Summer 2014, Condensed

 Never, in recent memory, have the spoils of the Summer Cinema been so fruitful. Summer proves a complicated time for cinefiles such as myself. Awards season drew to a close many months ago and the half-rate collection of spring releases finally complete their run. What are we to look forward to? BLOCKBUSTERS. Big-budget, ill constructed, entertainment pieces. I love a quality action film as much as any movie goer, but too often summer releases choose quantity over quality; a decision in my book, which is nothing short of a sin. The question arises how am I, as an advocate for The Art of the Film, suppose to enjoy the summer season when I know deep down I'm watching complete garbage? Says you the reader, "maybe you should stop being such a pretentious movie snob" and I the writer would happily agree; however, that proves difficult when you're drowning in a sea of loud, rude & crude, sloppy messes year after year.

  Fault can be found in any film if the viewer looks hard enough, but it so happens that the series of movies released in the Summer of 2014 were constructed well enough and were entertaining enough to disguise any obvious faults that usually plague similar releases. Despite that fact that I've seen more movies this summer than any other summer, my reviews failed to follow. I'll feed you excuses of work, work, work, tired, work, tired but DON'T accept them for an instant. My lack of in-depth  reviews, especially when I have such substance to delve into, is shameful. So here I sit, middle of August {NOW SEPTEMBER}, up to my eyeballs in un-reviewed films...what will I do? What any other short-on-time, behind-in-work reviewer would do...a list.

  My 2014 Summer Countdown consists of movies that I HAVE SEEN, released from May-August 12th September 7th, in no particular order.

  The Amazing Spider-Man 2

  My full review of the second install of the 2000-teens reboot can be found HERE and while the film suffed from a bloated story, too many villains, and several conveniently coincidental plot devices, I can't deny that I enjoyed Marc Webb's take on Spidey. Was the The Amazing Spider-Man 2 a complete set-up for a Marvel (as owned by Disney) esque attempt at The Sinister Six? Absolutely...Did I enjoy the pretty lights, slightly disturbing dub-step and non-sensical action? Yes. It was pure summer entertainment.

Godzilla

  Sadly my last fully reviewed movie was GODZILLA, all the way back in May. Shame on me. A film that I thought was shoe in for Summer's biggest hit ended up being one of the bigger disappointments. I fully enjoyed Gareth Edward's suspenseful, entertaining...disaster movie. There's the rub, I didn't enter the theater wanting a disaster movie, I wanted GODZILLA! KING OF THE MONSTERS! We the audience instead received roughly 20 minutes of screen time from the big brute and even less of Brian Cranston, another of the film's big draws. "High quality graphics and bone-rattling sound" remain high points as I reflect upon the film, but it's these attributions that may lessen the effect once viewed at home.

Maleficent

  Painful yet not without it's merits...what those merits are I have yet to realize. I found this film thoroughly adequate for the time I was viewing it, a rainy Saturday afternoon. Comical special effects, a predictable plot, and the dullest Disney Princess' to have ever graced the big screen remove Maleficent from possible Alice in Wonderland status, yet I didn't find myself hating it. A plethora of ridiculous design and theatrical elements blend the bad together so successfully I walked away content with my movie-going experience. Perhaps Angelina Jolie's cheekbones possess a seductive magic of their own.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

  Bryan Singer, it's good to have you back.  There's no denying, before First Class and Days of Future Past, the series had seen better days. Despite a disastrous conclusion to the original X-Men trilogy, studios still saw fit to torture audiences with a painful slew of origins stories. My complaints regarding the films before were their claustrophobic scripts, too much in too short of time; too many back stories, too many exceptions, too many mutants. The X-Men universe is vast, I understand this; however, by ascribing to quantity over quality the favorite characters that audiences are treated to are poorly represented. First Class AND Days of Future Past improve, but are not exempt from this problem. 

  Days of Future Past continues to introduce more and more mutants, touching on their skills but never fully showing the audience their extent. I enjoyed many of the these new characters, especially Evan Peter's Quick Silver and wish he would have played a larger role in the film. 

