The 'Universal Monsters' - A Halloween Retrospective

This Halloween, I decided to go all out for the annual horror-themed post for this site, especially considering that I… sort of forgot to do one last year. For the record, I was planning to do a retrospective on the Halloween franchise because I figured that it was time to tackle a classic horror franchise. But I ultimately didn’t have the time, nor the means for that matter, to go through all the films so I ended up scrapping that post. Seriously, the review that I did for the new Goosebumps film last year was basically the only horror film review that I did during the month of October. So, this year, I decided to do not one but two separate horror-themed posts to compensate for the lack of one last year. Just a few days ago, I published the first of these posts, which was a retrospective on the Purge films, even though they’re not exactly horror films. With that in mind, for the main event, I decided to go back to one of the most iconic periods in the history of the horror genre; the era of Universal’s Monsters. Spanning over three decades beginning in the early 20’s and culminating in the late 50’s, Universal at that time was best known for their numerous monster films centering around various horror icons like Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolf Man. Often starring the likes of Bela Lugosi (‘Dracula’), Boris Karloff (‘Frankenstein’s monster’), and Lon Chaney Jr. (‘The Wolf Man’), these films were huge hits for the studio and many of them still stand as classics of both film and the horror genre.

They’re so famous that Universal is now attempting to do a modern revival of the Monsters franchise by way of a Cinematic Universe, which started with 2014’s Dracula Untold. However, from what I hear, because that film did rather poorly with critics and audiences, it seems as if that one is being excised from the franchise in favor of having the upcoming reboot of The Mummy start things off instead. Will this new monster series work for Universal? For now, only time will tell but today we’ll be looking back at their original monster films. Now for the record, I’m not going to be covering every single ‘monster’ film that Universal made during this time because otherwise I’d be here all day. Instead, I’m primarily going to focus on one franchise; the Frankenstein franchise. The reason why I picked this one to base the whole post around is because it’s easily the biggest of Universal’s monster franchises with eight films in total. However, some of the later films in the franchise were cross-overs that featured other classic Universal monsters. So, with that said, I’ll also be looking at the ‘first films’ that these other characters were in as well as a few extra films based around characters that didn’t appear in the Frankenstein films but are still notable members of Universal’s monster lineup. So, without further ado, grab your pitchforks and your silver bullets and join me as I look back upon many of the classic films that starred the Universal Monsters.

DRACULA (1931)

To start things off, we have the 1931 English-language version of Dracula, based on both Bram Stoker’s 1897 gothic horror novel of the same name and the 1924 stage play by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston. Bela Lugosi stars in the title role and is fantastic. He has great magnetism and the result is a truly hypnotic performance, part of which comes from the fact that a lot of it is based around his gaze. Whenever the film focuses in on him staring at somebody, his eyes are always lit more than the rest of his face. As some have pointed out, it’s sort of reminiscent of old silent films. But whatever way you put it, Lugosi is the biggest selling point of the film. Admittedly this is a case of a film in which the actions of Dracula are primarily implied rather than being shown on-screen. But while some might interpret that as a case where ‘nothing happens’, the film makes up for this by establishing a great sense of atmosphere. From the foggy locales of Transylvania to the old, decrepit homes of Dracula, both in Transylvania and London, to the fact that there’s no background score results in a very atmospheric ‘chiller’. Now there actually was another adaptation of Dracula that was also made by Universal around the same time. This version was a Spanish-language film that was shot at night on the same sets that the English version used during the day. Many consider the Spanish version to be the better of the two films from an artistic perspective. However, due to me not wanting to overstuff this post more than it kind of already is, I decided not to watch/review it for this retrospective. Still, I’d argue that the English version of Dracula is still a pretty iconic entry in the horror genre, if mostly just due to Bela Lugosi’s excellent performance in the title role.

Rating: 4/5

THE MUMMY (1932)

When it comes to The Mummy and Universal Studios, nowadays most people are more familiar with the trilogy of action films starring Brendan Fraser that ran from 1999 to 2008. And from the looks of it, the new adaptation of The Mummy that is set to come out next year starring Tom Cruise will also primarily be an action film. However, when it comes to the first Universal Mummy film all the way back in 1932, it’s more in line with the studio’s horror films of the time. Like Dracula, this is one of those films that’s more dialogue heavy than it is about monster action though this time admittedly it’s more of an issue. However, also like with Dracula (in fact this has quite a lot in common with that film when you start to think about it), the key selling point of the film is its lead star. Boris Karloff took on the second major monster role of his career as the Egyptian priest Imhotep, who is revived by members of an archaeological expedition in 1921, masquerades as an Egyptian named Ardath Bay a decade later, and attempts to resurrect his lover, princess Ankh-es-en-amon. Obviously, Karloff would become known more for his role as Frankenstein but he does do a great job in the role of Imhotep. Like Lugosi as Dracula, there’s a hypnotic magnetism to his performance and the image of his wrinkled face staring directly into the camera is quite haunting. As I noted before, this one’s a rather slow burn but I will say that the ending is quite a memorable one and does sort of make up for some of the film’s duller moments beforehand. It’s quite interesting to watch this film after seeing the 1999 Mummy film multiple times over the years and seeing some of the references that the newer film made despite being a totally different kind of film. But as for the original Mummy, I can’t say that this is one of the best Universal Monster films but it’s still worth checking out for those wanting to see an old-school monster flick.  

Rating: 3/5

THE INVISIBLE MAN (1933)

Two years after directing the original Frankenstein, director James Whale took on a different ‘monster’ story with The Invisible Man. It is based on the 1897 novel of the same name by H.G. Wells about a scientist who ends up turning invisible following a series of tests involving an obscure drug, which end up turning him insane. And overall I must say that this is one of my favorite entries in Universal’s line of monster films. Because the main character Jack Griffin spends most of the film invisible, there’s a lot of special effects work in this film and it is quite impressive for the time. Now I’ll admit that from a modern perspective, this film kind of comes off more as a ‘comedy’ than it does a ‘horror’ film, which I say only because some parts of it are quite over the top. And yet… that ends up being the reason why this film is so damn fun to watch. A lot of it is also thanks to Claude Rains’ terrific and highly enthusiastic performance in the title role. His turn as Jack Griffin constantly blurs the line between lunacy and charisma. Case in point, the scene where he chases after a woman wearing only a pair of slacks that he took from a police officer and chanting “Here we go gathering nuts in May, nuts in May, nuts in May, here we go gathering nuts in May on a cold and frosty morning!” Thanks to scenes like that as well as the terrific special effects and outstanding performance by Claude Rains, the original Invisible Man stands as one of the most highly entertaining of Universal’s monster films. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that unlike some of these other films, it does keep its focus on the title character throughout instead of focusing more on the side characters. Either way, the film’s great.

