Frankenstein (2025) + pingback to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)

"Now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart..." is probably the most fitting quote from the eponymous novel that could serve as a motto for the latest screen adaptation of "Frankenstein", authored by Guillermo del Toro — director and screenwriter. There are two things that I'm gonna do for the first time in this entry: 1) revisiting the subject of an older review, "Frankenstein" from ’94, dating back to somewhere close to the beginning of the blog, and not because Alzheimer’s has struck me (not yet), but because we need some justice here; 2) if we don’t count that version as well, I’m closing the year in a nontraditional way with a counter-recommendation. After all, I can’t have only positive reviews. Now that we’ve set where we are, let’s see why we can't exclaim “it’s alive" for the 2025 version as well.

About 17 years ago I wrote a comparative review between the first screen adaptation of Frankenstein, James Whale’s 1931 film, and Kenneth Branagh’s 1994 version. I won’t do an actual pingback to that entry, because it gave me yet another confirmation on why I don’t reread my old posts, I’d probably delete half due to stylistic issues, or because of opinions that have changed radically (though that happens more rarely). In short, we need the ’94 adaptation because it remains the most faithful reference to Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel. The subject is probably well known. Still, for anyone who isn’t familiar with it and discovers the story through del Toro’s adaptation, they’ll be learning it in a profoundly altered form. The impression left by the latest film is as if the author wanted a copyright over the literary material. No exaggeration. The level of change in the script goes down to the year in which the action opens, something probably no one notices, 1857, placing the story even after the publication of the book, which in comparison uses a discreet “17—”, leaving the reader free to choose whatever they like for the period, nevertheless set a full century earlier. But that’s minor. For what’s more significant, we need a summary of the book.

The opening of Frankenstein has always struck me as especially important because of the framework it creates. The novel begins in an epistolary style, with a set of letters in which a young explorer, Robert Walton, determined to reach the North Pole aboard a ship, informs his sister about the difficulties of the expedition, until an unexpected encounter occurs on the northern ice with Victor Frankenstein, found in a precarious state of health. It’s worth noting that the North Pole was reached more than 100 years after the book was first printed. So at the time, it was still a chimera almost as fantastical as the idea of reanimating a body. Therefore, we have the perspective of a young man trapped among the ice banks, with a crew fed up with quests for glory, who nonetheless stubbornly insists on being the first to bring humanity a snowflake from 90 degrees latitude. In this context, Walton is struck by a story more science-fictional than his own expedition: that of a nearly dead man who reached the same point he did, on a dog-drawn sled, chasing a creature brought to life from corpses, regretted from its very first breath. This intro is then followed by the story itself told from both the perspective of Frankenstein and the creature, divided into three books. In the first, we have the steps leading up to the creation and the abandonment of the result; in the second, we have the creature meeting Frankenstein and recounting a process of self-education, making known its demand to be given a partner, accompanied by a warning delivered through two deaths; and in the third, Frankenstein hesitates and ultimately refuses to repeat the experiment, the consequence being the loss of his best friend, his wife, and his father as a result of the creature’s revenge. In the end, the novel returns to Walton’s final letters. The book, despite a literary style that often slips into a somewhat theatrical romantic hyperbole, remains very subtle in this Walton–Frankenstein relationship. Even though Frankenstein doesn’t give Walton an explicit warning until he finally closes his eyes, and even encourages him at first, young Walton more or less understands, after hearing the story, where the limits lie, and more importantly that he isn’t the only one affected by them. In the end, he puts a timely stop to a disaster that would doom the entire crew by deciding to turn back. Thus, this framework closes the novel in a loop, just as it opened it, keeping it confined in the frozen North to the interaction of the two, delivering a moral woven between the lines as described above. The creature returns as a presence only in a final epilog, where it somewhat tempers, through remorse, the predominantly negative image built throughout the novel, centered especially on its murderous instinct, and ultimately chooses to follow its creator. Now let's see how the two screen adaptations did their job...

In the opening of the '94 version, Kenneth Branagh preserves the novel’s line relatively well. The creature is kept in the background, and we have a young Aidan Quinn in Walton’s role, who, even though he has a short part in the film overall, this is essential and captures very well the nuances of the character and the entire idea of being able to change at the end — essential as a human trait being portrayed. The only downside that persists throughout the film might be a slightly theatrical tone of interpretation, with a hint of overacting, but that ultimately aligns with the narrative style of the novel. In del Toro’s version, the opening quickly delivers the creature’s entrance, Terminator-style, flinging sailors left and right, with bowling-champion ability, i.e., straight into a flaming cauldron (it was surplus decoration anyway). The Terminator is, of course, miraculously resistant to any bullet, being affected only by a rotating multi-barrel blunderbuss, probably standard steampunk equipment on any 19th-century vessel. Even more bizarre is that Walton is no longer Walton, but a Danish captain on the brink of retirement, who seems to have also had the North Pole on his bucket list and who's very open to life lessons for his future reincarnation. Maybe I’m too picky, but the credibility of the whole moral construction I mentioned earlier is badly shaken. On top of that, the entire aura of mystery kept by the literary work, gradually revealing its subject, pretty much goes down the bucket. But it's probably better to just place the two intros side by side; then we can more clearly see what kind of atmosphere each production conveys (the 2025 one in two parts, since I couldn’t find a continuous version).

