Beetlejuice Review

In 1988 Tim Burton directed a horror comedy film called Beetlejuice after proving himself to be a competent director and this only proved it even further.

The plot of the movie revolves around a dead couple played by Alec Baldwin and Geena Davis, who hire what is known as a bio-exorcist named Beetlejuice to scare away the obnoxious new residents of their former home.

In regards to the plot it is all very amusing to watch, full of interesting ideas and possibilities and for a relatively original idea helmed by a director who had just about broken successfully into the filmmaking industry I would say that it is executed very well.

On the subject of the film's cast I believe I found at least a few people who stood out. Firstly two are of course the leads Baldwin and Davis, whose performances start off as moderately average, but slightly improve as the film progresses. Next is Catharine O'Hara who plays the  wife of the family who have moved in to the deceased's home. She played her part as a non-believer in ghosts quite well, along with some other comedic moments. In particular, there is a scene she shares with family and friends at a dinner party. If you have seen the film you will know which one I'm talking about. But in the end it does all come down to the titular character, known as Beetlejuice and played with clear enjoyment by Michael Keaton. I found Keaton to be the most enjoyable character in the movie, with the way he acts and the seemingly endless array of jokes he comes out with. There is also Jeffery Jones as the husband of the new family, but he unfortunately did not amuse me in any way.

On to the film's screenplay which was written by Michael MacDowell and Warren Skarren. MacDowell's vison of the movie  was originally supposed to be much darker and graphic, before being reworked with the help of Skarren into what we now have today. It's full of  the surreal and bizarre possibilities that  audiences have come to expect from the type of films that Tim Burton specializes in and I was really impressed with the accomplished result.

Thinking about the cinematography and production design, two things stood out for me since most of the movie takes place inside or just outside the house. Firstly you have what can only be described as the movie's idea  of what the afterlife looks like. It makes the afterlife look like some kind of business, amusing and slightly odd and the same time. And then there is the look of what you could call a landscape filled with only sand, clouds and very odd looking monsters that appear to be  the landscape's only forms of life. I thought they both looked rather interesting, especially that landscape as an idea of what could be waiting for people after they die.

The score was composed by Danny Elfman, who would go on to become a longtime collaborator on Burtons' films. I admire it when a film has the kind of score that goes well with its tone and nature, and this is no exception, especially during the opening credits that I think is a good example of what I look for in the introduction of a film when it comes to music.

You may have noticed that so far I have left out one main cast member, Wynona Ryder. I left her out for a few important reasons. One, in the beginning of the film I found her to be almost unlikeable.
Two, she was just about the only character in the film who got any amount of character development, but when she did get some development and lighten up a bit, did it help matters for me? The answer, no, it did not.

And being the namesake of the film, you would expect to be seeing a lot of Michael Keaton, and since there is a great deal of build-up to him you might have expected him to be in most of the film and be the main focus. But instead I felt his on-screen time was rather short and a man with Keaton's acting talents and statues should have been given more screen time.

I'm going to raise an issue that is very similar to one I had with the last Burton film I reviewed a few months ago, and that is my belief that some things in the film, in this case the monsters, had less work and effort put into them than others. For example, take a look at the snake that appears near the end, And then take a look at the end result after Baldwin and Davis have messed around with their faces, in order to look like something that could terrify the people living in their home.

In conclusion,  Beetlejuice was very enjoyable, had good performances from the lead cast and for a original idea that had to be worked on as much as it did, the end result was  rather a pleasing one. And it's clear that the film impressed people, getting its own tv show later, and the possibility of a sequel is still being talked about.

Having taken all my pros and cons into account I'm going to give Beetlejuice:

B+

Thank you for reading.         
        

                                            
                                                       

Misery Review

In 1986 Rob Reiner directed Stand By Me based on Stephen King's story The Body, and it proved to be a huge success. Then in 1990 or 1991 for the United Kingdom, Reiner directed Misery also based on a Stephen King book - but very different from Stand By Me.