Rating: 4.5/5

THE WOLF MAN (1941)

Some of the earliest installments of the Universal Monsters series starred Lon Chaney, who was also known as ‘The Man of a Thousand Faces’ due to his skills in makeup design. This included films like Universal’s 1923 adaptation of The Hunchback of Notre Dame and 1925’s pre-musical era The Phantom of the Opera. His son, Lon Chaney Jr., soon continued his father’s legacy by taking on a major makeup-heavy role of his own in The Wolf Man. This 1941 film is a pretty star-studded film as it stars not only Lon Chaney Jr. in the role of Larry Talbot, a man who becomes a werewolf after he’s bitten by another man-turned-werewolf, but two other major stars of Universal Monster films. Claude Rains (‘The Invisible Man’) plays Larry’s father Sir John while Bela Lugosi (‘Dracula’) plays a gypsy named Bela who is the man who turned into a werewolf and bit Larry. Like Dracula and The Mummy, this is another one of those ‘slow burn’ horror films but ultimately I feel that this film is the best of the three when it comes to pacing. The build-up to the first scene of Larry in his ‘wolf’ form is quite nice and this film benefits from some strong atmosphere, especially in scenes set at night in foggy forests. Lon Chaney Jr. does an excellent job in the title role, making Larry a sympathetic protagonist amidst the ‘curse’ that befalls him. The makeup effects for his ‘wolf form’ are excellent but it’s also neat how, prior to the first transformation but after he got bitten by Bela, the film puts his psyche into question and how the curse of the werewolf is starting to affect him. All in all, this is another one of Universal’s best monster films thanks to a solid cast and great atmosphere.

Rating: 4.5/5

AND NOW, THE MAIN EVENT… THE FRANKENSTEIN FRANCHISE

FRANKENSTEIN (1931)

In 1931, just 9 months after the release of Universal’s other big monster film of the year, Dracula, director James Whale brought a different famous horror novel to life on the big-screen with Frankenstein, based on the 1818 novel of the same name by Mary Shelley. It’s the story about a scientist named Henry Frankenstein (he’s named Victor in the novel but that name was given to the character’s best friend in the film, who ironically was named Henry in the novel) as he builds a body out of the remains of the dead and brings it to life with electricity. However, the monster soon proves to be a problem as it begins to terrorize the town, all because his hunchback assistant Fritz (Dwight Frye, who was fantastic as Renfield in Dracula) brought him an ‘abnormal’ brain. Colin Clive stars in the lead role of Henry Frankenstein and does an excellent job as he makes the character a sympathetic protagonist that is doing something crazy while also staying fully committed to the part. As for his monster, Boris Karloff stars in what is easily the definitive role of his career. He too is excellent in what is a very physical performance with no dialogue. The build-up to the monster’s first on-screen appearance is solid and like many of these Universal Monster films, the film establishes a solid atmosphere throughout. It all builds up to a climactic finale set atop a burning windmill. In short, while the film is obviously dated by today’s standards, it’s still a solid old-school chiller complete with great lead performances, solid set design, and a well-handled atmosphere.

Rating: 4/5

BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935)

Although initially hesitant to do it at first, James Whale returned to direct a sequel to the original Frankenstein in 1935 with The Bride of Frankenstein, continuing the story of Dr. Henry Frankenstein and his monstrous creation as the former is confronted by a mad scientist named Dr. Pretorius, who happens to be Frankenstein’s former mentor, who coerces Frankenstein into creating ‘a mate’ for the monster. Colin Clive returns as Frankenstein and is excellent once again, as it’s made clear that Frankenstein has changed since the whole incident with the monster. Speaking of the monster, Boris Karloff is also great once again and the film sees the monster continuing to develop aka ‘become more human’, namely the fact that he gains the ability to talk. But a major scene-stealer is Ernest Thesiger in the role of Pretorius, a completely mad but entertainingly eccentric scientist. While the continuity between films is a little off in some places (e.g. the recasting of Frankenstein’s wife Elizabeth from Mae Clarke to Valerie Hobson), this very much feels like a sequel that ups the scale in every way, from the set design, which is just as great as it was in the previous film, to the visual effects, which are quite impressive for the time (e.g. Pretorius’ ‘creations’ of miniature people). But what about the title character, ‘the Bride’, played by Elsa Lanchester who also plays Mary Shelley, the real-life author of Frankenstein, in a prologue intended to bridge the two films? Well, believe it or not, Lanchester only appears as the Bride in the final five minutes of the film. But in her brief screen-time, she did manage to turn the Bride into another horror icon. In short, The Bride of Frankenstein is an excellent sequel that many even consider to be better than the original. Do I concur with that notion? I think I do because this is a case of a sequel that upped the ante in every possible way to great results.

Rating: 4.5/5

SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (1939)

After the success of a double-feature re-release of Dracula and Frankenstein in 1938, Universal decided to continue making monster films, with Son of Frankenstein kick-starting this new era of revitalization. However, being the third installment of the series and without the direction of James Whale or featuring the character of Dr. Frankenstein (Colin Clive passed away in 1937, for the record), it seems as if this might be an inferior follow-up. However, it turns out to be a solid sequel that’s somewhat on par with its two predecessors. The biggest strength of the film is its lead trio of characters. Basil Rathbone of Sherlock Holmes fame stars as Dr. Frankenstein’s son Wolf. He proves to be very likable but also engaging in his efforts to redeem his family’s name following the incidents involving his father’s monster. Bela Lugosi takes on another Universal Monster film role as the mysterious man named Ygor who uses the monster to enact revenge upon the townspeople who had him hanged years earlier. Simply put, Lugosi’s performance is on par with his turn as Dracula. Finally, there’s Lionel Atwill (who would go on to star in the next four Frankenstein films as well) as Inspector Krogh, who keeps an eye on the Frankenstein family, protecting them from angry villagers, but also has a bit of distrustful feelings towards them because of an incident in his childhood when the monster ripped off his arm. The moral conflicts that emerge between these three are easily one of the best parts of the entire film.

But what about the monster, once again played by Boris Karloff in what would be his last major turn in the role in a Universal Monster film? Well, unfortunately the monster is relegated to a side character in this film and it also reverts to not having him speak after he learned to in Bride. Still, Karloff does a good job in the role. Really, the only major issue with this film is its length. Whereas all the other films in this retrospective are around 65-70 minutes each, this was the longest of the franchise at one hour and forty minutes. Thus, the pacing is a lot more leisurely whereas the other films are much brisker due to their shorter runtime. It’s not entirely a ‘bad thing’, as it does allow for more character development in regards to the main characters, but it could’ve used a few trims here and there. Plus, despite being credited as a sequel to the previous two films, eagle-eyed viewers are surely going to note a whole bunch of continuity errors here and there (and trust me, it only gets worse from here). But overall, Son of Frankenstein is a solid sequel thanks to the strong performances from its three lead actors (plus Karloff as the monster, of course), excellent set design that showcases the bigger budget that the film had compared to its predecessors and kind of reminds you of a Tim Burton film, and arguably some of the best character development of any Universal monster film.

Rating: 4/5

THE GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942)

Just like how Bride of Frankenstein is the primary sequel to the original Frankenstein, The Ghost of Frankenstein is the primary sequel to Son of Frankenstein. Again, there are some continuity errors here and there (e.g. the monster apparently gets stronger when struck by lightning, even though in the last film it was lightning that sent him into a coma for the first third of it) but overall it does continue the story that has been building through these first four films. It even brings back the character of Dr. Henry Frankenstein, who appears as a ghost to his son, and the film’s main character, Ludwig. Albeit here he is not played by Colin Clive but instead Cedric Hardwicke who also plays Ludwig. Bela Lugosi returns as Ygor and is great once again. The plot even ends up resulting in his brain being put into the monster’s, which is a freaky moment once the monster starts speaking in his voice. Lon Chaney Jr. steps into the role of the monster, replacing Boris Karloff. Unfortunately, Chaney doesn’t get much to work with here to the point where the monster doesn’t even say a word until Ygor’s brain is put into him. So, in short, The Ghost of Frankenstein is easily the weakest of the original four Frankenstein films. There are some things about it that do make it worth checking out. These include Bela Lugosi as Ygor, who’s still a great bad guy, a solid performance by Cedric Hardwicke in the lead role, and the usual solid set design of these films. But overall, it’s just ‘ok’ at best.

