The Bride of Frankenstein Review

The Bride of Frankenstein is a very misleading title for this film. The story picks up from where the first Frankenstein movie left off (as told by author Mary Shelley). The monster survives the wood mill fire and once again goes on a rampage against the small town. Meanwhile, the mysterious Dr. Pretorious seeks to recruit Dr. Frankenstein for another unorthodox experiment—to make a bride for the monster. Dr. Frankenstein is reluctant to this scheme, for he is now married and he wants to be rid of his past life. Dr. Pretorious is persistent on the matter. He takes extreme measures to force Frankenstein into his doings, whether it be kidnapping his wife or having people murdered. In one pivotal scene, he shows Frankenstein a collection of small persons in lab jars to persuade him. Pretorius is amused by his creations. He remarks, “Sometimes I wonder if we are all devils.” This shows not only his disregard to religion, but also his obsessed desire to play God.

Though the crazed scientist plays a part in this movie, the primary focus is on the monster. While the prequel focuses on the terror the monster unleashes, this film sheds a whole new light on him. Rather than a relentless murderer, he is depicted as a confused child. When people scream at him, he does not know how to react. As a result, many of the people he kills are either by accident or in self-defense. The monster is also misunderstood. In one scene, he jumps into a pond with the intent of saving a young woman from drowning. As soon as she screams, nearby bystanders see him as attacking her rather than saving her. From this misinterpretation of the townspeople, the monster becomes a hapless victim.

The only person he finds any solace in is an old blind hermit that lives in the forest. Not being able to see what the monster looks like, he takes him in with open arms. Though the hermit cannot literally see the monster, he sees what is beneath the disfigured bulk…a lost, tormented soul that seeks friendship. Their first encounter is very moving, especially when the hermit professes to God that he has “brought two of thy lonely children together.” Both shed tears, revealing their unconditional joy of finding a friend in one another. Additional power that relies in this moment is an orchestrated version of Ave Maria. It is subtle; yet present enough to build more emotion in such an important part of the film.

The scene that follows is touching. The hermit teaches the monster how to talk, smoke cigars, drink wine, and even identify what is good or bad. I will note that it is humorous to watch as the monster speaks, for his words are rudimentary and slowly delivered like the alien in Spielberg’s E.T. Even so, this is a newly changed monster. He is more human than creature. Eventually, he is torn away from his new friend and ends up under the influence of Dr. Pretorius. Frankenstein and Pretorius do succeed in making the monster’s bride, but proves to be a bad delivery. When the bride lays eyes on the monster, she shrieks, terrified of him.

His bride proves that love and friendship cannot be created in a lab. Friendships are made by individuals who can accept you for who you are, not what you look like. The bride also proves that man’s power to play God leads only to failure. These are the essential themes to this film. This is what makes The Bride of Frankenstein a great movie. Its plot and hidden messages go beyond the typical 1930s horror flick.

Rashomon Review

The film Rashomon is a relatively simple story about the recollections of four individuals who testify to a rape of a woman and a samurai’s murder. There’s the bandit (Tishorio Mifune), the samurai (Masayuki Mori), the samurai’ wife (Machiko Kyo), and the woodcutter (Takashi Shimura). Each of their own perspectives is told through flashback, and leads the viewer down a path of wonder and keen interest. When the film draws to a close, the plot does not resolve itself. We do not know who is telling the truth. Nor do we know the fate of the accused bandit and the helpless widow. It is entirely up to the viewer to decide which character is telling the truth (if they even are). That’s the beauty of this film. I have my own theory of what happened, but another viewer may not agree with me. That’s the lesson director Akira Kurosawa successfully makes with this film. Every person has his or her own perspective. As a result, each individual will see something different within this movie.

Unlike some of Kurosawa’s later work like The Seven Samurai or The Hidden Fortress, Rashomon is not a fast-paced movie. Much of the slow pace has to deal with Kurosawa’s famous use of the long take. There are many shots in which the camera lingers on one character as he or she delivers some form of action. One scene that comes to mind is when the bandit is shown killing the samurai. As he slowly creeps towards his victim, the camera tracks him until he makes his final deathblow. Some may argue that the long take, especially in this scene, draws out the action much longer than necessary. In my opinion, it works very well. The use of the long take in this scene emphasizes the tension and intensity that the bandit experiences right before he murders the samurai. His gritted teeth and bulged eyes show that he is not very accustomed to murder, despite his profession as a thief.