The plot of Misery revolves around a novelist, Paul Sheldon, who has spent nearly all of his writing career writing a series of romance novels about a woman named Misery. But his car crashes in a blizzard and he is rescued by a nurse who also happens to be his so-called "number one fan". While nursing him back to health she finds the last of the Misery books, and as a thank you for nursing him back to health the novelist agrees to let her read it. And then she discovers his intention is to kill off the character. So she resorts to doing things like breaking his ankles with a sledgehammer and knocking him out unless he writes the character back to life.

The casting choices for the lead parts were very good. You have James Caan as the novelist who is very likeable. He definitely gives a good performance in this film and I found myself being very impressed with all his work in this film as a whole. And he was definitely the right man for the part.

And of course you have Kathy Bates as Annie Wilkes. She is especially entertaining to watch and gives a very good performance. What I find so impressive about her performance here is how quickly and easily she can go from acting very nice to psychopathic. What certainly works about Wilkes is that when the viewer is introduced to her she seems very kind but you know very soon that at some point she will go psychopathic. When you know that is going to happen you may feel slightly annoyed waiting for the inevitable to occur since it is the major driving force of the movie. Kathy Bates won an Oscar for her performance in the movie and do I think she was worthy of it? Yes I do.

This film really only has one subplot and that is about a small-town sheriff played by Richard Farnsworth whose job it is to find Sheldon. Farnsworth does a perfectly fine job here. But it's really the amusingly barbed dialogue he has with his wife that makes him stand out in a film with a relatively small cast.

In the case of the films score it definitely works in its favor and it especially  suits certain scenes in the film. But what I can not accept about the music in this film is the background music that is played during a dinner scene between the two leads. I just cant figure out why you would have music like that in a film of this nature.          

On to the subject of the cinematography, this is by the now well-known director Barry Soonefeld who went on to direct films like The Addams Family and all the Men In Black movies. But here he is in charge of the photography and when the film opens the camera is cleverly focusing on three things: a glass of champagne, a match and a cigarette, which will become very important later on. I also would like to mention the shots of Sheldon in his wheelchair - these are also very well done. I was pleasantly surprised with how well his work on this film turned out.

My only major problem with this film is a scene where Sheldon is exploring the house he is trapped in, and he discovers that Wilkes was once tried but never convicted of several infant deaths while working as a nurse at a hospital. I feel that that was adding to give the her a possible motivation for why she does what she does. But it is not really explored in depth. Maybe there was no motivation and she just went insane one day and the infant deaths was how it all started for her.

In conclusion Misery is a very well made, suspenseful psychological thriller with very good performances from the lead actors and impressive cinematography - another excellent King/Reiner collaboration. It's especially impressive considering that it is such a departure from their previous collaboration.

Having taken all my pros and cons of the movie into account, I'm going to give Misery..
B

Thank you for reading.

           
      
           


     
               

Despicable Me 3 Review

It has been about two and a half years since the Despicable me spin off film Minions and now we
 have the third entry in this franchise.

So far in these films we have had  plots like stealing the moon and trying to find a stolen formula. This time the film is about a former child actor from the eighties who has become a villain and he has stolen a diamond. Oh, and he actually believes he has become the character he once played. And as you probably, guessed Gru has to stop him from carrying out whatever plan he has in mind. Also, Gru finds out he has a long-lost brother named Dru.

Firstly I would like to make it clear that I did enjoy this film. It just has some things which could have been done better. I will first talk about positives.

As usual you have Steve Carrel as the voice of Gru. But Carrel also provides the voice of Dru. One thing I noticed about Carrel's performances in this film was just how differently he performed both of his characters. Gru is a former professional villain who is trying to leave his villainous life behind him and when discussing his former profession with his brother, he talks and acts as if his old life is definitely behind him. Dru however talks and acts like someone who is very interested in the concept of a villainous life and wants his brother to teach him how to be a villain.