Rating: 3/5

FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN (1943)

Now Universal was starting to release their big monster films on an annual basis and in 1943, they gave us the first big ‘monster crossover’ event film in the form of Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man. Basically, it’s primarily a sequel to The Wolf Man as Larry Talbot is brought back to life following his death in that film and now seeks another way to end his eternal life. In doing so, he comes across Frankenstein’s monster, who in this film is played by none other than Bela Lugosi. Interestingly, Lugosi was originally considered to play the part all the way back in 1931 in the original Frankenstein but he turned it down, presumably due to him claiming that there wasn’t much to the role. But he would get his chance more than a decade later and overall he does a decent enough job in the role. Like Karloff in Son, he’s limited by the fact that the monster doesn’t speak. Though with that said, initially the monster was intended to speak but this was cut due to test audiences finding it awkward; which is ironic considering that Lugosi did voice the monster when his character Ygor ‘became’ the monster in Ghost. But if there’s anything that he does to leave a lasting impression, it’s the fact that it was him, not Boris Karloff, who originated the iconic character trait of having the monster’s arms extended outwards while walking. Which, for the record, was a side effect of the blindness that the monster was affected with at the end of Ghost but because of the lack of dialogue for him, is never mentioned here. Regardless, this all results in an enjoyable monster flick, right down to the out-of-nowhere musical number in the middle of the film. And it all culminates in an entertaining fight between the Wolf Man and the monster. Again, there’s plenty of plot holes and continuity errors but overall it’s a solid entry in the Universal Monsters canon that would set the standard for future ‘monster crossover’ films.

Rating: 3.5/5

HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944)

Universal followed up the ‘Frankenstein-Wolf Man’ crossover with another one the following year, House of Frankenstein. This one featured not only Frankenstein and the Wolf Man but also Dracula. But don’t get your hopes up too high because none of them share any real screen-time together. This is more of an ‘episodic’ story. Dracula appears in the beginning of the film but is then killed off about 10-15 minutes later. Larry Talbot doesn’t appear until halfway in and Frankenstein’s monster stays comatose until the final 10 minutes of the film. But despite this, the story is fairly engaging as it follows a scientist named Dr. Niemann, played by Boris Karloff in the first Frankenstein film that he’s appeared in for nearly a decade, as he interacts with all the monsters and uses them to enact revenge upon those who wronged him in the past. Even though none of the monsters appear together at any point, all the monster action is solid. John Carradine does a decent, albeit not as memorable as Bela Lugosi’s, turn in the role of Dracula and Lon Chaney Jr. is once again solid as the sympathetic Larry. J. Carrol Naish is also quite sympathetic in the role of Dr. Niemann’s hunchback assistant Daniel, who begs his master to give him a new body and gets caught in a love triangle between himself, Larry, and a gypsy girl named Ilonka. This time, the monster is played by Glenn Strange, who would go on to play the role in the following two films. He’s okay but as noted earlier, he doesn’t do anything until the finale. All in all, the film does boast a solid cast all around and while there are STILL plenty of inconsistences and plot holes here and there, House of Frankenstein is a pretty solid monster flick.

Rating: 3.5/5

HOUSE OF DRACULA (1945)

House of Dracula… is basically a rehash of House of Frankenstein. It’s about a scientist who encounters the three big Universal Monsters; Dracula, Frankenstein’s monster, and the Wolf Man. Heck, it’s even directed by the same guy, Erle C. Kenton, produced by the same guy, Paul Malvern, and written by the same guy, Edward T. Lowe Jr. That should give you an idea of how shameless of a ‘remake’ this is and yeah… it shows. This is easily the weakest entry of the Frankenstein franchise. Whereas the other films had plenty of monster action to make up for their various flaws, this film doesn’t have that same benefit. Oh, sure, it has the monsters but it does little with them to the point where they give each of them an anti-climactic send-off. Dracula plays a big part in the opening but is then killed off, quite anti-climactically, at the halfway mark. Larry Talbot returns with the same old ‘trying to end his suffering’ problem and while he is finally cured of his ‘Wolf Man’ ‘disease’, it’s a mixed bag of a finale for him. It’s satisfying to see Larry finally get a happy ending after all he’s been through but it’s still a lackluster finale for a classic monster. And as for Frankenstein’s monster… well, once again he’s comatose on an operating table until the final 10 minutes. Did they just not have much faith in Glenn Strange’s version of the character? The ‘main’ monster of the film is the scientist, Dr. Edelmann, who becomes a monster himself after Dracula orchestrates a transfusion of his blood into the doctor. While he does have a few creepy scenes after his ‘transformation’, it still comes at the expense of major screen-time for the actual monsters. In short, House of Dracula does have its moments but it’s a shameless re-do of the previous film that severely limits the roles of its main stars.

Rating: 1.5/5

ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN (1948)

And finally, we end on a film that, at first glance, some might not initially think as being part of the ‘Universal Monsters’ franchise. But, in recent home media releases, it has been included in the ‘Legacy Collections’ for Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolf Man so it does technically count. This is Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, starring the legendary comic duo of Bud Abbott and Lou Costello, who were well-known for their iconic ‘Who’s on First’ routine. In this film, they star as Chick and Wilbur, respectively, a pair of baggage clerks who end up running into Dracula, the Wolf Man, and Frankenstein’s monster. It’s quite hilarious to see these two interact with the monster stars, whose performances are more in tone with the usual monster films of the time. This is perhaps best exemplified whenever Abbott and Costello are in a scene with Lon Chaney Jr and the two of them don’t believe him when he says he transforms into a wolf. Chaney, of course, reprises his role as Larry Talbot as does Glenn Strange as the Frankenstein monster. As for Dracula, Bela Lugosi returned to the role that he made famous for the first (and ultimately last time on the big screen) time in 17 years and is great once again, even when playing off a pair of knucklehead comedians. As for the humor, this film has plenty of funny quips and sight gags, all thanks to the great camaraderie of its two main stars. For fans of Abbott and Costello and/or the Universal Monsters, I have the feeling that you’re going to love this one as it utilizes both of its ‘properties’ quite well, resulting in a highly entertaining monster-themed comedy.

Rating: 4/5

That concludes this retrospective on some of the classic Universal Monsters films. Thanks for following along with me on this journey through one of the most famous eras in the history of the horror genre and Happy Halloween!

