Frankenstein (2025)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Frankenstein (2025) – G. del Toro

For me, director Guillermo del Toro has been hit-or-miss. Pan’s Labyrinth (2006) and The Shape of Water (2017) were high points whereas other films looked great but suffered from overlength or uncertain plotting. Unfortunately, Frankenstein also falls into this latter category. Not unlike what Robert Eggers did with Nosferatu (2024), del Toro takes the basic Frankenstein story and then fashions his own plot around it (for better or for worse, in both cases).  Of course, the general theme – about responsibility for creating life with science -- remains intact but del Toro broadens it into an examination of parent-child relations (or specifically poor parenting). We begin with a new framing story, where Oscar Isaac’s Victor Frankenstein has been rescued by a clipper ship heading to the North Pole; he’s being hunted by his monster and tells his tale to the ship’s captain (also an obsessive, disregarding his crew’s wishes as he presses northward under harsh conditions). We are then in flashback, learning about Victor’s childhood (and distant disparaging father), his controversial experiments (with horror genre special effects), his patronage by rich arms manufacturer Christoph Waltz, his interest in his brother’s intelligent fiancée Mia Goth, and of course, the birth of the monster (Jacob Elordi) and their subsequent relationship. Later, we see the same story from the monster’s perspective, which brings us forward to the present time. As to be expected, the film often looks great (reviewers are describing it as a gothic fantasy, which is apt) and that extends to the costumes, art design, set decoration, etc. (del Toro claims to have relied on practical handcrafted effects rather than CGI, although this seems sometimes doubtful). But the plot, occasionally verging on Shakespearean (tragedy), lingers too long in some scenes, and the dialogue sometimes feels turgid and pretentious. (I wonder whether there is a Mexican or European sensibility influencing this). That said, Jacob Elordi manages to acquit himself very well in an unusual part.  Ultimately, this is the kind of film that sticks with you for its wondrous elements, even if those elements sit within a flawed whole.

 

Sinners (2025)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Sinners (2025) – R. Coogler

Watching this on the tiny airplane screen with disposable headphones probably did this film a disservice, especially because so much of the plot is driven by the music: classic blues played by Miles Caton’s Sammie Moore (or in old age by Buddy Guy) and by (Oscar nominee) Delroy Lindo’s Delta Slim. There’s also some Irish folk music played by white people (led by Jack O’Connell) who may have appropriation on their minds when they approach the African-American roadhouse/dancehall opened by twins Smoke and Stack Moore (played by Michael B. Jordan). OK, more than just musical appropriation, because it’s at this point in the film, more or less, when the narrative shifts from a coming-home story about the twins who left their jobs working for Al Capone in Chicago to come back to Mississippi in the 1930s into an action-horror film.  I guess the plot had already been mostly telegraphed for me by the media (at least the presence of a particular horror staple) so I wasn’t surprised at this tonal shift. The characters who were best established before the horror started mostly survived the transition.  Hailee Steinfeld, as the mixed race (but white-appearing) former lover of either Smoke or Stack, has a tough role, playing the outsider who is nearly accepted back into the fold until she’s really very clearly an outsider again later on. Obviously, Jordan is tasked with playing the two twins, one more gregarious/dominant than the other, and then a virtual third role after the transition. Wunmi Mosaku (also Oscar-nominated) plays one of the twins’ ex-wife (or partner), a woman with knowledge of herbs and maybe witchcraft. Of course, one of the central goals of the film is to outline the terrible effects of racism in America (but also to portray the strength of the community that is targeted and their care for one another). Nothing here is didactic because, after all, 16 Oscar nominations aside, Ryan Coogler’s film is really designed for a wide mainstream audience (with big budget feel).  I did dig the coda though!

 

The Amazing Mr. X (1948)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Amazing Mr. X (1948) – B. Vorhaus

With stunning black & white cinematography by John Alton (then working his magic for Anthony Mann in a string of heralded films noir), this unusual film, part mysterious supernatural quest and part twisty noir, took me by surprise. At the start, viewers cannot quite be sure whether Christine (Lynn Bari) really does hear the voice of her dead husband while walking alone by the ocean at night. Sure, the “psychic consultant” Alexis (Turhan Bey), who she meets soon after, seems suspicious – but it isn’t clear how he could be influencing her weird dreams about her husband. When she meets him at his house/office, he isn’t shy about telling her that he knows she is thinking of remarrying, to boring lawyer Martin (Richard Carlson), and that her dead husband is not happy about it. As she gets sucked into ongoing sessions with Alexis, her younger sister Janet (Cathy O’Donnell) joins with Martin to hire a detective to look into his operations, suspecting him to be a shady conman (although Janet soon falls for him too, given his sensitive and sultry nature).  Soon we learn that their suspicions are correct, as director Bernard Vorhaus quickly gives us a tour of Alexis’s house and its instruments of deception and duplicity. But even as the detective is ready to turn the screws on Alexis, the appearance of Paul’s ghost throws everyone for a loop. To say more would spoil the film, but suffice it to say, that even Alexis finds himself in a tricky situation going forward.  Overall, the film isn’t a masterpiece but it is a dreamy unpredictable affair that tantalizes with its spooky look at spiritualism.