Of course one of the main reasons this franchise is so popular is due to the popularity of the Minions. Since they had their own movie with Minions, I wondered just how much screen time they would get in this film. I was pleased to see that they got a reasonable amount, and in that time they did get up to some moderately funny things but nothing that I thought was extremely funny.

Gru is now married, his wife's name is Lucy and she is voiced by Kirsten Wiig and she does very little in this film that I found entertaining, even though she makes attempts to be funny and tries to get her new children to like her.

Gru's daughters Margo, Edith, and Agnes are back, but like the wife they make little contribution to the film. Margo is probably the only one who in this film gets a proper subplot. But the subplot in the end did feel a bit unnecessary.

As I mentioned before this film revolves around a former child star turned villain. His name is Balthazar Brat and he is voiced by Trey Parker. I found him funny most of the time he was on screen and he is  mostly a joke on a particular person who was famous in the eighties. He is responsible for the most of the film's references to  eighties popular culture, some of which I did find amusing.

Unfortunately this film does have its problems, one of which is quite serious one. I feel that it is possible that trailers for the film gave away too much. In fact  the film begins with a boat heist that Gru fails to stop, and Balthazar gets away with what he stole. Most of that will already have been seen by anyone who has been to the cinema in recent months.

Its next problem is that, although Balthazar is the one who is supposed to be coming out with all the eighties culture references, it is Dr Nefario (from Despicable Me 1 and 2) who is made the object of a joke about a certain well-known film from the eighties. I can think of two things to say about that: firstly I hate the movie that reference is from, and secondly it just felt like a cheap way to write him out of the film.

Parker's character Balthazar only has one major issue and that is his catchphrase. He usually says it after he has committed a crime, and once I realised that, it just became so predictable whenever he was going to say it.

Parts of this film do have Gru and Dru spending some time together. But the film does not go into much depth to explain why they were separated at birth. The  best we get from that situation is their parents split up, taking a child each, but both parents ended up disappointed in the child they chose.

Finally when the cast credits roll at the start of the film we see the names Julie Andrews and Steve Coogan. They are in the film but both of them are only in it for a few minutes each. What bothers me with this, is why would you put big names like those in the credits of your film if you're only going to have them in it for a few minutes? Once those few minutes are over for both Coogan and Andrews we never hear from their characters at any point in the film again.

Nevertheless my conclusion would be that this is an enjoyable film. If you have seen the first two films and the Minions prequel and liked them, you will probably get some enjoyment out of this one. And now I will rate Despicable Me 3.

And the rating I give it is: C.                                                                
                                                       

Frankenweenie Review

Frankenweenie was directed by Tim Burton and was released in 2012. The film stars Catherine O'Hara, Martin Short, Martin Landau, Charlie Tahan, Atticus Shaffer and Winona Ryder.

Here is what I thought was good about the film.



The story- A boy named Victor Frankenstein (Tahan) whose dog Sparky recently died decides to attempt to bring the dog back to life using methods he heard about in his science class. I found the story of the film very interesting and enjoyable to watch, even if the film as a whole is trying to be a joke on a certain film that was been made in the 1930s.



Acting - I enjoyed most of the actors in the movie. But two who definitely stood out a bit more than the others were Landau and Shaffer. Landau was definitely the best voice actor in the film since he was more experienced and was perfect for the role he was chosen to play. I could easily see why Burton chose him for the role, it probably had something to do with the great job Landau did of playing Bela Lugosi in Ed Wood back in 1994. As for Shaffer he makes some noticeable expressions through the film, especially with his eyes. A few times during the film he goes over the top when saying bits of his dialogue which was maybe not needed as often. But he was trying to play his part as best he could.



Screenplay - The film's screenplay was written by John August and was for me quite a surprise. Most of the actors in the film have dialogue that is definitely suited to the characters they were voicing. If I had to pick one person who has the best dialogue in the whole film my pick would once again be Landau. His dialogue in the film is very clearly only the kind of words you would expect to hear from someone who was living in a Burtonesque world.



