture. This was were the Universal horror franchise began. For whatever faults it has by today's standards, it did something right.
Tod Browning was a man who would unfortunately find little success in the sound era, but not necessarily because he couldn't move with the times, but because his career was derailed a couple of years later by his disturbing horror pic, Freaks.
Dracula was shot THREE times. One, this one, was the conventional sound version that we all know. An other was shot at night and in Spanish for the benefit of that audience, which the studio supposedly preferred. This was quite common at this time, but little known nowadays. And the third was a straight forward silent version for the many theatres still un-equipped to handle sound.
But the styles of the silent era are all over this film. From the long silent reactions shots and the over acting, especially by Bela Lagosi in the titular role. This was also the adaptation of the stage adaptation of Bram Stoker's chiller, and was faithfully adapted from that source, hence the lack of more complex special effects, with bats on strings and fog machines, over more cinematic effects.
The transformation scenes for example, where the Count morphs from a bat to the undead human occur off-screen, rather than some form of cross fade etc. Is this a choice driven by lack of money? Lack of cinematic ambition of a choice to stick to the stage material? To be honest, I have too little knowledge or experience of Tod Browning's work to suggest a reason, but when all's said and done, it did work.
Let's be honest, this is 80 years old and is not the least bit scary and it is hard not to laugh, but in context, I'm sure it worked well at the time and the story is well conveyed. Lagosi's undead performance is hammy by today's standards but he was somewhat likable. He was very deliberate, slow and the silent era has certainly left its scars, as the subtly of sound performing was yet to take hold.
But this is the sort of film were silent melodramatic acting still worked. This is of course a piece Gothic Horror, the home of melodrama if ever there was one. This is surly a product of its time, both as the industry went through one of it's most dramatic changes, which ended so many careers as well a created so many new ones, but it's also, let's not forget, the first direct adaptation of Bram Stoker's book, besides the 1922 German version, Nosferatu, which changes a fair few details to try to get around the copyright, failing to do so mind, resulting in failed bid to have every copy of the film destroyed.
This is the film that ingrained the image of the Dracula that we know today into popular culture. This was were the Universal horror franchise began. For whatever faults it has by today's standards, it did something right.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Fate of the Furious (2017) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Spectacularly Dumb
With box office takings of over $1.5billion, it was obvious that Universal Pictures would never let Furious 7 be the end of a multi-billion dollar franchise, no matter what many fans truly wanted.
The previous instalment was also, surprisingly, warmly received by critics who were impressed with how sensitively the naturally bombastic series handled the death of lead star Paul Walker. Two years on, the crew are back with Fast and Furious 8; does it do enough to keep the franchise on a high?
Now that Dom (Vin Diesel) and Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) are on their honeymoon, Brian and Mia have retired from the game, and the rest of the crew have been exonerated, the plucky team of globetrotters has found a normal life of sorts. But when a mysterious woman (Charlize Theron) seduces Dom back into a world of crime that he can’t seem to escape from, the rest of the gang will face things that will test them like never before.
Newcomer to the franchise, director F. Gary Gray (Law Abiding Citizen, The Italian Job) manages to craft what is perhaps the most ridiculous entry in the series to date, plagued with tonal imbalances and plot holes so big you could fit the QE2 into them with ease. But you know what? It’s probably the most fun you’ll have in the cinema all year.
The cast are all reunited, barring Paul Walker’s Brian and those publicised rifts between Vin Diesel and Dwayne Johnson are nowhere to be seen as everyone on screen appears to be having the time of their lives. New recruit Charlize Theron adds a level of class to proceedings as steely supervillain, Cipher. She’s a cracking addition to the series and her acting prowess oozes from every pore, despite the often clunky dialogue.
Of course, successful predecessors command bigger budgets for their follow-ups and Furious 8 is no exception. $250million was spent on creating this film and it shows. It’s a feast for the eyes with explosions, shiny cars, stunning locations and breath-taking special effects. The result is frankly exceptional. From Cuba to NYC and from Berlin to Russia (actually filmed in Iceland), the vistas are nicely filmed and beautifully executed.
The action sequences are also choreographed very well, but from a franchise built on these foundations, I’d expect nothing less. In particular, a street chase through New York City is edge of your seat stuff as literally hundreds of vehicles worm their way through its congested streets.