 

Dragons Forever (1988)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Dragons Forever (1988) – S. Hung & C. Yuen

As Jackie Chan moved from Seventies Shlock to Worldwide Fame, he maintained close ties with other students from the China Drama School (aka Peking Opera) that he attended in his youth, principally Sammo Hung and Biao Yuen.  Known as the Three Brothers or Dragons, they starred in a series of action comedies (Project A, 1983; Wheels on Meals, 1984; My Lucky Stars, 1985; Twinkle Twinkle Lucky Stars, 1985), mostly directed by Sammo (Fatty Dragon).  Dragons Forever was their final outing together, as Jackie’s Police Story and Armour of God franchises took off.  Jackie stars as a lawyer working for a criminal gang that own a chemical company (also serving as a front for narcotics production). When the owner of a neighbouring fish farm (Deanie Ip) sues the chemical company for polluting, Jackie takes the case. Jackie recruits Biao to help plant a bug in Deanie’s house to gather information, since her lawyer (and cousin), Pauline Yeung, also lives there. Sammo is a scammer who hopes to swindle Ip out of her fish farm but ends up falling in love with her.  Jackie also falls for Yeung, creating a conflict of interest for the case (resolved at the trial in a scene that is unfortunately marred by homophobic comments by the judge). If this all sounds rather cheesy, it is (in true Jackie fashion) -- but there is enough hand-to-hand combat from the three stars, old school style with chairs and furniture used for props, to keep those who came for the action engaged. (Benny Urquidez takes on the role of super-baddie in the final fight). The comedy is, as usual, hit or miss, but the Three Dragons are undeniably charismatic (even if cast somewhat against type here).   

 

 

The Plague of the Zombies (1966)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Plague of the Zombies (1966) – J. Gilling

By 1966, England’s Hammer Film Productions was already churning out Dracula, Frankenstein, and Mummy sequels but also producing other strange tales that echoed Universal’s glory days of the 1930s and ‘40s. The Plague of the Zombies shares a family resemblance to Bela Lugosi's White Zombie (1932) in that these zombies are virtual slaves working in a mine for the Squire/Master. And like that film, this feels much more like a voodoo movie (though not as pure as the Lewton-Tourneur I Walked with a Zombie, 1943) than what we have come to know as the zombie film. What differs here is that the zombies are reanimated corpses, reanimated by voodoo, rather than humans who have been zombified by magic but who might later return to human. As such, the film looks forward to George Romero’s classic series (beginning with Night of the Living Dead, 1968) where the dead rise and shuffle about, much as they do in this film (but with less explicit mayhem here). Andre Morrell stars as Sir James Forbes, a professor of medicine, called to Cornwall to assist his former star pupil who is now struggling in the remote town plagued with mysterious deaths. As always, Hammer’s film sports production values par excellence, with a perfectly realised Cornish village decked out in 1860s period fashion.  Beyond Morrell perhaps there is no actor as charismatic as a Lee or Cushing here (the Squire calls for one of them) to elevate the proceedings yet further but this is still a solid outing for the fabled studio.

 

Red Rooms (2023)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Red Rooms (2023) – P. Plante

There’s a long tradition of sadistic directors encouraging viewers to identify with unseemly characters, epitomised by Hitchcock’s choices in Rear Window (1954), where Jimmy Stewart’s Jeff does some recreational spying on his neighbours, uncovering some unsavoury business.  Here, director Pascal Plante introduces us to Kelly-Anne (Juliette Gariépy), an edgy haute couture model, already deep into fascination with accused serial killer Ludovic Chevalier, attending his murder trial every day (which requires sleeping outside the courthouse each night to get a place in the gallery).  Chevalier is accused of creating snuff films and offering them on the dark web to viewers in exchange for bitcoins in what are known as “red rooms”.  It’s hard not to think of Cronenberg’s Videodrome (1983) and the illegal broadcasts offered there.  Soon, we realise that Kelly-Anne is already well familiar with the dark web, raising her own stash of bitcoin with cold-hearted online poker playing. Perhaps Kelly-Anne has something in common with this serial killer? When she takes another groupie under her wing, the naivité of the younger girl might be forever lost. As the film progresses, viewers are forced to contemplate how much they would be willing to watch the snuff films in question, wondering whether the film will actually show them, and of course, why they would be watching a film where this is even a possibility. It’s hard not to feel dirty, even if the film’s conclusion offers an unexpected twist that might recast Kelly-Anne’s hitherto unknown motives.

 

Winter Kills (1979)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Winter Kills (1979) – W. Richert

I wonder if the Coen Brothers were thinking about Winter Kills when they cast Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowksi? Although he’s much younger here, he also plays a much put-upon “straight” character caught up in zany episodic situations beyond his control. In this film, he’s the much younger half-brother of the assassinated president who is provided with evidence that contradicts that single-shooter theory put forward by a Government Commission.  With pressure from his father (John Huston), he descends into the rabbit hole.  If this plot sounds like a thinly veiled retake of the events surrounding JFK’s shooting, it shouldn’t take long to confirm when faced with characters like “Joe Diamond” (Eli Wallach), in lieu of “Jack Ruby” of course (all from Richard Condon’s novel).  And it also doesn’t take long before the serious subject matter starts to give way to some blackly comic moments, as Nick Kegan (Bridges) finds himself confronting a range of eccentric characters played by well-known character actors: Sterling Hayden, Ralph Meeker, Richard Boone, Toshiro Mifune, Anthony Perkins, even Elizabeth Taylor (in a well-paid cameo). Not unlike the real thing, the conspiracy theory laid out here includes various red herrings and dead ends (with most informants meeting unfortunate fates after providing evidence).  Letting things wash over you without worrying too much about details is probably the best strategy.  And, in the end, the film ties things together with a truism about power and money that doesn’t feel wrong. A lost half-baked classic of sorts.