DOFP, like many of it's predecessors, carries an overly complicated story but one can see Bryan Singer truly TRYING, and for the most part succeeding, in simplifying that story. The action, accompanied by the many mutants skills, is thoroughly entertaining and is never the same sequence twice. DOFP best feature, without a doubt, is it's cast. The two sets of Professor Xs & Magnetos are expertly cast and deliver the emotional punch to counter the physical entertainment. 

Side note...Hugh Jackman may finally be growing out of his claws; while his portrayal of Wolverine is consistently spot on and amusing, I'd be fine with him passing the torch. 

Lucy

  You can't beat a bad script...add Scarlett Johansson's lack luster performance and a collection of Special Effects that look like they were generated on a Windows 98 screensaver and what you have was one of the worst films of the year. The half-hearted attempts at creating a unique "art house" action film feel prove futile; Lucy is a non-sensical snooze-fest that had me laughing from beginning to end...and this, ladies and gentlemen, was not a comedy. A barren script turns Johansson's character into an emotionless computer, giving audiences absolutely nothing to feed off of. There was an idea and I'm quite sure that idea was stolen from both Limitless and Transcendence. Johansson, a talented actress, is box-office gold, I highly suggest if you want to see her in a film of interest, giving a quality performance check out Under the Skin.

The Fault in Our Stars

  I do believe my friend and I were the only members of the audience not wearing yoga pants, PINK t-shirts and top knots to The Fault in Our Stars but we enjoyed it just the same. It's one thing for a film to cater to it's audience and another to make a film that can be appreciated by the general audience; I feel The Fault in Our Stars did just that. A story that very easily could have turned into a sappy tween fest stayed quirky, cool, and true enough for audience members of all ages. A considerable amount of cheese was encompassed by a fair amount of heart that anyone could connect to at least once. If you missed it in theaters, The Fault in Our Stars makes a solid at home watch...where no one will judge you for NOT crying.

Boyhood

  A fascinating and successful concept derived by director Richard Linklater, Boyhood shows the commitment of a director and his actors in creating a truly unique piece of cinema. 12 consecutive summers of filming with the same cast give the audience an intimate look into the life on an average American boy. The film doesn't preach nor is it particularly exciting, but watching a cast literally grow in front of our eyes keeps audiences interested and engaged.  Perhaps a half-hour too long, Boyhood is relatively a one note, low note, kind of film. That being said, I appreciate Linklater's execution in so fully capturing the life of middle class America. 

Guardians of the Galaxy

  I hesitate in reviewing this film upon fear I may blurt out something along the lies of THE GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY WAS BETTER THAN THE AVENGERS.

All Marvel movies carry their far share of imperfections and Guardians of the Galaxy is no exception, but it's charm, characters, and soundtrack won me over. Chris Pratt and Bradley Cooper's Rocket own this film and make it worth watching. Dave Bastia delivers a devastating performance and was the only questionable casting decision, the remaining supporting cast work their roles well, creating memorable characters. Fun, sexy, and beautifully designed, Guardians of the Galaxy surpasses Marvel's Avengers in more way that one. The movie's cast left me wanting more and it's costume designer, Alexandra Byrne, left me craving a red leather trench coat for fall.

The Dawn of the Planet of The Apes

  They kept it simple, they kept it dramatic, they kept it beautiful. Quality, very often is left by the wayside in Summer movie season however, The Dawn of the Planet of the Apes didn't sacrifice I single ounce and the result is the best movie of the summer. Visually alone, Dawn surpasses Rise of the Planet of the Apes released in 2011 and restores my faith in CGI centered films. The apes, not the humans are the central focus and had they looked anything other than perfect, the film would have failed. Thankfully, a stunning amount of time and effort were put into Dawn, creating over 15,000 jobs in the U.S. & Canada alone. The apes are not only believable, but indistinguishable...I had no idea if I was watching CGI, Make-up, real apes or possibly a combination of all three! Audience members who were impressed by James Cameron's Avatar should find Dawn vastly superior. Majority of the brilliant graphics are enhanced by Andy Serkis' performance as Caesar. Serkis' commitment and accuracy in portraying inhuman characters with such humanity is inspiring.  Visuals aside, screen writers kept the plot simple and director Matt Reeves demonstrated a unique eye for both emotional and action based scenes. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes plays well without relying on audiences knowledge of the previous film. A simple exposition presents the world and it's inhabitants to the audience and doesn't dwell on past events or characters. My expectations for Dawn were high and all were trumped. Seeing this film on the big screen was the cinematic treat of the Summer but because of its emotional nature, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes will play just as nicely on DVD or Blu-Ray.