Both movie versions take liberties with the main progression of the story, but the ’94 adaptation remains the more faithful to the book. There is no tyrannical father there, nor one who dies prematurely. Frankenstein leaves to study in Ingolstadt, not somewhere in Scotland (the novel is very descriptive when it comes to geographical locations, which del Toro largely ignores). There is no finance supporter of the research who appears out of nowhere with dreams of eternal life, only to end his existence, and his role in the film’s plot, just as abruptly as he began it (I would have expected at least part of the creature’s anatomy to inherit something from him, if this was anyway introduced as a creative angle). There is no laboratory housed in some castle or tower functioning as a production hall. In the ’94 version we have the section from the novel in which the youngest brother is killed by the creature, which then manages to put the blame onto a servant girl, who also dies innocent, a sequence that serves as a warning of what is to come. Henri Clerval, Frankenstein’s best friend and an essential character, is part of the cast in ’94, somehow replaced by one of the brothers in the 2025 version. In Frankenstein ’94, the main female character, Elizabeth, briefly becomes Victor Frankenstein’s wife and not that of another brother, without the whole insipid romance from 2025, where the creature seems instead to be the primary object of romantic interest. Here, however, we also have the main deviation in Branagh’s version: after Elizabeth is killed (by the creature, as in the book, not by Frankenstein), Frankenstein brings her back to life, but for his own interest, not at the creature’s request. Enough ink has been spilled criticizing this change, if I remember correctly from what I’ve read over the years. Let’s analyze it. Unlike the invincibility granted by del Toro to the creature for the entire duration of the film, which feels more like a detour into superhero movies, the resurrected Elizabeth: 1) does not last long, under ten minutes of real time; 2) is not that far from the book, where there is an attempt to create a mate for the creature; and 3) reinforces the romantic thread that is ultimately fundamental both to the film and to the novel, the creature’s principal pain and the cause of all evil being the absence of a partner and the creator’s refusal to provide one. I don’t know what the Terminator-like bullet resistance in the new version reinforces. Maybe advertisements for body armor.

Technically speaking, del Toro’s Frankenstein is too pastel-toned for a Gothic horror, whereas the image in the ’94 version is far more in tune with the atmosphere one would expect. There is color there as well, of course, but it’s used in contrast either with flames, a red cape, or others, typically against a gray-blue palette that is generally maintained as the base tone and aligns well with the kind of feeling the film is meant to convey. I don’t think the new version fares any better in terms of the soundtrack either. Alexandre Desplat may be a good composer and the melodic line perhaps more versatile, but Patrick Doyle in ’94 (from whom I wouldn’t really know what else to recommend) managed to capture a minimalist sequence that begins in the intro and remains memorable as the main theme of the score.

When it comes to actors I usually hold back, since evaluations there are more subjective, but I don’t think there’s anyone — except perhaps Christoph Waltz, who has no counterpart in the ’94 version since his character is invented — who comes off better in the new adaptation. Branagh delivers a far more credible Frankenstein than Oscar Isaac, who seems permanently on a hair trigger. De Niro comes much closer to the creature’s hideousness and to the dark character conveyed by the novel. Helena Bonham Carter, at least has a role to work with, unlike Mia Goth, who unfortunately isn’t given material that allows her to really act.

Drawing the line, as I wrote in the old review as well: Kenneth Branagh’s film was trashed by critics at the time of its release, and it still carries those evaluations — criticized for being too “opera-like,” for imposing the director’s vision over others’, for overacting, for being kitsch, and for many other things. Frank Darabont (The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, The Walking Dead), the screenwriter, once said in an interview something along the lines of it being the best script he ever wrote for the worst film he had ever seen. I’d be very curious to hear an objective opinion regarding del Toro’s script, which never seems to miss an opportunity to add or change something of its own, something that feels more inspired by Hellboy than by the novel. Even in the finale, when the new creature gives the ship with everybody on board a push to release it from the ice, and then waits for the sunset on the horizon of what might be a profitable sequel (after all, it can’t die anyway), as opposed to the flames (© Mary Shelley) in which the original creature decides to end its existence and sever its relationship with the human race. Anyway, given the amount of hypocrisy that seems to permeate contemporary film criticism, much of which has praised the new Frankenstein, I’d expect to hear quibbles along the lines of “well, if it were faithful to the book, the Frankenstein from ’94 had no business ending up on the pyre either.”

As an “epilogue”: 17 years ago I hadn’t finished the novel, which again, isn’t the greatest read, given the early 19th-century narrative style. Now I have finished it. Maybe it’s just a fresh impression, but what I can say is that Branagh’s departures in Frankenstein ’94 make it more Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein than the book itself, much closer to the Romantic movement. Frankenstein ’25 is clearly a del Toro’s Frankenstein, whose most obvious association as a literary piece would be with comic books. Beyond that, it depends on taste. I’ll stick with:

Rating: 2 out of 5 Frankenstein '25 (in assortment with the year)
Rating: 5 out of 5 Frankenstein '94 (subjectively assumed)
+ best wishes for a better 2026, more tranquil, and with better movies ;)

A Quiet Place Part II (2020)

The first thing to say after watching "A Quiet Place Part II" is that you need the first "A Quiet Place" to understand everything. You're offered some sort of a prequel intro, which is probably the minimum required to get the context: a totaly unfriendly alien invasion of some creatures relying exclusively on their hearing to decimate the human race. However, I don't think this minimum helps much somebody who would prefer skipping the first movie. I obviously didn't have time to re-watch it, but fortunately I still remembered enough of it to make sense of some references. And also to say that I think I like the sequel better.