The Purge - Trilogy Retrospective

While they are technically classified as horror films, admittedly it’s hard to describe the Purge films as just that, ‘horror films’. That’s because they’re more along the lines of a series of action-thrillers, particularly in regards to the two sequels. Still, this franchise of low-budget action-thrillers, directed by longtime screenwriter James DeMonaco and co-produced by Jason Blum and Michael Bay through their respective production companies, has been a considerably large hit for Universal since it debuted back in 2013. The premise is simple; every year on one night in March, all crime, including murder, is legal for twelve hours. This means that it’s every person for themselves without any sort of assistance from the police, fire department, or emergency services. And whereas the first Purge was primarily set within the confines of a single home, the two sequels expanded upon this universe and began to explore just what happens out there on the streets during ‘Purge Night’. Ultimately, though, the Purge films have been more of a commercial success than they have been a critical success, with all three films being criticized for not fully living up to their potential in regards to the potential social commentary/satire that comes from their premise. Now, as someone who’s not a big horror fan (despite what I just said about these films not being horror films), I didn’t see any of these films in theaters. However, I did start to get curious when I learned that the third film, Election Year, was filmed in Woonsocket, Rhode Island, very close to where I live. And while, again, I ultimately didn’t see the film in theaters, I did recently get a free rental of it as part of a rewards program that I’m a member of. So, I decided to rent the other two films and do a trilogy retrospective on this smash hit of a franchise. So, without further ado, put on your scary masks and prepare for a night of unabashed craziness as I look back upon the Purge trilogy.

THE PURGE (2013)

As noted in the intro, despite the overarching ‘all crime is legal’ premise, the first Purge film is primarily set within the confines of a regular suburban home. And ultimately that does prove to be the film’s biggest problem. For one thing, it obviously limits the mayhem that goes on during Purge Night because it just focuses in on one gang terrorizing one family just because the latter let in one of their targets for protection. But then there’s also the fact that most of the film takes place within a darkened house because the gang cuts the family’s power. This results in a pretty dull ‘claustrophobic thriller’ that tries to be way too serious despite various bits of over-the-top goofiness courtesy of the gang members. And this is made even worse by the fact that you don’t give a crap about any of the main characters; main characters who, might I add, make some very terrible decisions that defy all logic. Yes, ‘logic’ isn’t a primary concern in this film. It’s the first film of the series and it doesn’t do much to explain the logistics behind Purge night, something that many agree seems totally unrealistic for various reasons, other than the fact that ‘it just works’. Sure, Ethan Hawke and Lena Headey do fine enough jobs in the lead roles and Rhys Wakefield does steal the show as the gang leader but overall The Purge is a pretty lousy attempt at being a ‘horror’ film, complete with one of the most anti-climactic endings that I’ve ever seen. Thankfully, things would only get better from here by way of the sequels.

Rating: 2/5

THE PURGE: ANARCHY (2014)

Thankfully with the first Purge sequel, The Purge: Anarchy, director James DeMonaco moves the action and craziness that comes from Purge Night away from a single house and out onto the streets, in this case the streets of downtown Los Angeles. Even better, the film gives us a much more compelling lead in the form of Frank Grillo’s Sergeant Leo Barnes (Disclaimer: his full name isn’t revealed until the next film), a man who goes out on Purge Night to avenge the death of his son but ends up taking on the responsibility of protecting other people that are stuck out on Purge Night; Eva and Cali, a mother and daughter who were forced out of their home by a paramilitary squad, and Shane and Liz, a couple whose car broke down before they could get home and escape a biker gang that had been pursuing them. Sure, the characters still make some dumb decisions from time to time but overall these aren’t as prevalent as they were in the last film. And while it’s still a low-budget film overall, the costume design and action set-pieces are much stronger than those in the first film. In short, Anarchy is a definite improvement over the original Purge because it benefits from a bigger budget and the freedom to go outside onto the streets. It still doesn’t reach the full potential of its premise but at the very least, this one does hold your interest more. Because even if you still don’t buy the whole premise of a night where all crime is legal, at least this one explores more of this world of, for lack of a better term, anarchy.

Rating: 3.5/5

THE PURGE: ELECTION YEAR (2016)

And finally, there’s The Purge: Election Year, a fitting title considering that it was just released earlier this year. Frank Grillo returns as Leo Barnes as he now serves as the head of security for Senator Charlie Roan (Elizabeth Mitchell), who’s running for President on the platform of getting rid of the Purge once and for all. But that gets much more difficult on Purge Night when her political opponents, the New Founding Fathers of America AKA the ones who created the Purge in the first place, try to get rid of her by forcing the two of them out onto the streets. And while Election Year does still have some of the story problems of its two predecessors, this ends up being my favorite of the whole bunch. And no, it’s not just because this was filmed near where I live. To me, this one is the most consistent in terms of tone. Whereas the previous two films had a more serious vibe to them, this one is now fully embracing the completely over-the-top nature of its premise. Sure, there are some very questionable bits of dialogue in this entry (most of which come courtesy of shop owner Joe Dixon, played by Mykelti Williamson (simply put, “Goodnight, Blue Cheese!”)), more so than the previous two films, and the characters do still make some questionable decisions here and there. But even if it’s not saying much, this film has the best (or at least the most ‘likable’) group of main characters of any film in the entire series, once again led by Grillo’s badass lead. And once again, I must give credit to the fact that these films keep upping the ante when it comes to costume design and action set-pieces, with this film delivering some of the series’ most truly messed up imagery. Again, when you get down to it, there’s a lot of stupid parts of this premise but this one recognizes it the most out of any Purge film. Thus, it’s arguably the most entertaining of them all.

Rating: 4/5

And that’s the end of my retrospective on the Purge films. For those who are newcomers to the franchise, I can safely say that you can honestly skip the first film because nothing in that film carries over to the other films. Just stick to the superior sequels, Anarchy and Election Year.

The Accountant (2016) review

Recently Ben Affleck has been attracting quite a lot of buzz for his turn as Batman in the DC Extended Universe. Obviously when he was first cast, there was a fair amount of controversy surrounding the announcement as many felt that Affleck just wasn’t suited for the role of the legendary DC Comics superhero, especially after his arguably disastrous previous turn in the superhero film genre with 2003’s Daredevil. However, while the first DC film that he starred in, this year’s Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, proved to be quite polarizing amongst critics and audiences, Affleck did receive rave reviews for his performance as an older and grizzled version of the Dark Knight. Thus, it’s safe to say that no matter how things turn out for the DCEU, Affleck certainly managed to prove many of the critics that initially doubted him wrong. So why am I bringing up Affleck’s recent work as Batman, you ask? Well that’s because his newest film, The Accountant, has him in a role that, in some ways, is kind of like Batman as he plays a character who could sort of be described as a ‘vigilante’ of some sorts. The film is brought to us by Gavin O’Connor, who in the past few years has been known for directing a pair of well-received sports films in 2004’s Miracle and 2011’s Warrior. And in this film, Affleck does deliver a very fascinating performance as a seemingly unassuming accountant with a background in military training. However, while Affleck does do a solid job in the lead role, the film ultimately hinders his performance due to its sluggishly slow pace.  

Christian Wolff (Ben Affleck) is a seemingly modest accountant operating a small accounting firm just outside of Chicago. However, for quite some time he has been pursued by the U.S. Federal Treasury, namely director of financial crimes Raymond King (J.K. Simmons) who ends up putting up-and-coming analyst Marybeth Medina (Cynthia Addai-Robinson) on the case (under threat of him exposing her criminal past) as he is about to retire, for getting involved with some of the biggest criminals in the world. As it turns out, Christian was diagnosed with autism as a child and was subsequently combat-trained for many years, primarily thanks to his father being a member of the military. Nowadays he spends much of his time operating as a forensic accountant for various criminal enterprises, with his assignments coming courtesy of a mysterious figure who he frequently communicates with known only as ‘The Voice’. One day, Christian takes on a legitimate accounting job for Living Robotics, a major robotics corporation run by CEO Lamar Blackburn (John Lithgow), and is tasked with investigating a supposed discrepancy in the company’s records. Christian, a math genius, figures out the problem almost immediately but this then puts him in big trouble as he must now go on the run along with Dana Cummings (Anna Kendrick), who was an in-house accountant for the company and the one who first discovered the discrepancy, from a group of assassins led by a mysterious figure named Braxton (Jon Bernthal) while also uncovering more of Living Robotics’ secrets.