 

Oz: The Great and Powerful

You know James Franco was high on set when he repeatedly called Glinda "Wanda" for a good 30 minutes of the film.

Directed By: Sam Raimi

Released: 2013

Starting: James Franco, Michelle Williams, Rachel Weisz, Mila Kunis, voice talents of Zach Braff & Joey King

Rated: PG

Times viewed: 1

   The fantasy genre has always been a favorite of mine and I'm always open to a new, exciting revisit of the classics; however, the original trailer for Oz: The Great and Powerful left me feeling anxious for several reasons. First, James Franco. I know he is a huge darling of many a young hollywood fan but in all honesty I find him as dry as the blunts he probably smoked during the filming of this movie. Are blunts dry? I don't really know...we'll say yes for simile's sake. Second was the visuals...As I've mentioned in previous post, I am not a huge fan of 3-D dependent films...but I figured since it is a FANTASY film along the lines of Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, it could be forgiven and James Franco ignored.
 Months pass and eventually my excitement to see Oz grew, so last tuesday night (it was a slow week) my friends and I made the journey to our local AMC. We bought our outrageously expensive tickets, popped on our hermetically sealed 3-D Ray Bans, and were prepared to be wowed by the spectacle of the Land of Oz!

     Overall Impression  
Oz: The Great and Powerful, while high on visual splendor proves to be lacking in script and quality acting.

  The biggest disappointment from this film was my expectation for it to be MORE than a children's movie. From the trailer it seems darker, scarier...just what Hollywood has been doing with recent remakes of classic children's stories, fairytales and fables (Red Ridding, Alice in Wonderland, and Hansel and Gretel) While there are definitely some very scary creatures including the Bad Witches flying baboons and the Green Witch herself, Oz is without a doubt a children's movie. I honestly had no clue going in to the film that it was rated PG and after seeing the flying baboons I was almost positive that it was PG-13...but then the last hour commenced and the sap started to flow.  

Would your 10 yr. old child be ok with this crazy creature reaching out of the silver screen? I don't think I could have handled it! 

  Once the audience scrapes past the intricate and impressive land of Oz filled with high chroma characters and iridescent fog and bubbles, they'll find the film itself is another watered down attempted to teach children that GOOD ALWAYS WINS...even if the man who get's you there is a total con artist.  The script is just sooo dumbed down filled with question, answer, question answer conversationa and lot's of "Look out! This way! Oh my goodness! There're behind us!" The whole film (concerning the script) verges on the edge of too literal to enjoy for an older audience. At least in a film like Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, Burton effectively utilizes some mature jokes and characters to engage his older audience and fan base.  Burton is the master at incorporating the morals of a children's film with the maturity of adult fantasy without catering too heavily to one or the other. Biggest examples Alice in Wonderland (which I'll compare to Oz a bit later in a visual aspect) Frankenweenie, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. 

  Now WHO was it that directed this film? SAM RAIMI. Sam, father of gore n' horror, RAIMI. How he convinced Disney to let him direct this movie I'll never know, but I feel like there could have been so much more from him. I feel, since he knew he would be dealing with a well known children's story, he had to dumb it down to avoid any type of backlash from the company and  parents alike. I suppose it's a bit unfair to compare Raimi to Burton..I mean let's be honest...Sam Raimi and Tim Burton operate on opposite ends of the horror scale. Tim creates the quirky, creepy characters, but never anything in the gore end of horror (save Sweeney Todd)...that's Sam's territory. The man creates whole movies around the concept of dismemberment and chainsaws. i.e. The Evil Dead. Perhaps they two should have a meeting and exchange notes...I love Tim Burton and after watching The Evil Dead 2 I've decided I kinda, sorta do like Sam Raimi and his cats in a box style of directing and creating. 

James Franco with Director Sam Raimi  on the set of "Oz: The Great and Powerful."
Is that the book of the dead you're reading Sam? 