Cinematography - The film's cinematography is by Peter Sorg. Most of it is quite enjoyable but I found myself being most impressed with the night-time exterior shots combined with the film's animation style and the tone and feel of the movie. The night time exterior shots were in my opinion a perfect combination and I was very pleased by all of those shots during the film.



Music - the score was composed by Danny Elfman. I think he did a very good job with the music. It is very well-suited to the film's style and what you will see and witness when watching the movie. I especially took notice of the opening title music. I thought it was the perfect way to start the film and the score continued to impress me throughout. But the opening title music is definitely another one of the movie's best qualities.



Animation - The film was animated using stop-motion animation. I believe I was seeing this kind of animation for the first time and the impression that it gave me was that I was enjoying the idea of seeing a new type of animated movie. Burton has used this type of animation on three occasions before so clearly he has now become something of an expert in the field. If he learned anything from his time making Frankenweenie then he should make more films with same type of animation.



Here is what I thought was not so good about the film.



The 'Monsters from beyond' scene - this comes right after the opening studio logo and I do not see why it is necessary. All we see in it are three people watching a film that is supposed to be in 3D, but it does give us our first look at some main characters and the dog Sparky. They could have picked a better way to introduce the characters - maybe a way that did not feel as if it had nothing to do with the main story. To me it felt more like just a quick way to get things going rather than building things up at a normal pace.



Science class scene - very early on in the film we get a science class scene that I personally thought went on for a bit too long, apart from being the first appearances of the characters played by Shaffer and Landau. This scene could have been cut shorter but instead it goes on for a long time. I know that science class is where Victor learns how he could bring his dog back to life, but maybe the filmmakers could have had Landau talk about this earlier. Instead we don't get that until later. I really would have preferred to have heard the important details sooner than I did.



Some of the character designs - there are some characters in the film who look as if, when they were being designed, they had less work put into them than others. If they had better design work done maybe it would not be so bad in my opinion. But what I found even worse was that one of these characters is unfortunately Edgar, played by Shaffer.    



Baseball game scene - I was not pleased with this scene for very good reasons. Halfway through the scene the outcome becomes quite predictable - I actually had a feeling about what was coming and I was right. Also the idea of baseball in a Tim Burton film does not feel entirely right to me, and like the science class scene it goes on for far too long in my opinion. But at least after a few minutes the scene gets to what I previously described as a predictable outcome.



Sparky's walk around the town of New Holland - once again I found myself seeing the same problem - a scene that goes on too long. All we get from this scene is Sparky walking around the town of New Holland, clearly happy to be alive again. Did Burton really think that the audience would want to see an entire scene of nothing more that Sparky walking around the town? Instead we could have seen Sparky's first few minutes back to life put to better use.





In conclusion, it is very clear what this film is trying to be a spoof of since its inspiration has been revisited by filmmakers over and over again since the Karloff Frankenstein in 1931. But this was probably the first time a filmmaker tried to make a version aimed more at attracting a younger audience. There are also things that older audiences will enjoy in this movie and it was very interesting to know that back in 1984 Tim Burton made a short also called Frankenweenie. If he was willing to attempt a remake of one of his own projects then clearly it was important to him and I think I saw just how important making this film well was to him.  And I would also like to say that remaking this film was possibly a good career choice for Burton since, when the original was made, he was not that well known as a director. But now he is known by many people and is thought of very highly as a very good director.  And it is my opinion that he achieved some success in what he was trying to accomplish with his directing.



Thank you for reading.

                         

                                                                                        

The Witches Review

The Witches was released in 1990. The film stars Angelica Houston, Mai Zetterling, Rowan Atkinson, Jasen Fisher and Jane Horrocks.

Here is what I thought was good about the film.

The story - While on holiday in England a young boy discovers that witches are plotting to turn children into mice. The boy, with the help of his grandmother (Zetterling) decides to stop them. I found the story very entertaining, It is certainly very easy to follow and is told very well.  I don't believe I found anything in the film's story that I wasn't pleased with.