The movie is quite short, especially if we're also cutting the intro I was mentioning. Basically, it follows where we were left with the four surviving Abbott's - a mother with three children (including a newborn), and presents us their path after abandoning the former shelter. We first get a scene where we're reminded the essential of the last movie = the hearing device of the older daughter is the ultimate weapon (and pretty much the only one) against the monsters, after which we're stopping at an abandoned factory where we meet Emmett, apparently a former neighbour from before the apocalypse. Then, the group splits. The girl runs away towards an island where she thinks there might be survivors being followed by Emmett sent to get her back, while the rest tries to resist somewhere in a basement providing some level of acoustic insulation. I think it's best to stop here with the details, otherwise there won't be much left to discover from the story.

The narrative is as it seems - very simple. What's to appreciate in the movie is how this narrative is "dressed". In brief, the production level is very good, both at technical level, and as well as the directing and the acting. I'll just detail more on the editing. We have two brief parts where the tension is on a growing path, one sometime at two thirds of the movie, and one at the ending. I won't spoil more besides that in both we have a critical development in each of the two locations - on the path to the island, respectively at the abandoned factory. For me it seems very hard to make a paralel cut such that you'll get a simultaneous development towards the climax - in each of the two places, without one of the sequences to "lose" in front of the other. I think I've seen attempts like that, which didn't end well - that's why I don't remember one in particular. Well, here it works - twice, with the "advantage" let's say that the second time, the climactic point is a common one ending the movie, but that makes it even better. Besides this, to finally give some light spoiler :), I can say that the ending leaves again plenty of room for a "Part III", but now we don't have so much to remember, so you don't need to wait for it ;)

Rating: 4 out of 5

Ready or Not (2019)

My first impression after a couple minutes of "Ready or Not" was that we're getting towards something like "Knives Out", probably the best dark comedy I've watched in the last several years. It's not the same thing though. Here we have some horror accents, the subject is much simpler and there's no ending twist. Nevertheless, it was fun.

In the center of the story we have (as in "Knives Out", therefore the comparison) an aristocratic dysfunctional family, the Le Domas, who made their fortune in a board games industry, started like three generations behind, following a mysterious meeting of the great-grandfather, somewhere in the middle of the ocean with a guy named Le Bail (light spoiler: easy anagram). So the guy proposed a pact - luck and fortune for all the family members, but on one condition - during each new wedding night the new Le Domas is obligated to play a game with the rest of the family, the game being randomly decided by a box that draws a card for the player. The options seem harmless, chess, checkers, etc, with one single exception: hide and seek. The difference here are the rules saying that the new family member should also be the new loss of the family = must be found by the rest and sacrificed during a macabre ritual, otherwise no more luck, fortune and add the life on top of that.

We move back to the present, when Alex, apparently the most sane of all the Le Domas clan, is about to marry Grace. Obviously without notifying the poor woman of what follows, hoping that everything will just be a simple chess game. Again obviously, it's not a simple chess game, and what's next is something like "Hard Target", but without Van Damme and packing much more comedy within ( yeah I know the reference is old, but I'm too ;) ). So, I already spoiled probably the most non-linear part of the movie, therefore, I'll skip the rest of the details. Even though I'm not really into excess red paint scenes, I could say that the movie is impeccably put together, with a special mention on the audio part - the score (Brian Tyler) and the sound editing. I've seen Samara Weaving who's leading the cast here, in a somehow similar role in "Mayhem" (another dark comedy with lots of red paint). I don't know if a couple of years between the movies are enough for a consistent growth in the acting experience, but if there I barely noticed her, here I'll definitely remember her. These being said...

Rating: 4 out of 5

The Faculty (1998)

Yet again... I didn't get to see much else in the last weeks besides bad HK movies for getting me to sleep and some TWD episodes. Randomly changing TV channels while spending the night in a hotel in Prague (while missing my bad HK movies), I also stumbled on "The Faculty" and watched its last half. Which makes it probably the best option for a short entry....

I'm not sure if "The Faculty" is sufficiently known to be considered a "classic", but it's probably a reference movie for a niche somewhere between teen movies and light horror/comedy, which gained a bit of momentum in the '90s - early 2000, but sort of faded away after. In brief, a high school in a small city somewhere in Ohio is invaded by an alien creature that multiplies itself by corrupting human hosts. A sort of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", which is actually referred in the movie. In its first half (that I didn't see for more than 10 years I guess) we're introduced with something like six students, each with problems of his/her own, and we're getting to see the beginning of the invasion. In the second half the six students group forms a sort of rescue team after discovering that the creature has a fatal allergy to a home made drug, prepared in his garage and distributed by the high school's bad boy, who happens to also be a genius in organic chemistry.

I have to admit that when re-watching it now, the movie seemed to me more cheesy and exaggerated than I was remembering. On the other hand... well, what could you expect from something directed by Robert Rodriguez ("Spy Kids" & "Machete"). All things apart, it keeps a certain charm. Maybe it's the cast - many known names in early roles, maybe I'm nostalgic...