So now I have you completely confused by my self contradictions "Oh it's too scary for children, but the story line is too dumbed down to be taken seriously by an older audience." I have to apologize, but honestly, I'm not sure WHO to recommend this movie to...The movie was easy to follow, not confusing, definitely fun to look at but THIS SCRIPT IS SO BAD! So I guess I'll start by giving you some of my positive reactions to the film first...

Visuals concepts, 3-D, & the first 45 minutes.

  As I've written before, this movie is gorgeous to look at. The opening credits are fantastic featuring optical illusions and such, all in mind bending black and white.  I really LOVED that when the film started in Kansas they used the same black and white color palette as well as the smaller screen ratio. The film didn't HAVE to be made this way...the creators could have assumed everyone knows the classic Wizard of Oz and will connect the Kansas in that film to the Kansas in this film but they used the same techniques anyway and I really appreciated that. What I also almost passed out over was (*small spoiler*) the girl who Oz was in love with in Kansas (also played by Michelle Williams) said that she was going to marry Frank(?) GALE. AS IN DORTHY GALE'S FATHER! 

And Disney was kind enough to put the beautiful opening credits on youtube! Even more impressive on the big screen in 3-D

A magical score by Danny Elfman makes me think if this really WAS a project intended for Tim Burton...

As stated numerous times, I am not a fan of 3-D being put in to films when it is NOT needed or movies that are primarily visual effects, HOWEVER for Oz it all works because this is set in a fantasy land that couldn't exist without the help of 3-D and CGI. Apart from several locations that look more like Wonderland than Wonderland did in Tim Burton's adaption, the set design behind this world is brilliant. I'll let the pictures speak for themselves.

  The humor in the first 45 minutes or so of this film is actually quite good. Franco (whom I don't care for) is overly theatrical, charming and a total con artist. Exactly who he should be. But then...after the Balloon has landed in Oz and Mila Kunis' character get's involved...it's all (apart from the visuals) down hill from there.

The Bad

The Acting

  Apart from James Franco, I had high hope for the cast of OZ. I mean, Michelle Williams? She's brilliant! And Mila Kunis proved in Black Swan that she is more than just Jackie. And Rachel Weisz is consistently engaging and believable. Sadly ALL fell apart due to a TERRIBLE script. Proof that bad writing and a bad story can lead to an over all bad movie and the impression of bad acting. I must say...Mila Kunis without a doubt is the WORST. I can't even describe how terrible she was...It was rage and pain but rage and pain that a high school student does in their sophomore one act play. It didn't help when she did turn truly evil and transformed into the wicked witch she looked like THIS...

LET'S MAKE HER AS LITERAL AS POSSIBLE!

I mean this LOOKS awesome right? Right...until she appears and opens her mouth.

Costuming

  This is my territory people and let me put on my Tim Gunn face and say this...EDIT PEOPLE EDIT!! There was just so much random crap thrown on EVERYONE, especially Rachel Weisz's character. Gorgeous, green sequin dress? Lets add feathers on your back AND shoulders AND a huge slit so you can wear leather leggings AND knee high boots! Just WHY!?

So the top I love...then as we go down it's a dress with leggings underneath and just WHY!? I can't explain.

  I feel like there was no turn direction or concept behind these costumes. No connecting thread...Glinda is dressed in half 1930s evening gowns and half Galadriel armor...Mila Kunis was an Equestrian Rider(I actually would have loved that in a different movie), then a 1950's debutant, then THEE most literal translation of "WITCH" If I ever saw one. Individually there are parts of each costume that were impressive but when brought together they just confuse the audience and don't give any inspiration to the true feeling of the land of Oz. Costuming is SO important to the overall feeling and continuity of a film...I feel Oz just assembled 3 different costumers, had them all make separate collections, then picked at random interesting pieces from each. If you read my review of Anna Karenina, you'll understand the importance of connection, continuity, and a solid concept in costuming.

I cringe because this ensemble has NO place in the film! It doesn't fit....

PLUS!!! #1 irritation, the people of Oz didn't where a spec of green!? Anger and sadness.

           GARY JONES...I'm coming after you...

Frankenweenie

The story of a boy, his dog, and every classic horror movie reference imaginable. I loved it. 

Directed by: Tim Burton

Released: 2012

Staring: The voice talents of- Charlie Tahan, Catherine O'Hara, Martin Short, Martin Landau, & Winona Ryder.