Acting - Most of the actors in the film start out well, but some do get better as the film progresses. But the film's best performance is Anjelica Houston. Her acting in the film was very good. She was convincing as the head of a group of witches and it was all very entertaining to watch. She did win Best Actress for her performance and I think she definitely deserved it because of her role in this film.

Screenplay - The film's screenplay was by Allan Scott. I found it to be quite impressive. I especially have to mention that Anjelica Houston's dialogue and actions are perfectly suited to her character. I also believe there is some dialogue from Rowan Atkinson that is perfectly suited to his character which I found both surprising and pleasing.

Cinematography - the film's cinematography is by Harvey Harrison. I was impressed with just about all of the film's cinematography but some shots I especially did take notice of were those of the seaside hotel exterior. They were all very clear shots in which you could see everything very clearly. And since most of the film takes place indoors I was wondering what the cinematographer could do with outside shots.

Music - The film's score is by Stanley Myers. I found it to be perfectly fine but I was especially impressed by the music played during the opening credits. I thought that playing that type of music while the credits rolled was a very good way to set up the film. And as a bonus, you get to hear it again during the end credits.

Here is what I thought was not good about the film.

Conference scene - I do know that this scene is an important part of the film, but I personally felt that it went on for a bit too long and got a little bit boring. However, it is not so boring that the viewer would lose interest.

How long it takes for Anjelica Houston to make her appearance - I do know that Houston is one of the film's leads but I prefer it when the leads all make their appearances as soon as possible so that they may begin their performance and impress the viewer. But as I said her performance did impress me. So I guess apart from taking a while to make her appearance, it all went well for her in the film.

Rowan Atkinson's character - I am aware that I said I was impressed with some of his dialogue, but apart from that I felt that maybe he wasn't the right actor to play a less comic character. Since he was very famous as Mr Bean around the time of this film's release you would think he would rather be in a film and play a character that was better suited to his acting abilities.

Lack of character development - Few characters get proper development in this film. In fact, I think the character with the most development is Mai Zetterling's. We get to hear some things about her past, and that she is missing something that is only made noticeable once. Perhaps someone who could have used a bit more development in the film was the character of Miss Susan Irvine played by Jane Horrocks, especially considering that near the end of the film Horrocks says something that has quite an impact on the personality of her character. But I will also mention that this sudden change to the character is very important to the film's last few minutes.             

Helga's story- right after the opening credits the character of Grandma, whose real name, we learn later, is Helga, tells her grandson a story about her childhood friend who was killed by witches. I found the story sequence to be of mild interest. But what mainly bothered me about it was that it was holding up the main story which is the whole point of the film. But at least the sequence did not last very long and once it was over most of the rest of the film was perfectly entertaining.

In conclusion - this film is very good. As I have said there are things that are wrong with this film but I would not let a few small problems get in the way of my enjoyment. I also think that if the director Nicolas Roeg was trying to make the kind of dark fantasy film that would be remembered and enjoyed years after its release, I would like to think he achieved that and very successfully.



Thank you for reading.    

                                 

                  

Stand By Me Review

Stand by Me was released in 1986. It was directed by Rob Reiner. The film stars Will Wheaton, River Phoenix, Corey Feldman, Jerry O'Connell and in an early role for him, a very young Kiefer Sutherland.

Here is what I thought was good about the film.

The story – an author writes about a childhood experience he had when he was twelve years old. That experience being that he and his group of friends went in search of a dead body that one of them found out about.

Acting - Most of the characters in this movie are definitely portrayed by people who are trying to give their performances the best they can. But I will say this, you most likely will end up liking other actors in this movie better than others. Two actors that definitely stand out are Will Wheaton and River Phoenix. I believe the reason   they work so well is that they are supposed to be best friends. And it is shown several times throughout the film that the friendship between the two characters is certainly undeniable. And they both act as if they have been best friends for a long time very well. They are definitely one of the most enjoyable things about the film.