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Overlord (2018)

"Wolfenstein" meets... honestly, I don't know what it meets, and I didn't actually play any "Wolfenstein", but "Overlord" seems to be very close in genre. A paratroopers platoon is sent somewhere in Normandy, a bit before D-Day, with a precise mission to bomb a relay installed by Germans on top of a church, in order to make room for the Allied invasion. Barely making it, after surviving the plane getting on fire, the bullets on the ground and the mines, three privates and a corporal make it to the village near the mission target with the help of a local girl. Obviously the place is filled with enemy troops. While the new platoon leader plans the attack, one of the other soldiers sent to scout the area finds that the location hosts much more than a radio relay. It's a secret lab for producing nazi zombies (bingo! we can add "Dead Snow" after meets). Overpowered nazi zombies more precise, which to be even more accurate they aren't necessarily zombies (so, well... not exactly "Dead Snow"). That's pretty much the subject of the movie - a sort of light action horror. It's not actually bad, but I've seen better (e.g., "Dead Snow"), or much better (e.g., "Dead Snow 2" :P).

Rating: 3 out of 5

A Quiet Place (2018)

It's been a while since I've seen a horror with a relatively original subject. Well, considering that I've grown older and I don't have the same preference for scary movies as 10 years ago, that might explain it. In any case, "A Quiet Place" manages to bring something new, although in essence is not more than another monster horror. We have a context set after the invasion of some ugly creatures, with no sight, but with a damn good hearing, and more important with plenty of teeth and appetite for humans. So, to live, you should keep quiet. In this context we have a family of 4, former and soon to be again 5, who try to survive somewhere in the States, where nobody seems to be left living. It's a situation movie, in which we wait to see from one scene to the other, who and how escapes, so it doesn't make sense to spoil more. Although the idea is cool and unexplored as far as I know, probably that's why I can't help noticing that's a bit far fetched in some places. The rest, acting ok, editing ok, sound ok. The story could've been worked out a bit better, but well... they probably wanted (plenty of) room for a sequel ;)

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Annihilation (2018)

For enhanced effect I "recommend" watching "Annihilation" in the same conditions as I did = with a strong cold + the accompanying headache, at a room temperature of over 25 degrees Celsius, at night, and with mosquitoes humming around you (take note of the quotes before trying this). In this context, at some point I was wondering if I also have a fever or the movie is as surreal as it looks like. Fortunately I think it's the second...

"The shimmer" is a sort of mist with a slow but certain expansion rate, which started from a lighthouse on the USA shore and threatens to cover everything sooner or later. To make it more concerning all teams sent in by the US government did not return. With one exception. Sergeant Kane, who appears back home from nowhere after being missing for one full year. It doesn't take long to be taken back by the military along his wife, Lena, a biologist. And since she seems in danger to become a widow (= the sergeant collapses), she joins a group of other 4 volunteers forming the next team to be sent in. From here onwards...

... We have something that struck me as being very similar to Stalker". "The shimmer" is a sort of the "the zone". However, we don't have the cinematography we had in Tarkovski's movie decades ago, and neither the finesse of the enigmatic tension we had there. What we have here is the consistent dose of question marks in the end and probably we also have plenty of symbolism thrown around, but I didn't have the necessary state of mind to notice it + Hollywood's style requires mutant monsters on screen. There's still work to do it seems until the majority of directors/producers from U.S. to get that "what's not seen is more scary than what's seen", of if this is known to figure out how could you get it on screen.

Rating: 3 out of 5

A Cure for Wellness (2016)

Two years ago when "A Cure for Wellness" was released I decided to skip it seeing the ratings it got. Obviously I changed my mind, given the lack of time for reaching the cinema to see something newer. Good decision...

The story goes like this: Mr. Lockhart, an employee of a financial company on Wall Street gets sent somewhere in the Swiss Alps to take his boss back to New York from the sanatorium where he went. Reaching the place, what he finds there is a baths resort with a castle rebuilt after the local inhabitants decided two centuries ago to burn it down along with his owner, a baron with very unorthodox habits. Here comes the dark story, where we find out piece by piece details on the obsession of the baron with pure bloodline + the resulting incest with his own sister. Getting back to the present day, the location is used for treating patients who are mostly above 50 and rich enough to afford "the cure". The cure is something created by the director of the institution, consisting in an ensemble of water-based treatments, which strange enough we finally find out that actually dehydrates the patients. Despite the effect, everybody seems to feel more and more better, and even more we're reaching the conclusion that nobody wants to leave the place. Obviously, an enigma for the young Lockhart who doesn't manage to get his boss back, and on top of that he gets into the position of being a patient with a cast on his leg after his leaving attempt is stopped by a ... buck.