Rated: PG

Times viewed: 1

The answer is yes. Yes I am one of those crazed, obsessed Tim Burton fans. Yes, I USUALLY love anything that has is name tied to it in any way, shape, or form...except for Dark Shadows, I'm still trying to forget Dark Shadows. That movie brings up an interesting point. Tim Burton used to be one of those Directors that did basically whatever the hell he felt like, not really concerned if it gained him commercial success or not; however, the past couple years have been, in my opinion, on and off for Burton. First of all Dark Shadows. I did, sort of, enjoy the movie (I'm just going to say, there will never be a Tim Burton film I will not enjoy, he's just ingrained too deeply in my cinematic roots), it was what Burton does well, dark macabre romance as well as comedy, then then last 20 or so minutes was complete..ugh..I don't even know...just BAD. Special effects were bad, story was bad, just BAD. Maybe it was just Chloe Moretz character turning into that sad excuse for a werewolf. Not sure, but at some point it went wrong. Then there was Alice in Wonderland. I loved Alice in Wonderland, but it felt more like a Burton imitation, or perhaps one of his produced films...not a project that was SOLEY his. Sometimes I feel like Disney has a yoke on Burton and doesn't let him express his crazy, beautiful, deadly worlds in full force. The movie I'm going to discuss in this post, Frankenweenie is a perfect example of this restrainment.
  The 2012 stop motion horror nostalgia flick, as many now know, is not the only Frankenweenie. In 1984, Tim Burton was working for Disney as an animator and had the chance to make his own short, live action film. The product, Frankenweenie resulted in the firing of Burton from Disney due to his "wasting" of their  resources. The film tested poorly with young children and was not released until after Burtons rise to fame in early/mid 90's. Typical, way to go Disney.
Come 2010/2011 Disney released Burton's hugely successful take on Alice in Wonderland. The film won 2 Ocars: Costuming (Colleen Atwood) and Art Direction (Karen O'Hera & Robert Stromberg) and is currently the 13th highest grossing film of all time. (world wide) With this HUGE commerical success as well as his cult following, I think this is when Disney decided they should stop trying to control Burton because let's face it, whatever he does will make major dollars.
At this point I envision Tim saying, "Hey Disney! Remember that short you fired me for making back in the 80's because it was too scary for kids? ...Before I was a world wide phenomenon? Yey I'm gonna make it AGAIN! And I'm gonna make it MY WAY! (more death, more monsters, more horror references, MORE MONEY!" ...and that's basically what happened...now that he's made them millions and MILLIONS of dollars Disney's removed Burton's collar and pretty much lets him do whatever the hell he wants. Even create a MONSTER!!

Sparky(Frankenweenie) Who could be afraid of that face? He is ADORABLE!

  For those of us who love the Classic Universal horror films of the 30s/40s this film is jam packed with all kinds of references, easter eggs, and the same beautiful high contrast black and white cinematography we loved from movies like Frankenstein/The Bride of Frankenstein, Dracula, The Invisible Man, The Wolfman, The Mummy, and The Creature from the Black Lagood. Having seen all of these films quite a few times, I found myself inwardly screaming "Oh my gosh! It's the same lighting they used on Boris Karloff's face! Vincent Price-like Character! Elsa Van Helsing, as in Van Helsing the vampire hunter!" ect. ect. #FilmGeekProbs There is even a GREMLINS reference in there if you're paying attention. Hint, just add water ;) 

  All the nostalgia references is without a doubt the a sizable reason I had such an exceptionally positive reaction to this film. Burton's original live action short is good, but the time limit didn't allow him to put in all those great, little details and characters that propel Frankenweenie from average animated movie to the ultimate Horror tribute film...Come to think of it, Burton should have made this film for Universal...they would have gotten a lot more out of it...especially with the re-release/restoration of 8 of their greatest Monster classics see HERE! If I had $100+ that set would be MINE...jumping trains and getting back on track now. 