Screenplay - now I was perfectly happy with most of the screenplay.   There is a surprisingly good scene between Kiefer Sutherland and Jerry O'Connell that reminded me of a character Kiefer Sutherland would portray years later. The screenplay was written by Bruce A Evans and Raynold Gideon. I would have to rate the screenplay average. I'm not saying it was bad but there were occasionally funny moments from some of the characters.

Cinematography - the cinematography for the film is by Thomas Del Ruth. What I liked about the cinematography were the shots done for the scenes that take place in the daytime. Even though most of the cinematography is clear to see, what you will notice about the daytime scenes is that it is quite bright since the film takes place during summer. I believe the reason it is bright during daytime is to show the viewer that the characters are living in a very warm place. If that is what was trying to be achieved, then I think the cinematographers got what they wanted. The cinematographers in my opinion could not possibly have picked a better time to do their cinematography.

Music – the music for the film was composed by Jack Nitzsche but in the way of original music for the film there is not much. Most of the film's music is made up of songs that were around during the setting of the film. The only thing that helps this music of the film is the title song Stand By Me that is probably in my opinion the soundtrack’s only thing that helps it to stand out. All the other songs in it – or similar - you would find in other films that take place in the 1950s.

Here is what I thought was not that good about the film.

How long it took for Kiefer Sutherland to make his appearance - I enjoyed Kiefer Sutherland's performance in this film. But I do feel he was slightly underused. What I'm trying to say is that he has very good acting skills and potential, but this was early in his career for him. I just didn't think his potential was used to the fullest and best of his abilities, that is all on that matter.

Flashback sequences - the film contains a few flashback sequences which at first I was fine with but eventually the flashback sequences just felt annoying to me because they were holding up the main story. But they were essential to the film because they were showing what life was like for a character before he and his family suffered a rather unfortunate tragedy. The bad thing about all the sequences are that as they happen, the longer I knew I would have to wait before seeing the end of a story I was finding very interesting and engaging.

Lack of character development - very few characters in the film get their fair share of development. At least with the characters played by Wheaton and Phoenix you get from both of them a fair amount of development. Everyone else in the movie does not get half as much development. Very early in the film you get a quick summation of the four main leads, two of whom are very well developed later. For the other two leads, apart from the quick summation all you get about Feldman's character is what can only be described as a very small amount of development. And as for O'Connell we really only hear about some other things he likes to do in his personal time when not with his group of friends.

Storytelling sequence - there is a scene where Will Wheaton's character (who wants to be a writer when he grows up) tells an idea for a story he has to his group of friends.  Now as I said, I felt fine with them at first, but they eventually become annoying because I felt they were delaying the film's very interesting main story. The storytelling sequence starts with Wheaton explaining his idea to his friends. What I did not like was that the idea had to be told through an entire sequence rather than just sticking to Wheaton and his friends around a campfire telling his friends his idea as he was in the beginning. And to me the whole idea of turning Wheaton's story into an actual scene felt completely pointless. It had absolutely nothing to do with the main story and worst of all it is the longest non-story-related sequence in the film which makes it in my opinion the worst scene is the entire movie.

Train tracks scene - there is a scene where Feldman jumps on to the train tracks and he sees a train coming. He is hoping to be able to dodge before it has the chance to hit him. What I find wrong about all this is we are not given an actual reason or motive why he wants to do something like this. He just randomly decides he will jump on the tracks to see if he can dodge the train or not. But even I knew that only one of two things could possibly happen to him, and in the end one of those is what eventually happens to him at the train tracks.

In conclusion, Stand By Me is a very enjoyable film. Good plot, good acting, good cinematography. If Rob Reiner was trying to make a coming of age film that could easily be enjoyed years later he did it and he did a fantastic job. Also, if the film is supposed to have some kind of message I think it has two. One being something Corey Feldman's character says halfway through the movie. What he says is "you’re only young once". The second message I think the film is supposed to have is showing anyone who watches the film what a great time in life childhood was for them.  

Thank you for reading.