The movie has plenty of scenes that might generate a "what the... ?", but this is matched by the number of metaphors behind and the symbolism. From dehydrating the "wellness" in the title, up to more subtle stuff. There are also plot holes, but you typically can fill these on your own. It's somehow compensating the predictability of the movie. There's nothing surprising - you can see where all goes starting from half the movie onward, if not earlier. The movie is long, but doesn't bore. Contrary to the critics received this length has a purpose - the story you see coming is built brick by brick for making the impact more intense. And it works... The direction and partially the story belong to Gore Verbinski, and if "The Ring" tells you something, and you were able to appreciate also "Lone Ranger" (which got pretty much the same bashing from the critics), you can expect the same way of building the whole movie atmosphere - there are elements on top of other elements - camera work, sound, editing, acting taking you there. There's an excellent and complete movie experience. To compare this with something what we have here is a much more complex version of "Get Out" combined with some "Eliza Graves" feeling, but clearly better than both. It's really not worth the time to start debating why the critics praised "Get Out" so highly just because it touches a social aspect and it's better to be politically correct these days than objective - we don't have exploited black population here, so the rest doesn't matter. Just watch this, and decide which is more "movie" out of the two...

Rating: 4 out of 5

Get Out (2017)

"Get Out" it's representative for the reason why I don't have anymore so many horror entries on my blog. It's either rehashing stuff (this case) or something where horror is defined as buckets of blood (fortunately not this case).

The story: We have a girl (white) with her boyfriend (black) who decides to introduce him to her parents. And like this we're landing somewhere in a countryside community, where there's a heavy air of racial segregation. It's not really clear if we're in the South or in the North of USA (well, at least for me it's not). In any case we have a mansion where the parents reside - the father - a neurosurgeon and the mother - a shrink (again, it's not very clear what two professing doctors do in the middle of nowhere, but let's say we get the reason at the end of the movie). We also have two black servants with a strange behavior. And we also have a sort of local party at the mansion where lots of white folks gather + an even weirder black guy. Well, even so, it takes almost three quarters of a movie of the boyfriend resisting the weirdness around and lots of offensive remarks (some of which a bit too subtle) + an involuntary session of hypnosis that sticks better than a tube of super glue, until the guy cracks and wants to go home. Well, of course he won't be able... Let's not spoil though the last quarter of the movie, anyway's not much to be seen there.

The reason why "Get Out" got some astronomic ratings on most of the sites in the US for the genre it has it's the light "politically correctness" part = we have a movie that bets a lot on the racial discrimination card, a topic that doesn't really work for me in a horror, especially one with this script. On the rehashed stuff side I can refer to "The Skeleton Key" from 2005, a much darker movie (I would say even too dark if I think about the ending), where the essence of the story is not that far, but the roles (racially speaking) were sort of reversed if I remember well (which isn't so "politically correct") but well... the movie does what it has to do = delivers a horror story, the skin color is not that important there. Also on the rehashed stuff side, the generic idea of getting trapped & used somewhere in a remote location is so often met that you need something super original to overcome this context. And unfortunately the 15-20 minutes of movie that are left for this don't deliver anything above average. If you want an example of a horror that does this, check out "The Cabin in the Woods", and if you want a decent movie on racial issues you can start with "12 Years a Slave" (there's horror there too, but not the "having fun" type).

Rating: 3 out of 5 (I didn't say the movie's bad, just too overrated for something that doesn't raise above the average of the genre)

Population 436 (2006)

"Welcome to Rockwell Falls. Population 436" is the tagline that seems announcing a scary movie. What we have here is another indie, relatively old, that shows its age maybe even a bit more than what it is. Technically is a horror, practically that scary movie announcement is not much more than an announcement. Not that I would have a problem with that, but the movie is pretty ... dry, I can't find another better word for it. The story goes like this - we have a guy working for the Census Bureau, who has an assignment to Rockwell Falls = middle of nowhere, where he's initially welcomed with sheer hostility that turns around in just a few hours. Around meaning up to the point of being greeted by everybody on the street. Of course that it doesn't need much more to the guy to figure out that something's fishy, especially given that nobody wants to explain him why the records show 436 as a constant population number for the last 100 years or so. You'll get the answer in the movie. What I can say more is that the plot is pretty original for a horror. Unfortunately it's messed by some scenes that lose lots of credibility (including a romance that brings you to the eye-rolling state again & again & again...).

Rating: 2.5 out of 5

Session 9 (2001)

Old movie - short entry: "Session 9" is an example of a horror movie in the real sense of a horror, not the typical action disguised as a horror = lots of blood, screams and a stupid subject. It's not exactly "It Follows", but I think that in the last two and a half years I didn't see anything else that transpired such a tense feeling as I've got here. The movie was shot in a place that seems to actually be a former closed asylum left to decay, Danvers State Asylum, a building that I guess beats any other in a top of creepy/haunted places I've seen in a movie. And yes, that counts also the Overlook Hotel in Shining... The story starts relatively simple - a crew of 5 men working as a team of cleaning/decontamination for asbestos constructions is contracted to take care of the mentioned building. As a detail, the team leader offers an apparently impossible time of a week for getting the job done to secure the contract. Things go obviously bad ... and again obviously we have something bad in the building. The action follows a sort of classic development, day by day, which is one of the aspects that seem to lose its sense since we only get to Friday (well, seems I gave a spoiler...). What's nice is that each character is really carefully constructed, the script exploiting very well the more or less obvious personal fears. That's actually so well done that (again...) I reached the conclusion that I probably got too old for psychological horrors, the everyday life stress is enough. What's not that nice is that the movie, an indie, feels a bit unpolished leaving a lot to the viewer to figure out. Including that "something bad" from above, at least partially - although the fact that we don't have a solid clarification contributes on making the movie more real, and implicitly more scary. But, enough spoilers :) ...