"Frankenstein" is the name of the doctor who creates The Monster...the monster itself is not Frankenstein...it's just The Monster....incase you didn't know. Basic plot, Victor Frankenstein is a shy, quiet boy who lacks many friends, but possesses a fantasmic imagination and a passion for directing monster movies...huh, who does that sound like? His only real friend is his loyal dog Sparky, who is horribly killed after chasing a home run baseball into the street. *Note to all fathers, never force your child into joining a baseball team in return for your signature allowing him to participate in the science fair.* Asshole. Your child is a scientific protégée and you want him swinging at balls (he clearly does not want to) when he could be curing cancer, just to make friends? He has a dog, leave him alone!

Victor Frankenstein voiced by Charlie Tahan

.......Anyway......after the death of his best friend Victor receives a jolt of inspiration via his Vincent Price-like science teacher, and plans to bring Sparky back through means of electricity and SCIENCE!

Victor's "lab" set up is truly wonderful! In order to conduct the massive amounts of lightening generated by New Hollands nearly constant night storms, Victor utilizes his mothers pots and pans, the christmas reindeer, hair driers, bicycles, every appliance in the kitchen (including the toaster and blender)  and a swing set. These tools radiating with electricity and the resounding snaps and zaps illuminate the same Frankenstein we saw in James Whale's 1931 version. This scene is truly fantastic and heartbreaking as much of the film proves to be. Losing any pet is hard, especially when that pet is your best friend; I think so many people now a days forget how strong a bond between a human and a pet can become over the years. Frankenweenie reminds us, weather we want to or not, the pain of loosing that best friend as well as the desperation of wanting, needing them back. Kenneth Branagh portrayed this beautifully in his 1994 adaption of the classic, a plot line emitted from the 1931 production. The Monster in lonely despair, kills Frankenstein's new bride in order for the doctor to bring her back for himself (The Monster). In 2012, ABC's hit fantasy show "Once Upon A Time" also took on the theme of lost love and resurrection with it's own interpretation of Frankenstein. In the episode The Doctor, Frankenstein does not reanimate any old corpse, The Monster turns out to be that of his recently deceased brother. 

Not magic, but science. David Anders portrays Victor Frankenstein on this season's Halloween episode of Once Upon A Time 

Inevitably, Victor's secret is discovered and everyone wants a piece of his project. The things these children are will to do to win a science fair is quite terrifying....or perhaps it's just the children themselves who are (hilariously) terrifying. First to try to steal the secret is Edgar 'E' Gore. A hunchback little creep with an infinity for wringing his disproportioned, skeleton-like hands. You'd think that he (being Egore in a sense) and Victor would be friends right? Not really the case.

Edgar 'E' Gore voiced by Atticus Shepard

  As in any Tim Burton film, there must always be one fat boy in a stripped shirt. In Frankenweenie that boy is Bob, faithful friend but more like experimental subject of Toshiaki. The creepy asian who rivals Victor in scientific study and throws a mean curve ball. Not racist at all...

Bob. Voiced by Robert Capron

Toshiaki. Voiced by James Hiroyuki Liao

Next in the group of Victors..."Friends" is Nassor. Who basically IS Frankenstein's Monster. Quite obviously. I was a bit surprised they used this design for a competing character when it's very clear from the title and story that Victor is ...Victor Frankenstein and Sparky is "The Monster." Having a character inspired by another horror monster, say Dracula, would have added to the diversity of the characters and references. In the end it proved not to be a very big deal and the character was still very Monster-like.

Huge applause to Martin Short for voicing 3 different characters, Nessor included.

The ghostly "Weird Girl" and her cat Mr. Whiskers, to me, are the scariest things in Frankenweenie. Not only scary but quite funny. The girl reading Mr. Whiskers poop is hilarious and her freaked out face is reminiscent of The White Zombie or perhaps The Daughter of Dracula. Another great reference character. 

Again, cheers to Catherine O' Hara for voicing "Weird Girl" as well as 2 other characters. 

 The Final counterpart and possibly Victors only real friend not to mention possible love interest is Elsa Van Helsing. Not only is she VAN HELSING, Elsa is voiced by Winona freakin' Rider who hasn't worked with Burton since Edward Scissorhands. What's up with that!? Get back together! Elsa's poodle is fabulous not only because she, later in the film, sports some hot Bride of Frankenstein hair, but is also named Persephone. Greek demi godess wife of Hades lord of the underworld. Mythology spasm!