The acting is pretty thorough when it comes to Tishorio Mifune and Masayuki Mori. Mifune is an icon for exaggerated emotion. His over the top, devilish laugh, and his intense facial expressions work perfect for him as the merciless bandit. Masayuki Mori is subtler as the samurai. He does not have many lines, but much of his accomplishment derives from his facial expressions. This is particularly noteworthy when he watches as his wife is being violated before his eyes. There is such an anger and passion in his face during this scene that it borders on frightening. I was not impressed with Machiko Kyo as the samurai’s wife. This is very apparent when she taunts both the bandit and the samurai as being weak. Her constant screeches and ridiculous laughter in this scene was enough to make me feel nauseated. Takashi Shimura as the woodcutter did not do much for me either. He merely told his side of the story and adopted an abandoned infant at the end of the film.

A bigger problem I had with this movie is the fight scenes. I understand that this film was made sixty years ago, but the choreographed battles between the bandit and the samurai are laughable. It is pretty bad to watch as both a bandit and a samurai constantly fall over during a duel as if they were drunk. It is even harder for me to watch as they throw leaves at one another. Weren’t samurai supposed to be skilled martial artists as well as brilliant swordsmen? I guess not for this movie.

In my concluding opinion, Rashomon is a decent film. It is not for the average audience, for there is little action and even less humor. It is not popcorn-loving entertainment. Rather, Rashomon makes the audience think about the plot’s ambiguity and decide for themselves what is true and false.

For the Love of Movies Review

For the Love of Movies is an insightful documentary about film critics. It explores from the early 1900s of cinema to the present day. The most memorable critics the documentary lingers on are Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris as well as their little war between one another over the auteur theory. In all honesty, director Gerald Perry depicts Kael as an antagonist and Sarris as a victim. The footage shown of Kael gives me the impression that she is pompous, arrogant, and full of herself. The fact that Andrew Sarris mentions that Pauline Kael personally attacked his writing via a written letter makes her anything but admirable. Unfortunately, she cannot defend her opinions since she has been dead for some time. We can only hear the opinions of other critics. Many loved her while others despised her.

A bigger issue the documentary brings to light is the fate of film critics via the Internet. I’ve known for years that print media is going away and film critics along with it. Multiple magazines and newspapers have gone out of business because of the Internet. Even so, the documentary poses the question: what is the fate of movie critics? Due to the Internet, any individual can start a blog and write about a film he/she loves or hates. As an IMDB member, I am one of those millions of people. I consider myself a film critic, but I am not a paid professional. I write about movies because I love them! As a result of this, the line between amateur and professional is blurred. Which type of critic should the masses read and believe in?

The documentary also reveals that more youthful individuals are replacing the older critics like Roger Ebert and Gene Shalit. In part, this is because many of these older generations of critics have written pulverizing reviews of successful films. For instance, Roger Ebert gave Armageddon a very negative review, despite the fact that it was a huge draw for the public. This implies that older critics cannot keep up with or understand the new generation of movies and as a result, more youthful critics are replacing them. This has been seen before back with the 1967 release of Bonnie and Clyde. Many old time critics in that period bashed it because of its graphic depiction of violence. However, young critics at the time like Pauline Kael loved it. This shows that the cycle of movie critics has to change and realign with the current zeitgeist of cinema. If a critic cannot do this, then he or she is outdated. This once again blurs the line of which type of critic a person should believe in, the young blogger or the old, esteemed critic.

The documentary itself is well done. It has a variety of interview subjects and gives a thorough, in-depth analysis of the reign of the movie critics. I particularly like the tight close up shots of the interview subjects. This creates a sense of closure and intimacy with the interviewee. If the interviews were composed of medium or long shots, there would have been a sense of distance. This feeling of intimacy that I experienced would have been non-existent.

There are some minor technical quirks that I had problems with. Some of the sound recordings in the interviews were a bit hot, especially the Jonathan Rosenbaum interview. I could hear what he was saying, but his voice bordered on being distorted. The editor also used the fade to black technique too much. This was very unnecessary for it creates false endings; each one made me think the movie was over. Only one fade to black is needed, and that is for the very end.

Despite these technical faults, For the Love of Movies is an informative, well thought out, and fun documentary. It goes at a slow, steady pace, but it is not dull. I learned much from it and I was also entertained by it. For film buffs, movie historians, and any other individual who has an interest in cinema, this is a real treat.