From a technical perspective, The Accountant is, at the very least, a well-made film. The cinematography by Seamus McGarvey (Godzilla, The Avengers) is solid as is the editing during the action sequences. Plus, the score by Mark Isham, a frequent collaborator with director Gavin O’Connor, provides a suitably suspenseful aura throughout. However, the main thing that holds this film back is its overall pacing. Contrary to what the marketing might suggest, this is not an action-packed thriller. Sure, there are plenty of action sequences in this film but ultimately it’s more of a slow burn thriller as there are quite a lot of dialogue-heavy scenes. Because of this, it’s more of a character study than it is an action thriller and for the record that’s perfectly fine if this was the route that O’Connor and writer Bill Dubuque were trying to go with in terms of the story. Ultimately, though, I feel that the ‘character study’ elements were perhaps just a tad bit overdone here. There are just some scenes that drag on for way too long, like this one big monologue from J.K. Simmons’ character over his connection to Christian Wolff. Scenes like this slow the film down in the worst possible way to the point where it sometimes even hinders the emotional complexity of certain character moments. And while the plot itself is admittedly a simplistic one, some parts of it just aren’t handled very well, like the whole thing about Medina having a criminal past, which poses a huge risk to her career with the government because she lied about it on her resume; a felony offense. This should be a major bit of character development for her but it ultimately never gets brought up again after the first scene between her and King. In other words, it becomes entirely pointless in the grand scheme of things.

Because this is centered on an autistic main character, I’ve heard that some may find the film to be rather offensive in terms of its portrayal of autism because it implies that this makes people who have autism the ‘perfect candidates’ for becoming assassins. So, if you’re offended by the film because of this implication, that’s totally understandable. However, I think that the film does do a pretty decent job in terms of handling the main character’s struggle with autism whenever it’s away from the action. At the very least, the film does succeed in regards to making Christian a sympathetic character, a trained badass for sure but one who finds that it’s difficult to make a lot of human connections. Overall, Affleck is solid in the lead role and he’s easily the film’s greatest strength. The rest of the cast is solid as well, though their roles in the film are minor at best when compared to Affleck. Anna Kendrick’s character is basically just along for the ride once she gets dragged into Christian’s situation. Still, Kendrick does work well with Affleck whenever they’re on-screen together. Jon Bernthal is also great as the character Braxton, who we learn has a major connection to Christian. It could very well be argued that said connection is a rather predictable plot twist but I will say that it is one of the ‘better handled’ plot-points of the story overall. Everyone else… is basically just there; J.K. Simmons, John Lithgow, Jeffrey Tambor (who plays another criminally-tied accountant that Christian befriends while the two of them are in prison at one point), etc.

In short, don’t go into The Accountant expecting to see an action-packed thriller. Instead, it’s more of a ‘slow burn’ character study that focuses in on Affleck’s character and how he struggles with his autism. But while that part of the film is done well outside of the action sequences, especially thanks to Affleck’s solid performance in the role, the ‘slow burn’ pacing does prove to be quite a bit of a problem. Because the film is more dialogue-based than it is action-based, some scenes drag on for way too long, sometimes even to the point of hindering whatever emotions the plot was trying to convey. Bottom line, this film didn’t need to be over two hours long and could’ve benefitted from some tighter editing. Now again, if the intention was to make this film more of a character study than an action thriller, that’s fine. This could’ve been a nice subversion of the ‘action thriller’ genre. And from a technical standpoint, the film is at the very least well-made in terms of the action, music, direction, etc. Sadly, though, this turned out to be quite a disappointing affair, especially considering the talent involved both in front of and behind the camera.

Rating: 2.5/5

Deepwater Horizon (2016) review (450th Post!)

In 2013, Mark Wahlberg and director Peter Berg teamed up for Lone Survivor. The film told the true story of ‘Operation Red Wings’, a 2005 joint military operation that went south as a group of Navy SEALs found themselves stuck right in the middle of enemy territory in Afghanistan. The film was a solid success with both critics and audiences and it seems as if Berg and Wahlberg have now become a new major collaborative duo when it comes to doing films based on real-life incidents and the heroes who were directly involved in them. Later this year, they have another project coming out in the form of Patriots Day, the story of the aftermath of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings. But before that, they have a different ‘true story’ project that comes out first with Deepwater Horizon. Deepwater Horizon tells the story of what became one of the largest environmental disasters in the history of the United States; the 2010 BP Oil Spill. It occurred on April 20^th, 2010 on the semi-submersible Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Deepwater Horizon, when a buildup of methane gas caused a massive explosion. 11 workers lost their lives and a considerably large amount of oil, over 210 million gallons to be precise, was released into the Gulf of Mexico. Obviously this was a major incident when it occurred and sparked tons of controversies, particularly in regards to BP’s handling of the whole situation. But similar to what Michael Bay did with 13 Hours earlier this year, Berg doesn’t really delve into the political side of the incident. Instead, the film focuses in on the workers who were on the rig at the time of the explosion and their efforts to survive. And ultimately like Lone Survivor, Deepwater Horizon is an intense and visceral action/disaster thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat throughout.

On April 20^th, 2010, Chief Electronics Technician Mike Williams (Mark Wahlberg), Dynamic Positioning Operator Andrea Fleytas (Gina Rodriguez), and Offshore Installation Manager Jimmy Harrell (Kurt Russell) arrive at their place of operations, the oil rig Deepwater Horizon. However, it appears that things aren’t really going too well at the moment on the rig, which is currently situated at the Macondo Prospect oil field in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana. As soon as they arrive, they notice another team leaving and learn that they hadn’t done the cement log test that they were supposed to be doing in order to analyze the integrity of the rig. As the crew begins to deal with increasing pressure from their ‘superiors’, namely BP Executives Donald Vidrine (John Malkovich) and Robert Kaluza (Brad Leland), in regards to them being ‘behind schedule’ on their drilling operations, Harrell manages to convince them to run tests on the rig in order to ensure that everything is running smoothly. The first test seems to imply impending disaster but when Vidrine requests a second test on a different section of the rig, that test goes much smoother. However, it turns out that the first test was indeed correct as a build-up of methane gas in the main pipe causes a massive explosion that engulfs the entire rig in fire, putting Williams, Fleytas, Harrell, and the rest of the 126-man crew in an extremely perilous situation as they try to escape from the burning rig.

