MisterGlass Reviews

Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)

Fun, Slightly Campy Throwback

[18 April 2021]

I waited a couple of months to see this to have some objectivity about it. On the whole it was a diverting couple of hours. This is an 80s super hero movie with a modern budget and effects. There is 80s atmosphere, and 80s motivations. There is magic, and there is camp.

There are things I would change. There is a scene of questionable consent which should have been avoided. Additionally, I think it started slow, and the opening flashback was not necessary.

The Dresden Files (2007–2008)

Great Potential in the Dresden Files (Minimal Spoilers)

[21 April 2007]

I hope to see this series renewed for a second season.

The world of Harry Dresden is a rich, imaginative universe, full of gray tones that deserve to be explored further. The characters and creatures are fascinating, the scenarios well written, and the visuals impressive.

Most appealing of all is the acting, particularly that of Blackthorne and Mann as Harry and Bob. They play off each other with perfect timing, whether for comedy, action, or intense drama. It's a brilliant pairing of actors with characters.

As with all first seasons, there was imperfection. Moments that lacked clarity, characters that lacked dimension. But as the Dresden Files progressed through its brief 12 episode run, the improvement was staggering. Actors grew into their roles, dialogue sharpened, and editing improved.

This is a good show. It could become even greater. It's worth saving.

The Black Cat (1934)

Horror at its most elegant.

[5 October 2004]

Possible Spoilers.

This film came out in 1934, as the horror genre was rapidly coming into its own. It should disappoint neither the true horror fan nor the casual watcher.

It features the intricate story of a newly released prisoner of war who is preparing to seek revenge on the man that caused his imprisonment and stole his family. The tale transpires in an art deco mansion built on the site of a fallen WWI battlement, designed and built by the villain.

The plot involves Satanism, murder, and hypnotism. It whirls around the two central enemies in a lyrical play. The atmosphere is aided by an excellent score, and wonderful acting by Karloff and Lugosi.

Highly recommended entertainment.

Dogma (1999)

So close to being good.

[19 July 2004]

Spoilers

This movie should have been a roaring success.

To begin with, it had an inventive script. From angels banished to Wisconsin, to a modern idol in the form of a golden calf cartoon character, to God's voice being to powerful for human ears and using a cynical intermediary angel, this plot has religious knowledge and wit to spare. The swearing is overdone, but even them some intelligence shines through.

It had an excellent cast, perfectly chosen and in general good at their parts. Affleck, Lee, and Rickman are the best, but the others are more than passable.

I blame the director's childish approach to his own material. Rather than focusing on the available intellectual possibilities, he prefers to insert childish, profane, and sex obsessed supporting characters who detract from rather than add to the comic relief. Additionally the pacing comes in jarring starts and stops.

Still worth a look, but should have been an excellent film, not a so-so romp.

Son of Frankenstein (1939)

Better than expected

[13 July 2004]

Spoilers

Traditionally, the farther along the line of follow-ups a movie is, the less likely it will be entertaining. This film is the sequel of a sequel, so I watched it with low expectations. I was pleasantly surprised at how good it actually turned out to be.

It picks up at least 25 years after the great Bride of Frankenstein left off. The original Baron Doctor has just died, and his eldest son has come home to the family estate to take over. There he discovers unfriendly villagers, an intelligent constable, Ygor, and the hidden monster. The script is cohesive and quite witty at times, focusing on the relationships between the characters. Beware, the monsters role is smaller in this film, more a supporting character to the more dramatic leads.

The great draw back to this film is the low-budget scenery. The castle looks like, and may have been, the inspiration for the demented architecture in Beetlegeuse, breaking the atmospheric rhythm of the past two films.

The great strength of this film, and an unusual one for the horror genre, is the acting, which ranges from fair to excellent on occasion. The cast including Basil Rathbone, Lionel Atwill, and Boris Karloff, seem comfortable with their roles, and are generally convincing in them. However, the great stand-out is Bela Lugosi. His performance as Dracula may be his most remembered, but he also deserves recognition for this turn as the humorous and sly lab assistant.

A must for those who love Young Frankenstein.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Alakazam

[14 June 2004]

Spoilers within.



Beautiful adaptation of the third Harry Potter movie makes significant omissions but still remains faithful to the Harry Potter spirit.

In this film Harry and his friends return to school shortly after the escape of Sirius Black, a prisoner of Azkaban. He was considered the greatest supporter of You-know-who, and the ministry of magic believes that he wants to kill the one who brought an end to Voldemort's reign: Harry.

Cuaron, in his first outing as a Harry Potter director, moves the world of Hogwarts farther away from the kiddie depth where it has at times been placed. The students are growing up, and getting ready to face real danger. The atmosphere is softer and more accepting of magic as a reality, not an oddity. We see students going to classes, talking with friends, getting into trouble. It no longer feels as though Harry, Ron, and Hermione are the only students of importance. In the boggart scene we see other pupils taking an active role, and doing it well. It's his attention to detail, from werewolf scars to talking heads, that keep us enthralled.

The acting has improved somewhat also. The younger actors have grown into their roles well, and have excellent instincts about their characters. The adult actors still dominate in some scenes, particular the climax. David Thewlis as Lupin is not physically what one might have expected for the werewolf professor wasting away under his curse, but his performance is fantastic. He displays the spirit of a teacher and a friend with grace. Gary Oldman as Sirius is also a great addition. There isn't time for the brooding Sirius of the novel, but Oldman still captures the essence a good, long-suffering man trying to keep a grip on his sanity. And Alan Rickman as Snape shines as always, delivering the films greatest lines.