Rating: 3 out of 5

Night Watch (2004)

Without any connection to the seasonal holidays, I somehow finally managed to see "Night Watch", the first part of a Russian "trilogy" (that's what the poster says) that as far as I know stopped eventually after two movies. The film is directed by Timur Bekmambetov, more known after some visits to Hollywood for "Wanted", "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" and the latest "Ben Hur". Actually it seems these came after the success he had with this production, which for me is part of very narrow niche of movies that don't make much sense, but somehow managed to keep me watching till the end.

There's a story that puts the light and darkness forces in conflict since ages, having momentarily a sort of truce with some not very clear rules (there's nothing very clear in this movie). We have some human agents on the light side who can see other invisible agents who, again it's not very clear if they're human or not, but in brief they are responsible with enforcing this order. Anton, a guy recruited by the good side, gets involved in a rescue operation for a plane heading towards a potential crash over Moscow, unless a curse on a blonde woman living in a tower doesn't get removed. Meanwhile, Anton should also take care that his son who is not his son doesn't become food for vampires. If all this summary seems already between too entangled and semi-absurd, trust me is way clearer than the way the action unfolds in the movie. We have a sort of surrealism a la "Fisher King" by Gilliam combined with a tint of "apocalypse is coming" that looks like a mix between "End of Days", "Omen" and "Warlock II: The Armageddon" (maybe the latter is too obscure, but has its place on this list).

The movie is very good on visuals and audio. Considering how well the end of the world touch is blended into what's a normal evening in Moscow, I think you can forgive the way too obvious Nescafe advertising. No pun intended, probably that's what kept me awake to see it until the end. Even so, I have some doubts I'll have the patience also for "Day Watch" (the second part) that should bring closure.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5

Alien: Covenant (2017)

David's not Ash, Walter's not Bishop and "Covenant" is not "Alien"/"Aliens", but it's also not that bad either...

Context: "Covenant" is a colony ship targeting a planet somewhere far away, the crew and colonists lying in induced sleep/cryostasis/whatever, and an android (Walter) takes care of maintenance on board. Story: Issues on the way, crew wakes up, and discovers a habitable planet much closer than the original target. Ignoring the classic intergalactic wisdom: "It's a trap!", the new captain (previous one suffering a premature hot end-of-life event in his sleeping pod) decides on a exploring mission. And like that we're getting in an ecosystem where the evil alien lives quietly waiting for fresh meat. But also where we have another android - David - remember "Prometheus"? ... Ending: Well I don't either, but I guess enough to say that David didn't seem have exactly sane cybersynaptic connections in his brain, which proves to be true quite fast... More it's spoilers, so let's stop.

"Prometheus" was overly disappointing, and Noomi Rapace a total fail as Ripley replacement. So somehow influenced by this I can say that I actually liked "Covenant". Even though the story isn't that complex. There is some depth and some fine irony (e.g., you would expect that a superior brain who's convinced to be the incarnation of Ozymandias, king of kings to know who's quoting - well, of course he doesn't...). As well there are lots of references to the bad android/good android in the first two Alien movies as I was suggesting in the beginning. But as good Michael Fassbender might be in his role, at least the Bishop played by Lance Henriksen it's a different class. And Ash, well... (light spoiler) it's obvious that the current Ridley Scott prefers his own android approach in the beginning of the series ;), but even so... The major issue in "Covenant" is the ending: 1 - way, way too predictable and 2 - guess what, we'll have a sequel (not announced yet, but it must be there) = unfinished ending ... Still, it's an "Alien" episode that's comparable with part 3 and 4. So, the best in last 20 years.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Life (2017)

... is more about the opposite. Either I'm getting old, or the SciFi thriller genre is sometimes too extreme, sometimes too mild. Or both = I'm getting older and I prefer the mild version = "Passengers" let's say to an extreme one as we have in "Life".

Well... To be fair IMDb gives it clearly as: horror, but I didn't buy it from the trailer. Seems it is one indeed. At least 3 scenes are quite rough, long and very graphical. We have an unknown life form discovered on Mars, which follows the classical recipe: group killer, take them one by one, for the crew members of the International Space Station. Who change quickly their priorities from researching the alien to preventing it reaching Earth. Guess how this story ends?...

I expected something like "Alien", and this partially confirmed. Indeed, the story is quite similar. The problem is again about how is this brought on screen. It doesn't really work throwing around cliches (some a bit weird) about life, to build up like a gritty movie, and to fallback on campy horror from time to time ending it like this with the end credits entry. It's true that it offers a necessary tension relief, but something's not really right in all this... Clearly, the opposite way of build-up as a funny slasher, hitting you with some morals in the end, a la "Cabin in the Woods", has much more impact. There are also problems with the direction - here I've seen the weirdest ending twist construction. It's clear from the start how it will go on. That's why the question in the previous paragraph is rhetorical. But in the movie, when the time has come it sort of telling you that's it, then that it's not, that again it is... Oh well... Overall it was acceptable, but I'm still waiting for something on par with "Sunshine" or at least "Pandorum".