One thing that I really have to give director Peter Berg credit for in regards to both this and Lone Survivor is that he does a really good job in regards to establishing a great sense of tension by means of the action. Seriously, this film is intense. In fact, sometimes I even wonder how this film managed to get by with a PG-13 rating considering some of its most intense moments, namely a scene in which Harrell pulls a John McClane from Die Hard by taking out a shard of glass from his foot (eck…). Well, to be more specific, all of the action in the film occurs in the second half following the explosion. The first half of the film is primarily build-up, as we see the main members of the crew head out onto the rig and deal with the problems that are starting to emerge on it. But once the second half rolls around and the big explosion occurs, it is non-stop tension throughout. As a few other critics have no doubt pointed out, this is practically like a horror film with the devastation of the explosion posing a very considerable and constant threat to the crew members. Because this is a PG-13 rated film, the action doesn’t get as brutal as it did in the R-rated Lone Survivor (save for the aforementioned ‘pulling glass out of foot’ scene) but you’re still on the edge of your seat throughout. I mean just seeing these people on a burning rig with nothing but fiery destruction going on in the background really gets to you, especially considering that this really did happen. In short, this film definitely pumps up the adrenaline during these scenes.

Now from what I hear, it appears as if this film has been a bit controversial amongst certain audiences, namely due to the fact that, as I alluded to earlier, it avoids going into the politics surrounding the incident as well as the consequences of the subsequent oil spill. Instead, the film focuses in on the explosion that started it all and the people who were on the rig at the time of the incident. But even with that said, sort of like Lone Survivor admittedly this film is more action-oriented than it is character-oriented. Ultimately the primary members of the crew that get the most focus/screen-time are Mike Williams, Andrea Fleytas, Jimmy Harrell, and Drill Crew Floorhand Caleb Holloway (Dylan O’Brien) and even then their characterizations are fairly simple at best; Williams is the main guy trying to get back to his family, Harrell is the wise veteran, Donald Vidrine is treated as an antagonist in the whole ordeal, etc. But overall this film actually does do a decent enough job when it comes to setting up the whole incident from their perspective. Because the film does take a considerable amount of time setting things up before the rig explosion, we as an audience are allowed to connect with Williams, Fleytas, Harrell, and their fellow crew-members. This is particularly evident by the cast’s solid camaraderie as well as the final moments of the film. I’m not spoiling anything when I say that if you’re familiar with this incident, you probably already know that the primary crew members do get rescued at the end. But the final scene in which Williams really starts to cope with everything that he just went through is quite powerful. In fact, I’d say that it’s one of the best bits of acting that Mark Wahlberg has ever done.

Well it seems as if Peter Berg and Mark Wahlberg have become quite the team when it comes to doing films based around real-life heroes. This was the case with Lone Survivor, I bet it will be the case with Patriots Day, and it’s definitely the case with Deepwater Horizon. The primary similarity between this and Lone Survivor is that both films are quite intense in regards to the incidents that they depict. Sure pretty much all of the action in this film occurs in the second half but when it does, boy is it intense. If anything, Peter Berg definitely succeeds in terms of creating a truly visceral thriller. And while the film does focus more on the intense action than it does with its characters, just like Lone Survivor, at the very least it still does a pretty solid job at allowing us to connect with the workers on the oil rig, even if it’s mostly just centered around a select few crew members. But like Lone Survivor, it does end by respectfully paying tribute to those who lost their lives during the incident. Now if you’re going into this expecting to see anything in regards to what happened afterwards, whether it’s how BP ended up getting charged on 11 counts of manslaughter as a result of their ‘gross negligence’ or the effects that the subsequent oil spill had on the environment, prepare to be disappointed because you won’t find any of that here. However, as far as being an intense and visceral action thriller is concerned, the film definitely succeeds in that regard.  

Rating: 4/5

This November on Rhode Island Movie Corner

Over the past few years, I have been doing a series of retrospectives on the many, many animated features that Walt Disney Animation Studios has produced since the 1930’s. It started all the way back in November 2013 when I did a Retrospective on Disney’s slate of films from the 90’s, a period known as the Disney Renaissance. This was done in honor of the release of the studio’s then-newest effort, Frozen, but at the time I’ll admit that this was originally just a one-time thing. I was considering doing more Retrospectives for Disney Animation but I didn’t really have the means to do so at the time. In other words, I didn’t own a lot of the films on modern-era home media devices. However, when the studio’s 55^th animated feature, Zootopia, was set to come out this past March, I decided to do another Retrospective, this time covering every major Disney animated film released since 2000. Thanks to this Retrospective, I decided to finally continue this series and then proceeded to finish covering the remaining four major decades of the studio’s animated history; the 60’s/70’s, the 80’s, the 30’s/40’s, and the 50’s. Now that the ‘Retrospective’ series is over, I decided to end my discussion of Disney Animation (for now, at least…) on a high note. So with that said, I’m happy to announce that this November, Rhode Island Movie Corner will be celebrating ‘Disney Month’*! In honor of the impending release of Disney Animation’s 56^th (that’s right, 56^th!) animated feature, Moana, all throughout the month of November I will be honoring the best of Disney Animation, from the heroes to the villains to the songs. The schedule will be as follows:

NOVEMBER 4^TH- RANKING THE DISNEY PRINCESSES

NOVEMBER 8^TH- TOP 5 DISNEY ‘PROTAGONISTS’/TOP 5 DISNEY SIDEKICKS

NOVEMBER 11^TH- TOP 10 DISNEY VILLAINS

NOVEMBER 18^TH- TOP 10 FAVORITE DISNEY SONGS

NOVEMBER 23^RD- RANKING ALL 55 DISNEY ANIMATED FEATURES

So be sure to stay tuned for what will be a major celebration of the best of the best from the ‘House of Mouse’.

*DISCLAIMER: This is in no way affiliated with the ‘Disneycember’ series that Doug Walker does on Channel Awesome. I also want to make it clear that this is not trying to be a ‘clone’ of what he does every December. I’m not doing any reviews of the previous Disney animated films this month (I already did that with the retrospective series), I’m just doing a series of Top 5/Top 10 lists.  

Disney Retrospective: The 50's

Welcome back to Rhode Island Movie Corner’s ongoing series of Disney Retrospectives, in which I look back upon the many, many animated films that have been produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios. And today, we’ve actually come to the final part of this series as we’ll be covering the final collection of Disney animated films that I’ve yet to address; the Disney films that came out during the 50’s. Last time around I covered Disney’s first 11 features, which of course started with 1937’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and was then followed by the likes of Pinocchio, Fantasia, and Bambi. But then came World War II, which resulted in not only some of the studio’s staff members being drafted but also certain overseas markets being cut off. As a result, most of the Disney animated features during the 40’s were low-budget ‘package films’, a series of animated shorts that were not usually connected narratively. This included projects like Saludos Amigos, Fun and Fancy Free, and The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad just to name a few. It wouldn’t be until the 50’s when the studio returned to doing full-length feature films. And I must say, out of all of the decades that make up Disney Animation’s long history, the 50’s might arguably be the studio’s most iconic period. Obviously nowadays the decade that most Disney fans are probably familiar with is the 90’s AKA ‘the Disney Renaissance’. But as far as the 50’s is concerned, while there were only five films that were released during this time, pretty much all of them are considered to be some of the studio’s most classic films. So with that said, it’s time to look back upon the decade where the young woman put on the glass slipper, the girl fell down the rabbit hole, and the boy who never grew up explored the world of Never Land. These are the Disney Animated films of the 50’s.