Negatives? Well, the story is awkward despite some decent twists, the aforementioned plot holes cause a few headaches for a series that prides itself on continuity and some of the comedic elements are poorly placed, but in this eighth outing, much of that can be forgiven. After all, what other franchise could survive eight films and still prove as exciting as its first?
Overall, Fast and Furious 8 is unashamedly ridiculous but who cares? With exceptional special effects and a great new adversary in Charlize Theron, the series once again manages to surpass expectation. Each film tries its best to outdo its predecessor and before long, we’ll no doubt be heading to Mars with the gang. I’m up for that. Are you?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/13/spectacularly-dumb-fast-furious-8-review/
The previous instalment was also, surprisingly, warmly received by critics who were impressed with how sensitively the naturally bombastic series handled the death of lead star Paul Walker. Two years on, the crew are back with Fast and Furious 8; does it do enough to keep the franchise on a high?
Now that Dom (Vin Diesel) and Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) are on their honeymoon, Brian and Mia have retired from the game, and the rest of the crew have been exonerated, the plucky team of globetrotters has found a normal life of sorts. But when a mysterious woman (Charlize Theron) seduces Dom back into a world of crime that he can’t seem to escape from, the rest of the gang will face things that will test them like never before.
Newcomer to the franchise, director F. Gary Gray (Law Abiding Citizen, The Italian Job) manages to craft what is perhaps the most ridiculous entry in the series to date, plagued with tonal imbalances and plot holes so big you could fit the QE2 into them with ease. But you know what? It’s probably the most fun you’ll have in the cinema all year.
The cast are all reunited, barring Paul Walker’s Brian and those publicised rifts between Vin Diesel and Dwayne Johnson are nowhere to be seen as everyone on screen appears to be having the time of their lives. New recruit Charlize Theron adds a level of class to proceedings as steely supervillain, Cipher. She’s a cracking addition to the series and her acting prowess oozes from every pore, despite the often clunky dialogue.
Of course, successful predecessors command bigger budgets for their follow-ups and Furious 8 is no exception. $250million was spent on creating this film and it shows. It’s a feast for the eyes with explosions, shiny cars, stunning locations and breath-taking special effects. The result is frankly exceptional. From Cuba to NYC and from Berlin to Russia (actually filmed in Iceland), the vistas are nicely filmed and beautifully executed.
The action sequences are also choreographed very well, but from a franchise built on these foundations, I’d expect nothing less. In particular, a street chase through New York City is edge of your seat stuff as literally hundreds of vehicles worm their way through its congested streets.
Negatives? Well, the story is awkward despite some decent twists, the aforementioned plot holes cause a few headaches for a series that prides itself on continuity and some of the comedic elements are poorly placed, but in this eighth outing, much of that can be forgiven. After all, what other franchise could survive eight films and still prove as exciting as its first?
Overall, Fast and Furious 8 is unashamedly ridiculous but who cares? With exceptional special effects and a great new adversary in Charlize Theron, the series once again manages to surpass expectation. Each film tries its best to outdo its predecessor and before long, we’ll no doubt be heading to Mars with the gang. I’m up for that. Are you?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/13/spectacularly-dumb-fast-furious-8-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Unfriended (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Deeply Unnerving
When was the last time you watched a genuinely scary horror film? For me, Sinister, The Conjuring and You’re Next are three of the most terrifying movies to grace the silver screen in the last few years.
However, for every Sinister, there’s a One Missed Call. Bland, forgettable films litter the genre and we’re still waiting for a 90s-esque resurgence to kick-in. Here, Universal Pictures starts its summer movie campaign with Unfriended, but will it have you watching through your fingers?
Unfriended takes place in real-time on the laptop of a high-school student named Blaire (Shelley Hennig). Blaire, along with her boyfriend (Moses Jacob Storm) and a group of other conventional American teenagers gather together on Skype to have a chat.
However, a sinister account belonging to their deceased friend appears to join in the conversation on the anniversary of her suicide. The ensuing horror not only tests the limits of their friendship, but also their strength as human beings.
Levan Gabriadze directs the film brilliantly and in only using social media and webcam chat services, manages to create a horror movie that is genuinely unique and also impossible to predict, playing on our continuous use of modern technology as a plot device.