Rating: 3 out of 5

The Shallows (2016)

"The Shallows" is a "Jaws" reinvented for the 21st century, but made on a 19th century budget. Not meaning that's a bad move...

Nancy, a student in the medical school considering dropping her college degree, finds a hidden beach in a sunny day, somewhere on the coasts of Mexico. Main target: surfing. Unfortunately, if for getting in the water there's no problem, there's a great white shark who doesn't agree about getting out. And like this we have a movie, where Nancy gets stranded on an isolated rock a couple hundred meters away from shore. If she manages to swim that far or not ... well, that's what's the movie about.

Blake Lively does what I think to be her best part so far in a movie (and no matter what you might think :) that's an objective statement). She's basically carrying the movie onward from the beginning to the end .. well, the shark has some screen presence too. The cast is quite reduced, talking about the budget, and the action takes place over an area that doesn't span more than a couple hundred meters, plus the movie is quite short. The effects and the editing count a lot though, enough that you can't think that this is a cheap production. Yes, the story's simple and is pretty far fetched sometimes ... But what shark movies are totally believable? It's fun, is catch as any survival story, and has enough sun to compensate the rain outside ;) So, it's worth watching ...

Rating: 4 out of 5

The Wailing (2016)

Yet another Korean movie that's more than you expected ... Not necessarily in the good sense. From what was I remembering the last time when I checked the IMDb title (in original "Goksung") it didn't have "horror" among the genres and the rating was higher. But this was in May ...

The movie is not bad. Somewhere in a Korean village people start to die. The local cop, a guy who seems the perfect character for any law enforcement joke, gets to the conclusion that the guilty person would be a Japanese man residing in the nearby woods and dealing with spells and other strange rituals as his daily hobby. For a while the movie keeps up a comic scent that 1) you can't figure if it's intentional or not but 2) it draws a lot from the pressure that builds up as the movie advances. However, this ends ... and at some point what seem laughable gets serious. This variation is probably the most interesting aspect in what we have here, towards the final the tension growing far from what we had during the first half. I don't know if I've seen anything similar in terms of contrast. However ...

Too much horror. And that's not the problem (even though with the age I tend to prefer movies that are more relaxed) but the way it comes is sometimes free, doesn't make sense and leaves too many open questions in the end ... There's a sort of climax in tha last part, where the main character has to choose who to trust, and the moment is built so well that you can feel the indecision. It's also frustrating in the end though, since you won't get a clear answer on which decision would've been actually better and why, and if it would've been possible to reach the end in a different way dealing with so many threads that you don't know if they're white or dark ...

Rating: 3 out of 5

10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)

Remember "Cloverfield"? I'm writing again in a hurry, at 4:30 AM before 2-3 hours of sleep, after which I have to prepare my luggage and get to the plane. So don't ask me to search my blog and check how much I rated it and when I did that. All I remember is that's a forgettable movie. "10 Cloverfield Lane" is a whole different story ...

I had one "serious" reason to watch this movie: I like Mary Elizabeth Winstead (MEW). I did not expect to see much more than the alien invasion shot a la Blair Witch in the first part (I suppose that's what happened there considering the events presented now, because as I said, the first iteration is forgettable). So, what's the story here? A careful fellow (played extremely well by John Goodman), not to say a paranoid one, built a bunker. When the events in the first movie start, he decides to use it. By chance (or not) on the way to the respective compound his path intersects with Michelle (MEW). By hitting her car = so the poor girl ends in crotches, and also in the bunker, because well ... she needed to be rescued. How much was this actual help, how much not, in what shapes the monsters come in this movie (as stated by the poster), who else resides in the bunker, who wants to get in, who wants to get out, and other questions :) find their answers in the movie..

"10 Cloverfield Lane" has something of "Dawn of the Dead", "Shining", "Alien", "Misery", "Panic Room", and maybe others, put together. Not directly referencing them, and definitely not in this order as consistency of material. The dynamic of the movie is excellent. You have a start with lots of thrills that might make you think on Goya's line that "sleep of reason produces monsters" who are more horrible than anything else. After that we have a calm settling, when the sleep of reason doesn't seem exactly a sleep, and therefore it can't give birth to monsters. Just that, towards the end, without notice, to have a shocking blow that brings us to the final and gruesome showdown. But surprise ... that's not the final showdown, where we actually have another type of enemy, and also seemingly some other type of action. You can say that it's still a "run for your life", but I - going back to the list above - have seen an almost instantaneous passing (spoiler) from Jack's wife in "Shining" (much better in MEW's version, as subjective as I might be) to the rebirth of Ripley from "Alien" (much better than Noomi Rapace's version in "Prometheus" for all aspects of that part). And I doubt it can be said we have the same character :) Well, see it and judge for yourself ;) ...

Rating: 4 out of 5

Woman in Black (2012)

I decided to check out the pile of titles I missed in the last couple of years. And since "It Follows" re-opened a bit my appetite for horrors I decided to watch "Woman in Black". Even though this is vacation material = for times with less daily stress, which is not the case. The choice was good ... for the first part ...