CINDERELLA (1950)

You might recall that I was a really, really big fan of Kenneth Branagh’s live-action reimagining of this film that was released last year. One of the reasons why I was really looking forward to it was because Disney’s original take on the story of Cinderella was actually one of my favorite Disney films growing up. And even though nowadays I sort of lean towards the live-action version for its improvements over the original film, namely a more developed relationship between Cinderella and Prince Charming, that doesn’t mean that I don’t still appreciate the great things that came from this Disney classic. It’s got some really nice animation, especially in regards to the creation of grand and gigantic rooms. It’s got a great collection of songs from Cinderella’s sweet melody ‘A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes’ to the Fairy Godmother’s bubbly tune ‘Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo’. As noted before, Cinderella is generally viewed as one of the more passive Disney princesses, with some claiming that she does nothing the whole film and then gets rescued by Prince Charming at the end of it. But as I’ve also noted before, I believe that there’s more to her character than that. She deserves a lot of credit for managing to endure all of the crap that her stepmother and stepsisters put her through while still maintaining an optimistic outlook on life. That is why she’s one of the best Disney princesses in my opinion. And of course this film has plenty of great side characters as well from the aforementioned Fairy Godmother to Cinderella’s wicked stepmother Lady Tremaine to Cinderella’s friendly mouse friends, especially Jaq and Gus. So in short, I guess you can say that this is one of my all-time favorite Disney films; one that now has an excellent live-action version to serve as a companion piece, not as a replacement!

Rating: 5/5!

ALICE IN WONDERLAND (1951)

Also commonly known as the film that many love to joke about in regards to them claiming that Walt and his team were totally on drugs when they made it, Alice in Wonderland is exactly what you’d expect from a film adaptation of Lewis Carroll’s classic story of a young girl’s adventures in the wacky world of Wonderland. It’s a world that is full of crazy characters in nonsensical situations and as a result, this film boasts some of the studio’s absolute best animation. Simply put, the animators perfectly captured the surreal imagery of the story as the animation is the perfect combination of vibrant colors and zany visuals. As for the plot, while I’ve never read Carroll’s original book, it seems as if the film follows the same general non-linear plot of the book in that it’s mostly just Alice getting into various situations and meeting a wide variety of goofy characters. Speaking of characters, Alice herself is a likable lead, voiced excellently by Kathryn Beaumont who would go on to voice another main character in the next Disney film. And of course the film also has plenty of memorable side characters, from the mischievous, always-grinning Cheshire Cat to the foul-tempered Queen of Hearts, who always orders “Off with their Heads!” whenever someone gets on her bad side. Alice in Wonderland is generally considered to be one of Disney’s finest animated classics and I can totally see why. All in all, it’s a very charming and light-hearted adventure through the strange world of Wonderland complete with a fun cast of characters and the studio’s usual excellent animation.

Rating: 4/5

PETER PAN (1953)

In 1953, Walt Disney Animation brought J.M. Barrie’s iconic play/novel Peter Pan to life in what is generally considered to be the most famous adaptation to date of ‘the boy who would never grow up’. This was the final Disney animated film that was primarily supervised by Disney’s original core team of animators AKA ‘The Nine Old Men’. It was also notably the last film that Disney released as part of their distribution deal with RKO Pictures. Since then, the studio has released all of their films under their own distributor, Buena Vista. In that regard, this is certainly a great one to end on when it comes to the Disney/RKO partnership. That’s because Peter Pan is easily one of Disney’s best films. It really does have it all. All of the main characters are great, from Peter Pan to Wendy (voiced by Kathryn Beaumont in her second major Disney Animation film role) to Tinker Bell and so on and so forth. The villains are absolutely terrific. The notorious Captain Hook and his main lackey Mr. Smee are two of Disney’s most hilarious villains. They work off each other so well as the two bumbling buffoons that they are. Just look at the scenes in which Hook tries to avoid being eaten by a hungry crocodile. The soundtrack is excellent as well. The main theme ‘You Can Fly’ is simply iconic but ‘Following the Leader’ is a pretty darn fun song as well. Sure, in hindsight the film gets a lot of flak nowadays for its arguably fairly racist/stereotypical portrayal of Never Land’s Indians and it’s completely understandable if some people are offended by this. But aside from that, it’s pretty easy to see why Peter Pan is commonly regarded as one of the most famous films in the Disney canon. It’s just a really fun adventure that is guaranteed to capture the imaginations of young and old.

Rating: 5/5!

LADY AND THE TRAMP (1955)

Sandwiched in between two of the most famous Disney animated films of all-time is 1955’s Lady and the Tramp, which is actually based off of a story titled Happy Dan, The Whistling Dog that was written by Ward Greene and published in Cosmopolitan magazine. The film focuses on the romance that develops between Lady, the beloved cocker spaniel of an upper-class family, and Tramp, a stray mutt. The romance that forms between the two of them is pretty nice, highlighted by the iconic ‘Bella Notte’ sequence in which they share a romantic candlelit spaghetti dinner while being serenaded by the owner of the Italian restaurant that provided them the food. Simply put, this is one of the most iconic ‘love story’ moments in the history of film. But the rest of the film is quite solid as well. One of the most interesting elements of the story is the fact that the majority of the film is seen from the perspective of the dogs. Lady refers to her owners as ‘Jim Dear’ and ‘Darling’ because that’s what they frequently call each other from her point of view. And when they have a baby, Lady doesn’t initially realize it at first when she finds that they start to become rather distant and we also see how the baby’s arrival ultimately affects her relationship with her owners. Granted, I wouldn’t really call this one of Disney’s absolute ‘best’ films. The story is rather simple and it is sort of like Alice in Wonderland in that it’s mostly just a random collection of moments involving the main characters. Still, with a likable lead duo, a solidly developed romance, and the usual nice Disney animation, Lady and the Tramp is still a pretty darn classic entry in the Disney canon.

Rating: 4/5

SLEEPING BEAUTY (1959)

From an artistic perspective, Sleeping Beauty is definitely one of the most beautifully animated films that Disney has ever made. It was the second film that they’d ever shot in widescreen, after Lady and the Tramp, and the results really are fantastic. The grand landscapes that come from the format are excellent and have an excellent painting-like quality to them. The film also has some excellent music, which was adopted from Tchaikovsky’s 1890 ballet of the same name. ‘Once Upon a Dream’ is definitely a classic Disney love song. But when it comes to the writing, admittedly it’s rather flawed in some parts, namely the main characters. Princess Aurora is unfortunately one of the weaker Disney princesses, though that’s mostly just due to the fact that she spends a good chunk of the film asleep. Her prince, Phillip, is also a bit underwritten at times; in fact, once he goes off to rescue Aurora he never says anything for the remainder of the film. But despite a rather underdeveloped pair of leads, the film does have a great cast of side characters. The three fairies, Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather are an excellent trio who work off each other well when it comes to the three of them trying to raise Aurora in secret without the help of their magic. And of course, there’s the main villain, Maleficent. Sure her motivations are rather weak, as she does what she does only because she wasn’t invited to the party celebrating the birth of Aurora, but her elegance and magical abilities easily make her one of Disney’s greatest villains. In short, Sleeping Beauty may not be perfect but it’s still a very enjoyable entry in the Disney canon. While it doesn’t really do much for its two main protagonists, the main villain, side characters, music, and animation do make up for that for the most part. Ultimately, though, Sleeping Beauty was actually an underperformer at the box office upon initial release, effectively resulting in Disney moving away from adapting fairy tales until The Little Mermaid three whole decades later.