Computer effects are less obtrusive and more genuine. You can almost reach out and touch Buckbeak or the werewolf.

The only real disappointment is Wormtail, played as a literal rat, not a sneak and a traitor.

Overall, a great film.

Troy (2004)

Somewhat lacking

[5 June 2004]

Possible Spoilers.

Troy is certainly not a bad movie. It is an interesting subject, and the special effects are excellent. However, it lacks the weight that an epic should have. The characters are superficial due to the number of them present, and the story fails to engage.

The film tells the story of the attack on Troy by the Greeks after Helen, the wife of Menelaus is taken from Sparta by Prince Paris of Troy. Those who have read the Iliad will notice differences between the it and the film. Most noticeable among the variations is that while the Trojan War is said to have lasted for 10 years, the battles depicted seem to last only a few weeks. Also, the ending for the Trojans is far more uplifting, with Hector's family, Helen, and Paris all escaping. While the alterations will disturb those tightly in love with the Iliad, they are necessary to bring this story to the screen at a running length less than 4 hrs.

Achilles, played by Brad Pitt, is the official star. Everyone comes second to him, but Pitt's rendering of the great hero makes you wonder why. Yes, Achilles is known for his self-importance and arrogance, but he should also seem dangerous enough to be respected, and this just isn't the case. Two dimensional as Achilles is, the other characters aren't much more memorable. The actors play their parts appropriately, but not with distinction. Peter O'Toole as Priam leaves the only real lasting impact.

As mentioned previously, the special effects of the battle scenes are superb. The costuming is also wonderful. However these are not enough to save Troy from mediocrity. The film is decent, but not what a great legend should be.

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

Visual Masterpiece

[3 June 2004]

Spoilers within.

Eye-popping grandeur mark this version of Dracula. The atmosphere and the costumes are fantastic, giving a look so realistic it pulls the audience into the film. The same can be said for the make-up effects, which are truly scary at times. The transformation of Dracula from an ancient man who looks as though the dust he is made of is about to return to the floor, to a batlike creature, to a sadistic wolf-man monster shows what can be gone without the overuse of computer graphics.

The acting is passable in most cases, even superb in some. Anthony Hopkins is an ideal Van Helsing, reciting the oddest phrases as though they were perfectly natural. He embodies the quirky but righteous character so well remembered from the novel. He is a worthy adversary to Gary Oldman's count. Oldman gives Dracula humanity as a lost and lonely immortal who misses and is trying to find love. The only really poor acting comes from Keanu Reeves as Johnathon Harker. His accent is distracting, and he reads his lines rather than making them interesting.

The story deviates widely from the book at times, but not to its detriment. It is fascinating to watch Dracula trying to find the love he misses so much, the woman who killed herself when she thought he had died, as revealed in the opening flashback.

This version is not for the faint, being frightening in places and intensely sexual, but it is a work of art.

Drácula (1931)

Good movie

[28 May 2004]

Though it lacks the power of the Lugosi version, this is still an entertaining film. Even though both versions had in the same basic script and sets, the Spanish version tends to make better use of them. The Lugosi film lacks some of the atmosphere provided by the director of this version.

However, there can be no argument that the casting of the lead is what makes the English film seem superior. Lugosi had the presence, the elegance, and the power to play an immortal and hypnotic monster. His Spanish counterpart has good technical ability, but he lacks Lugosi's charisma.

I also feel that some of the supporting characters, Renfield in particular, lack the personality found in the English version. Still, a good movie, and well worth seeing along with the other version.

Dracula (1931)

I bid you velcome.

[28 May 2004]

This is the great talking Dracula. It is not an exact filming of the Bram Stoker novel, but rather an adaptation of the popular Dracula stage play. However, potential viewers should not be discouraged, particularly if they have seen other Universal Horror Classics like the Invisible Man and Frankenstein.

Bela Lugosi as the title role gives a magnificent performance, often parodied, but rarely equaled. Every movement he makes, every syllable he speaks conveys the character. The supporting cast are also excellent, lead by horror character actor Dwight Frye and stage performer Edward van Sloan.

The only unfortunate part of the film is that these wonderful actors received sub-standard direction. The film is great, but with a more skilled horror director, James Whale for example, it could have been even more. See for instance the Spanish version, which has a better director, but a lesser leading man.

I highly recommend this movie.

My Fair Lady (1964)

Timeless and Classic

[26 May 2004]

A witty and touching musical, My Fair Lady shines 40 years after it was first made. It touches even the most cynical viewer with its warmth and humor. The film takes place in early twentieth century London, where it comments on love and class distinction. It follows flower-seller Audrey Hepburn as she makes a deal with a language expert, Rex Harrison, to teach her to "talk more genteel." Both get more than they bargained for. The lead performances are fantastic, particularly Harrison as the exacerbating Professor Higgins, and Stanley Holloway as Alfie Doolittle, an original moralist indeed. Their charm combined with the Edith Head costumes and the wonderful Lerner/Lowe music make this film a must see.

Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942)

Star Spangled Masterpiece

[26 May 2004]

This is a somewhat fictionalized retelling of the life of George M. Cohan, an esteemed author and the writer of such songs as "You're a Grand Old Flag" and "Over There." It is a war movie, but it comes across as a moving cry for patriotism and pride in America. James Cagney plays Cohan in what may have been his greatest screen role. He brings amazing energy to the part, showing care in his acting and his dancing to convey Cohan's wit and showmanship. He also demonstrates real tenderness in the more emotional moments of the show. The great show tunes and supporting characters combine with Cagney's performance to create the first musical that I ever enjoyed. It is one of those wonderful films that makes you cry with joy at the end.