The movie is produced by the famous British "Hammer" studio, responsible for many horrors, some of a debatable quality, between the '60s and the '80s (among which we can find the "Dracula" series with Cristopher Lee, or "Frankenstein" with Peter Cushing). Apparently, the brand was brought out from the grave (no pun intended) quite recently after a long hiatus, and "Woman in Black" is among the, let' say "major" titles released after resurrection. The movie adapts a novel which follows the classic path of ghost story + haunted house. A very classic version I could say. We have the typical dark story with the tragic ending resulting in an unrest spirit, who must be put somehow to eternal sleep. More details in the movie.

Why did I say the choice was good - at first. Well .. the standard context is not an issue (at least not for me). Especially given that the movie is really well done in the intro part, and actually for the first half. In particular, the location setting is superb, although the same road connecting the isle of the haunted house seems to have been used also in an older TV version, so they had source for ideas. The problems with the movie start when the main character decides to do some social service work for a small community (not his own) by putting the ghost to rest. Well, from that point onwards ... the action seems to be a bit far fetched. Not excessively, but enough to notice a contrast with the first part. And that leaves a final impression that's neither a light horror to watch for fun like "The Haunting" or "13 Ghosts" or many others, nor does it have a real scare potential as I've experienced long ago in "The Ring" or something more recently in "It Follows". In any case .. the result is much better than, well ... let's say "Sinister" which doesn't deserve getting tire with details.

Rating: 3 out of 5

It Follows (2014)

It's been a while since I've been in the mood for a real horror. Meaning one that seems to have the potential to scare me. Which is quite improbable, but if it is to happen it applies for the "ghost/demon/poltergeist" subgenres. In brief UME = Unexplained Malefic Entities :). Because for serial killers, zombies or animals with excessively sharp teeth (ex. sharknados or piranhas in 3D) I don't feel any increase in pulse rate. Actually, I didn't expect to have that either for "It Follows". Because, in my blissful ignorance, I've chosen the movie without any deep research. I told myself that's probably lighter than the alternatives: "The Conjuring" or "Woman in Black". Since I didn't see these two, I can't say if it was lighter, but what I can say is that since "Insidious" I don't think I've seen anything else to make me feel ... let's say "uneasy" (at least during some moments) ...

Jay has a boyfriend. She doesn't know him really well, but enough that, after a romantic evening on the beach, to offer him a more steamy follow-up on the backseat of the car. What Jay doesn't know is that her boyfriend carries a ... sex curse. A viral one. It may sound funny, but trust me ... in the movie is rather scary. Especially after Jay founds out that Hugh is actually Jeff, and the curse is for real. What's the curse about? "It". What does "It" do? As the title says: follows. Or to be more clear, "It" is an apparition seen only by the cursed, who follows the last cursed person. And after it reaches the person ... Well, enough. I've already spoiled almost a third of the movie :)

We have an indie here. One of the fortunate cases when the indie is exceptionally well done. Somehow, who directed, written and produced it, managed to gather the best crew with the money he had. The only flaw that I see, keeping in mind we're talking about an indie, is the beginning, which is rather slow. We have two strong points in the production: 1. The cinematography - I've rarely seen a movie that can create so much tension just through the camera work. We have a couple slow tracking shots combined with zoom-ins that are amplifying a lot the creepy factor in some scenes, and that's just one example. 2. The soundtrack - the 80's are back. The music is written by somebody called "Disasterpeace". And Disasterpeace apparently likes synth :) If you've seen "The Serpent and The Rainbow" by Wes Craven and you still remember the feeling that Brad Fiedel's soundtrack gave there, well .. we have pretty much the same here.

To give a final verdict, I think that if John Carpenter would've made "The Ring", the result could be directly compared with "It Follows". If this mix sounds interesting, you should watch this ...

Rating: 4 out of 5

Dead Snow (2009) & Red vs Dead (2014)

I've had before Norwegian movies on my blog. And I think I said that they're not really on "my frequency". Well, I've finally found the exception .. a double one = "Dead Snow" & "Dead Snow 2" ...

The first movie follows a "classic" plot. A group of medicine students decide to spend a winter vacation on a cabin in the middle of nowhere. Of course, that's a bad idea ... The original part comes with the bad things that happen. More precisely at the end of WW2, in that area, a nazi platoon didn't just quietly packed and left, but decided to stay a bit longer ... years longer ... as zombies ;) Obviously, I won't get into details, but to follow with the 2nd movie I have to give a spoiler = in the first, there's a lone survivor...

... And the lone survivor has a personal vendetta to carry on in the sequel. If the first film seems to you to be just another zombie movie, with more original zombies .. the sequel is so innovative that at some point mocks itself declaring during an exchange of lines that what's going there can give birth to a new movie genre :). The trailer gives some info, and more than that I just can say that "red" in the title links again to ww2 ( guess how ;) ).

Both movies are very bloody (e.g., we have a tribute to "Evil Dead" on cutting an arm with a chainsaw). Both movies have "outrageusly awful" scenes ( I prefer to not give examples :) ), but usually caught in a sufficiently funny context, that you can forgive them. Both movies have something different to other zombie movies, the comic side which actually works here. I think just "Shaun of the Dead" managed to pull this off, "Warm Bodies" being the counterexample I prefer to give (we don't count "Fase 7" or "Cabin in the Woods" - those are not pure zombie movies). And the second movie manages this that well, that's mandatory to also see the first to catch every bit of what the sequel offers ;)

Rating:
Dead Snow - 3 out of 5
Red vs Dead - 4 out of 5