The result of this static camera work and point of view shooting is a hideously claustrophobic atmosphere that makes you feel like you’re also a part of the group’s terror – though take your glasses along if you have trouble reading from afar like I do.
Casting reasonably unknown actors in the roles was also a master stroke by the production team. In doing so, they have created a film that feels much more real, and in turn a lot more scary, with the characters coming across as just normal kids caught up in something truly awful.
Of course, the lack of feature film experience is evident in the whole of the cast. Some of the acting is decidedly dodgy and
to fully immerse yourself in what’s going on requires a slight suspension of disbelief in these sequences.
What Unfriended does have in its favour however is a plot featuring different tones. As it begins, it appears to be a typical teen-slasher movie like Scream or I Know What You Did Last Summer – but the clever editing and story that picks up pace from around 20 minutes in throws you off the scent of what is really at work here.
Unfortunately, this intriguing premise isn’t explored to its full extent and with a length just shy of 85 minutes there just isn’t enough time to flesh out the characters.
Much like 2013’s The Purge, Unfriended has a story that’s different to every other mass-market horror flick out there, but it feels like the creators chickened out a little before the end and hastily added in unnecessary violence to make it feel a little more conventional which is a real shame.
Overall, Unfriended is a genuinely scary, if slightly too brief horror film that manages to play on our fears of the unknown and what technology can really do if it gets into the wrong hands. If there was to be a sequel, and a look to the past tells me there may well be, let’s hope it’s more like The Purge: Anarchy than Piranha 3DD.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/03/deeply-unnerving-unfriended-review/
However, for every Sinister, there’s a One Missed Call. Bland, forgettable films litter the genre and we’re still waiting for a 90s-esque resurgence to kick-in. Here, Universal Pictures starts its summer movie campaign with Unfriended, but will it have you watching through your fingers?
Unfriended takes place in real-time on the laptop of a high-school student named Blaire (Shelley Hennig). Blaire, along with her boyfriend (Moses Jacob Storm) and a group of other conventional American teenagers gather together on Skype to have a chat.
However, a sinister account belonging to their deceased friend appears to join in the conversation on the anniversary of her suicide. The ensuing horror not only tests the limits of their friendship, but also their strength as human beings.
Levan Gabriadze directs the film brilliantly and in only using social media and webcam chat services, manages to create a horror movie that is genuinely unique and also impossible to predict, playing on our continuous use of modern technology as a plot device.
The result of this static camera work and point of view shooting is a hideously claustrophobic atmosphere that makes you feel like you’re also a part of the group’s terror – though take your glasses along if you have trouble reading from afar like I do.
Casting reasonably unknown actors in the roles was also a master stroke by the production team. In doing so, they have created a film that feels much more real, and in turn a lot more scary, with the characters coming across as just normal kids caught up in something truly awful.
Of course, the lack of feature film experience is evident in the whole of the cast. Some of the acting is decidedly dodgy and
to fully immerse yourself in what’s going on requires a slight suspension of disbelief in these sequences.
What Unfriended does have in its favour however is a plot featuring different tones. As it begins, it appears to be a typical teen-slasher movie like Scream or I Know What You Did Last Summer – but the clever editing and story that picks up pace from around 20 minutes in throws you off the scent of what is really at work here.
Unfortunately, this intriguing premise isn’t explored to its full extent and with a length just shy of 85 minutes there just isn’t enough time to flesh out the characters.
Much like 2013’s The Purge, Unfriended has a story that’s different to every other mass-market horror flick out there, but it feels like the creators chickened out a little before the end and hastily added in unnecessary violence to make it feel a little more conventional which is a real shame.
Overall, Unfriended is a genuinely scary, if slightly too brief horror film that manages to play on our fears of the unknown and what technology can really do if it gets into the wrong hands. If there was to be a sequel, and a look to the past tells me there may well be, let’s hope it’s more like The Purge: Anarchy than Piranha 3DD.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/03/deeply-unnerving-unfriended-review/
I am absolutely in love with the book and wish that I didn't have to wait another year to find out what happens. Unlike Marissa Meyer's Lunar Chronicles series, I feel that Renegades is not a series that is as universal a read. The Lunar Chronicles effortlessly blends science fiction with a fairytale retelling and I feel can draw people in even if they don't normally read either of those two. Renegades on the other hand is definitely a superhero story, with fantastic characters and an intriguing plot - but, if you're not a fan of superheroes then you're not as likely to fall in love with this book.