Elsa Van Helsing and Sparky's love Persephone.

  After discovering his secret to creating life beyond the grave, Victor's science fair competitors plan to electrify their own deceased pets and take first prize. This is were more classic horror monster madness ensues! All but Elsa resurect the likes of Shelly (a nod to Mary Shelly) the Godzilla like turtle, Nessor's dead hamster turned into the creeping incarnation of The Mummy...poor thing doesn't get far, The furry werewolf from Nightmare Before Christmas makes an appearance as Edgar's Wererat, and Bob creates an uncontrollable army of sea monkeys (Think Creature from the Black Lagoon meets Gremlins) Annnd the weird girl...well Mr. Whiskers is simultaniously incineracted and conjointed with the likes of a vampire bat. Creating......The emaciated version of Richard Roxburgh's Dracula from the 2004 film Van Helsing.

Well that's uncanny!

  Destroying these monsters one at a time leads to the 3rd tear inducing scene where, mirroring the 1931 flim, Victor is almost killed in a fiery windmill death. Sparky rescues him at his own cost. I'm NOT going to tell you weather the folks of New Holland find it in their hearts to save Sparky or if they choose to let him die; teaching Victor a lesson on life, death, loss, and love. Let me just tell you this scene had me BAWLING! Not just tear, tear, I mean rivers of salt water pouring onto my chest.

 I lost my own best friend when I was in 9th grade and let me tell you that was not easy. Indy had been there basically my whole life. We got her when she was a pup and I was two; we grew up together. She was beautiful, a black lab-huskey mix. She loved to be outside, hunting, running around on my neighbors porch when she wasn't suppose to, and being a ham! Just like Victor, I loved playing scenes with my dog. I would dress Indy up in the most ridiculous costumes and that poor dog put up with it! I wish I was at home because I have a whole album of photo shoots I did with her. I thought she would always be there, so when she got sick and had to be put down my freshman year I didn't take it very well. As I've said in previous posts, I didn't have many friends 5th-8th grade so I'd go home and talked to my dog. Sounds dumb but honesty, she was my best friend in my pre-teen years. Here are some pictures of Indy...I think should would have made a good Frankenweenie. She's got the color scheme and a bit of the creepy look.

Queen of the castle! Always watchful

Look at that face! What a beauty! 

Well, maybe not always...but she had personality! 

This was about a month or two before she died :( Even when she got really fat, and turned orange she was my favorite.

  Tim Burton has expressed in interviews that he wrote this story was because he himself lost a dog when he was younger and had problems coping. I believe this to be a big reason why the movie works so well emotionally. I mean let's face it, this basically IS Tim Burton loosing his dog and doing what couldn't be done. Heartbreaking and glorious.

  This movie was FANTASTIC! It was what Tim Burton does best. BEING TIM BURTON. By drawing inspiration from Hollywood's past, he creates a league of lovable misfits and their monsters. As there must be in all Disney movies, there are life lessons about love, loss, parents accepting their children, misunderstanding science and so on, but no to the point where it's overly cheesy and ridiculous. What else can I say? This is a MUST watch for children and adults of all ages. The older generation will love it for is humorous, accurate reference of the classics, and kids will love it because of it's ADORABLE leading dog and goofy characters. I can say some smaller children might be a bit off put by some of the monsters and the kids, but nothing a good rewatch can't solve.
  I truly PRAY this film ignites a whole new generation's interest and passion for those classic movies that have shaped horror movies, monsters, heroes, and villains into what they are today. Men like Burton, who hold true to the classics and attempt to bring them to light in darkly unoriginal days like this, continue to inspire me. And if that can be done through a "children's film, then bravo. Bravo sir. The greatest original creates spawn from somewhere, an ever evolving chain that links our present to our past. Corporations like Disney must be careful about the talents they choose to support or not support. A missed window of opportunity can change not only the future of cinema, but culture as a whole. Don't believe me? Think of Hot Topic, now imagine Hot Topic WITHOUT any Tim Burton merchandise. This is a small trivial example but to think that an entire sub group of pop culture has been created by ONE man's work is extraordinary.

Enjoying some Valentines chocolate with my own Sparky! ...And Johnny Depp? Well this is a Tim Burton post!