Rating: 4/5

And with that, Rhode Island Movie Corner’s ‘Disney Retrospective’ series officially comes to a close. As always, be sure to sound off in the comments below in regards to your own thoughts on the films discussed here today and be sure to also check out the previous Disney Retrospectives that I’ve done in the links below. However, this is not the end of my discussion of Disney Animation for now. You may have noticed in a few of the previous ‘Disney Retrospectives’ that I mentioned that I have something BIG planned for next month. Well, since we’ve reached the end of these Retrospectives, I figured that it’s time to finally reveal my big plan… so be sure to check back tomorrow for the big announcement of what is coming to Rhode Island Movie Corner this November.

Disney Retrospective: The 90's

Disney Retrospective: The 2000's to Present

Disney Retrospective: The 60's and 70's

Disney Retrospective: The 80's

Disney Retrospective: The 30's and 40's

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (2016) review

Ever since he made his feature-length directorial debut in 1985 with Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure, Tim Burton has proven himself to be one of the most visually unique filmmakers in the entire film industry. Thanks to big hits like Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, and his two Batman films, he’s become well-known for his dark and quirky gothic style. And even though some of his more recent films haven’t exactly fared as well with critics, including the remakes that he did of films like Planet of the Apes and Alice in Wonderland, he’s still very much one of those directors whose films are always worth checking out just to see what he does next. For his latest film, Burton takes on a very Burton-esque kind of story that some might describe as a cross between Harry Potter and X-Men; Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children. The film is based on a 2011 book of the same name by author Ransom Riggs, who was inspired by a series of vintage photographs that he had been collecting over the years. Originally intended to be released as a picture book, Riggs instead decided to use these photographs and craft a story about a series of children with extraordinary powers or, to be more precise, ‘peculiar’ powers. The book became a big hit and has since led to two sequels, 2014’s Hollow City and 2015’s Library of Souls. Five years later, it now spawns a feature film directed by the one and only master of the macabre himself, Tim Burton. And while it ultimately may not be one of his ‘best’ films, it’s still a solidly entertaining film that highlights Burton’s talents as a director, especially in terms of visuals.  

As the film begins, 16-year old Jacob Portman (Asa Butterfield) is suddenly dealt with the tragic loss of his grandfather Abraham (Terence Stamp). When he was younger, Jacob’s grandfather always used to tell him stories about a group of children with extraordinary abilities (or ‘peculiarities’ as they’re referred to in the film) living on an island in Wales being looked after by a woman named Miss Peregrine. Given the mysterious circumstances surrounding his grandfather’s death, Jacob convinces his parents to let him travel to the island so that he can seek ‘closure’ and find out whether or not his stories were true. Once he gets there, Jacob does end up coming across the children his grandfather told him about and they take him to their home, where he meets their protector, Miss Peregrine (Eva Green). Jacob learns that because those with ‘peculiarities’ are often frowned upon by others, Miss Peregrine and her children live in a peaceful abode away from the outside world, with Miss Peregrine having the ability to keep them within a closed time loop that has them reliving the same day over and over again safe from harm. However, the peaceful lives of the ‘Peculiar Children’ are soon threatened by the arrival of the Wights, a group of immortal human-like creatures, led by Mr. Barron (Samuel L. Jackson), who hunt peculiars for their eyes in order to maintain their immortality. When Mr. Barron ends up taking Miss Peregrine hostage, Jacob takes on the responsibility of keeping the Peculiar Children safe from Barron and his fellow Wights, as Jacob learns that he himself has the ‘peculiarity’ of seeing the monstrous creatures known as hollowgasts that the Wights control and yet are invisible to others.

Admittedly this film starts off on a rather slow note. It does take a little while before it really gets going and starts to get into the stuff with the titular ‘Peculiar Children’. But once it does, I can safely say that this is where the film really starts to shine. In terms of story, this definitely matches with Burton’s visual sensibilities as well as his tendency to focus on characters who are generally seen as ‘outcasts’ (e.g. Edward Scissorhands, Batman, etc.). As a result, the visuals are definitely the best part of the film, from the action sequences (the big action sequence involving re-animated skeletons and hollowgasts at a carnival is easily the best moment in the entire film) to even minor details like the shift in color scheme that occurs whenever characters go in and out of time loops. But ultimately the key success of this film comes in the form of its titular ‘Peculiar Children’. While her name does come first in the title, Miss Peregrine ultimately isn’t the main character of the story; the children are. Granted, like I said before, it takes a while before they really start to let the kids use their abilities but when they do, they’re easily the best part of the film. They work very well together and there is a nice variety to their abilities, from Emma (Ella Purnell), who can control air, to Olive (Lauren McCrostie), who can control fire (and yes, their abilities were switched from the book which is really no big deal in terms of the overall story), to Enoch (Finlay MacMillan), who can bring inanimate objects to life (e.g. those aforementioned skeletons). So in short, while the first half of the film does start off rather slow, the second half does end it on a good note.

Because the focus is on the kids, they get plenty of screen time during the second half of the film. And for a cast of general unknowns, they all do a really solid job. Sure character development is admittedly pretty simple in this story but the ‘Peculiar Children’ do make up for it thanks to the variety of their abilities and their solid camaraderie. As for some of the other members of the cast, Asa Butterfield does a good job acting as the audience’s avatar in this world of peculiarity. He also has solid romantic chemistry with Ella Purnell in what will no doubt be her breakout role as Emma, who’s easily the principal member of the ‘Peculiar Children’ and quite frankly provides a lot of the film’s heart. While Miss Peregrine does end up taking a back seat to the Peculiar Children during the second half of the story, Eva Green, in her second collaboration with Tim Burton following 2012’s Dark Shadows, brings just the right amount of eccentricity to the role while also very much conveying the compassion that she has for the Peculiar Children that she protects. As she put it, she’s ‘Scary Poppins with a Big Heart’. And finally there’s Samuel L. Jackson as the film’s main villain, Mr. Barron. I’ll just say it straight up; Jackson is very much hamming it up here. But if you ask me, that’s totally fine. Campy Samuel L. Jackson is fun Samuel L. Jackson and it’s very clear that he’s having quite a lot of fun in this role. And just like in The Legend of Tarzan earlier this year, he gets plenty of the best lines.

Admittedly I wouldn’t really say that Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children is one of Tim Burton’s best films. Given the films that he’s made over the years, this one is admittedly a bit standard by comparison, especially in terms of story. And as noted earlier, it does take a bit for it to really get going. But once it does, that’s when the film really starts to shine. It smartly focuses on what it should be focusing on; the ‘Peculiar Children’. The kids are easily the stars of the show and they all do a really nice job for being a cast of general unknowns. The other members of the cast are solid as well and this is very much a Tim Burton film in terms of visual style and how it reflects Burton’s quirky sensibilities as a filmmaker. Overall, if one were to rank all of the films that Burton has directed over the years, this one would fit somewhere nicely in the middle. As noted in the intro, this is based off of the first installment in a series of books that author Ransom Riggs wrote that was directly inspired by the collection of vintage photographs that he has amassed over the years. At the moment it’s unclear if this will be followed by a sequel and for the record, this can technically be classified as being part of the ‘Young Adult’ genre that’s had generally mixed results in terms of film adaptations the past few years. But in that case, at the very least I can say that for a film that’s based off of a ‘Young Adult’ novel, this is definitely one of the better ones and I wouldn’t mind seeing another film set in this universe.

Rating: 3.5/5