I personally love superheroes, I read comics and can completely see the similarities to the X-Men in this novel. The gifted in this novel are called prodigies and have such amazing (and unique) powers. My personal favourite was Adrian, who had the ability to draw and make his art come to life. Even if you're not super familiar with powers in comics, you'll not be surprised by invincibility or flight. That's why Adrian's ability was so fascinating to me. It was wholly different from the powers I've grown to know and infinitely more surprising because of how versatile it is.
I also really enjoyed that the book wasn't black and white, good and evil, right and wrong. Meyer did a brilliant job illustrating the nuances so that as a reader you could see both sides of the coin. Neither was completely the one that you wanted to root for, as they were all real, flawed people. Even Nova, who I didn't completely connect with at the beginning of the book, grew over time and learned to think more openly. I ended up liking her a lot more, and love reading the struggle she went through throughout the entire book as it helped her develop as a character.
The main characters in this story definitely felt more real than the supporting ones, but I still feel that everyone was fleshed out. I never had those moments when I couldn't remember who was who, which can happen with a large cast of characters (especially when they have both real names and aliases). Meyer allowed people to form a connection with almost all of her characters, no matter how many pages she dedicated to them. I think that is definitely where this book shone.
I've always loved Marissa Meyer's ability to build a believable world that populates in your head as you read, and this is no exception. It could see Gatlon City with its heroes and villains, ordinary people, towering base of command, filthy subway tunnels and abandoned theme park buildings. I was so intrigued by the characters and the world that the storyline took more of a backseat for me. It was still fantastic, and even though the pacing of some scenes wasn't perfect, it was a really enjoyable book.
I would highly recommend this book, especially if you like reading about superheroes (or supervillains, I won't judge). I definitely think you'll enjoy the book otherwise, but it might just not end up being your favourite. Who knows? You may discover that you actually love superheroes because of this book. Trust me, it's pretty great.
I personally love superheroes, I read comics and can completely see the similarities to the X-Men in this novel. The gifted in this novel are called prodigies and have such amazing (and unique) powers. My personal favourite was Adrian, who had the ability to draw and make his art come to life. Even if you're not super familiar with powers in comics, you'll not be surprised by invincibility or flight. That's why Adrian's ability was so fascinating to me. It was wholly different from the powers I've grown to know and infinitely more surprising because of how versatile it is.
I also really enjoyed that the book wasn't black and white, good and evil, right and wrong. Meyer did a brilliant job illustrating the nuances so that as a reader you could see both sides of the coin. Neither was completely the one that you wanted to root for, as they were all real, flawed people. Even Nova, who I didn't completely connect with at the beginning of the book, grew over time and learned to think more openly. I ended up liking her a lot more, and love reading the struggle she went through throughout the entire book as it helped her develop as a character.
The main characters in this story definitely felt more real than the supporting ones, but I still feel that everyone was fleshed out. I never had those moments when I couldn't remember who was who, which can happen with a large cast of characters (especially when they have both real names and aliases). Meyer allowed people to form a connection with almost all of her characters, no matter how many pages she dedicated to them. I think that is definitely where this book shone.
I've always loved Marissa Meyer's ability to build a believable world that populates in your head as you read, and this is no exception. It could see Gatlon City with its heroes and villains, ordinary people, towering base of command, filthy subway tunnels and abandoned theme park buildings. I was so intrigued by the characters and the world that the storyline took more of a backseat for me. It was still fantastic, and even though the pacing of some scenes wasn't perfect, it was a really enjoyable book.
I would highly recommend this book, especially if you like reading about superheroes (or supervillains, I won't judge). I definitely think you'll enjoy the book otherwise, but it might just not end up being your favourite. Who knows? You may discover that you actually love superheroes because of this book. Trust me, it's pretty great.
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated The Thing (2011) in Movies
May 30, 2018
This is a prequel to probably one of the best horror films ever made
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is a prequel to probably one of the best horror films ever made, a true classic and a very good addition to the story. It tells what happened in the events leading up to the original film. The last shot of this film links to the first shot of the original.
At first I was worried about this film for two reasons. First, as the film was set on a Norwegian camp how much reading would I have to do whilst trying to follow the story? Second, the original film is amazing a true classic of the horror genre. Would this film do justice to the story and would the use of modern effects change the feel of the story? My fears were soon put to rest. Fortunately it appears that the universal language for scientists working in the Antarctic is English! There are a few subtitles throughout the film but not that many. Now a big thank you to the producers of this film. It is clear that they are true fans of the original and this is evident in the title. They couldn't come up with a title better than "The Thing". They could have gone with The Thing: Begins but nothing sounded as good. This film was made by fans of the original and they have ensured that it links into every reference made in the original to the Norwegian base, even down to an axe in the wall seen in the first film, showing how it got there in this one. The cast is made up of very good actors, none of them are particularly well known to everyone. I recognised a few faces, but this is good as you have no idea who will survive as there no major stars.
Story wise, if you have seen the original you know what to expect but the film makers know this and throw a few curve-balls in. The famous "blood test" of the original almost happens here but cleverly it gets change for something else also unexpected. The creatures origins are left alone and rightly so as there is no way of knowing them. It is just a creature trying to survive by killing everyone in its way. Do we really need to know more than that? The effects are also very good, but this is what you would expect from modern effects. Where the original films effects were ground breaking, the ones here are what you can see in most Hollywood creature films. The difference here is the attention to making the creature effects look like the original. Again the makers of the film have done a great job in making the two films fit together both story wise and visually. I wish all sequels/prequels would have enough respect for the audience like this one has.
My nemesis(a film critic on UK radio) struck again with this film. They rated this film a "good strong 3 stars" asked why not 4 stars they stated that Happy Feet Two was released at the same time and this was a 4 star film and they enjoyed it more. What???! How can you compare a horror with a cartoon? Shouldn't you rate them as individual films in different genres?
At first I was worried about this film for two reasons. First, as the film was set on a Norwegian camp how much reading would I have to do whilst trying to follow the story? Second, the original film is amazing a true classic of the horror genre. Would this film do justice to the story and would the use of modern effects change the feel of the story? My fears were soon put to rest. Fortunately it appears that the universal language for scientists working in the Antarctic is English! There are a few subtitles throughout the film but not that many. Now a big thank you to the producers of this film. It is clear that they are true fans of the original and this is evident in the title. They couldn't come up with a title better than "The Thing". They could have gone with The Thing: Begins but nothing sounded as good. This film was made by fans of the original and they have ensured that it links into every reference made in the original to the Norwegian base, even down to an axe in the wall seen in the first film, showing how it got there in this one. The cast is made up of very good actors, none of them are particularly well known to everyone. I recognised a few faces, but this is good as you have no idea who will survive as there no major stars.
Story wise, if you have seen the original you know what to expect but the film makers know this and throw a few curve-balls in. The famous "blood test" of the original almost happens here but cleverly it gets change for something else also unexpected. The creatures origins are left alone and rightly so as there is no way of knowing them. It is just a creature trying to survive by killing everyone in its way. Do we really need to know more than that? The effects are also very good, but this is what you would expect from modern effects. Where the original films effects were ground breaking, the ones here are what you can see in most Hollywood creature films. The difference here is the attention to making the creature effects look like the original. Again the makers of the film have done a great job in making the two films fit together both story wise and visually. I wish all sequels/prequels would have enough respect for the audience like this one has.
My nemesis(a film critic on UK radio) struck again with this film. They rated this film a "good strong 3 stars" asked why not 4 stars they stated that Happy Feet Two was released at the same time and this was a 4 star film and they enjoyed it more. What???! How can you compare a horror with a cartoon? Shouldn't you rate them as individual films in different genres?
Sass Perilla (36 KP) rated Frankenstein in Books
Aug 9, 2019
The plot and major themes. (1 more)
Further work it inspired.
Readable, but disjointed and repetitive in parts.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Fundamentally, the problem with this book is the narrator, Victor. He is thoroughly detestable. A selfish, cowardly, irresponsible, excuse ridden, narcissistic d****e-bag of the highest order. And unfortunately, it is Victor Frankenstein’s POV that we are forced into for the majority of the novel.
My hatred for and frustration with the self-pitying, feckless behaviour of the (pseudo)
protagonist made this an irritating read for me- and to an extent I think this was Shelley’s intention. Victor isn’t designed to be the likable, affable, morally “good” man fallen from grace he believes himself to be, and the horrific events that befall those around him are of his making.
However, this doesn’t make him any less grating! The "monster" (to me reminiscent of Caliban with his lyrical speech and enforced isolation, being neither man nor not man) is eloquent and persuasive when he asks his creator to account for his misdoings. So, you’ve got to ask yourself, if an infanticidal, demonic, bag of sew together corpses is actually more engaging than the main storyteller, is that storyteller really the
right character to be telling the story?
Now, with all that said, it is an important book. A work by a female author with strong female characters (albeit background characters) who was only nineteen when she wrote the initial draft. Very impressive. But, for me her youth is evident. When we teach secondary school pupils to write creatively, we often give them the ambiguous instruction “show don’t tell”, and for me the book is more of a list of horrible and horrific events told in a Chinese puzzle box style story within a story, rather than an engaging and “complete” narrative. It feels like she chooses to place focus on the wrong “bits”- for example the whole of chapter nineteen where Victor travels the British Isles, comments briefly on the local architecture of each town and city and
then repetitively reminds us that he couldn’t enjoy the surroundings because of his angst.
And I would have at least like to have seen some of the courtroom drama when Victor is tried for the death of Clerval...
So, I hate to be “that” gal, who poo-poos these fantastic works of fiction (we know they’re great because some clever-britches told us they were) but in all honesty, the novel ain’t that good, and I’ll maintain that stance no matter how clever the britches of the opposing schools of thought.
I think the continuing appeal is in it’s universal themes: parenting, nature versus
nurture; morality and scientific advancement- and the whole idea of stitching a creature out of
corpse-parts and electrocuting it to life is pretty darn cool. And there are some really effective
horror scenes, such as the vignette of Victor ripping apart project lady-monster (I kind wish she had a name- a working title- but given he can’t even be bothered to name monster number one I guess this was all too much to hope for).
It’s readable, but it’s value, for me at any rate, lies in the offshoots and creativity it has spawned, rather than the work itself.
My hatred for and frustration with the self-pitying, feckless behaviour of the (pseudo)
protagonist made this an irritating read for me- and to an extent I think this was Shelley’s intention. Victor isn’t designed to be the likable, affable, morally “good” man fallen from grace he believes himself to be, and the horrific events that befall those around him are of his making.
However, this doesn’t make him any less grating! The "monster" (to me reminiscent of Caliban with his lyrical speech and enforced isolation, being neither man nor not man) is eloquent and persuasive when he asks his creator to account for his misdoings. So, you’ve got to ask yourself, if an infanticidal, demonic, bag of sew together corpses is actually more engaging than the main storyteller, is that storyteller really the
right character to be telling the story?
Now, with all that said, it is an important book. A work by a female author with strong female characters (albeit background characters) who was only nineteen when she wrote the initial draft. Very impressive. But, for me her youth is evident. When we teach secondary school pupils to write creatively, we often give them the ambiguous instruction “show don’t tell”, and for me the book is more of a list of horrible and horrific events told in a Chinese puzzle box style story within a story, rather than an engaging and “complete” narrative. It feels like she chooses to place focus on the wrong “bits”- for example the whole of chapter nineteen where Victor travels the British Isles, comments briefly on the local architecture of each town and city and
then repetitively reminds us that he couldn’t enjoy the surroundings because of his angst.
And I would have at least like to have seen some of the courtroom drama when Victor is tried for the death of Clerval...
So, I hate to be “that” gal, who poo-poos these fantastic works of fiction (we know they’re great because some clever-britches told us they were) but in all honesty, the novel ain’t that good, and I’ll maintain that stance no matter how clever the britches of the opposing schools of thought.
I think the continuing appeal is in it’s universal themes: parenting, nature versus
nurture; morality and scientific advancement- and the whole idea of stitching a creature out of
corpse-parts and electrocuting it to life is pretty darn cool. And there are some really effective
horror scenes, such as the vignette of Victor ripping apart project lady-monster (I kind wish she had a name- a working title- but given he can’t even be bothered to name monster number one I guess this was all too much to hope for).
It’s readable, but it’s value, for me at any rate, lies in the offshoots and creativity it has spawned, rather than the work itself.