A Streetcar Named Desire: The 1995 Television Movie

A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE (1995)

The 1951 film adaptation of Tennessee Williams' sultry tale of the steamy South featured almost all the original cast from the Broadway production (Vivien Leigh had played her role in the London West End version). Similarly, the 1995 television adaptation of A Streetcar Named Desire brought back the two leads from the 1992 Broadway revival. As such, I figure that Jessica Lange and Alec Baldwin gave the same performances in the television movie that they gave on stage. Therefore, I am left slightly perplexed on why both were held in such high regard. 

Southern belle Blanche DuBois (Jessica Lange) has taken that streetcar named Desire to visit her sister, Stella Kowalski (Diane Lane). Blanche might stay a spell with her sister and brother-in-law. That does not sit particularly well with Stella's husband, Stanley (Alec Baldwin). He is displeased at Blanche's grand airs and graces. She finds him common. 

Amongst his poker buddies, only Harold Mitchell or Mitch (John Goodman) seems remotely decent. Stella, pregnant, is not going to leave Stanley. Even after Stanley strikes her, Stella will stand by her man. Mitch finds Blanche enchanting. Blanche, however, is no demure damsel in distress. She is a ho, fo sho. The war between Stanley and Blanche continues. The Mitch-Blanche romance disintegrates, as does Blanche's mind. A shocking act by Stanley will finally break Blanche. Will she continue to depend on the kindness of strangers?

It is the most curious thing with this adaptation. I did not find this A Streetcar Named Desire to be bad. I was not cringing at the performances. Instead, what I saw was a group of talented actors doing respectable but not necessarily great work. Jessica Lange was appropriately delicate as the world keeps fighting against her. I did think that her voice at times was perhaps too breathy. It was as if she decided that speaking like Marilyn Monroe would show how vulnerable she was. I did not quite buy her faux-refined manners. I figure that, yes, Blanche was always putting on something of a performance no matter what. However, Lange was not as hysterical or fragile as I think Blanche should be.

She did well when working with John Goodman and Diane Lane. Goodman, who like Lange and Alec Baldwin were Emmy-nominated for their performances, was the standout. He fit the role quite well. Goodman was gentle throughout. When he was meant to be a little more assertive with Blanche, one sensed through Goodman's performance that Mitch still wanted to be gentle with her. 

Lange also did well with Lane's Stella. She made her unbridled yearning for Stanley plausible. She was also strong when defending Blanche against her brutish husband.

Overall, I found Jessica Lange decent but not convincing.

Less convincing was her antagonist. Unlike Lange, Alec Baldwin received a Tony nomination for his Stanley Kowalski. He, like Lange and Goodman, also received an Emmy nomination for recreating his role. With all that said, I wondered why he got any recognition to begin with. I found Baldwin's Stanley to be surprisingly restrained, almost apologetic. There is, for example, when he rails against the DuBois sisters for continuously calling him a Polack and dirty. I figure that this is a moment of rage, uncontrollable rage against their tag-teaming in their grand airs. 

As performed by Alec Baldwin, I thought that Stanley Kowalski was about to cry. I did not see any fire or ferocity in his performance. I can't say that Alec Baldwin was miscast, especially as he played the role on Broadway. I did think that he was rather pretty to be someone that gritty. Stanley does not have to be ugly. He, however, should not be thought of as pretty. Rugged, virile, but not pretty. It is, to be fair, not established where Stanley originates from. However, I think Baldwin's Nuw Yawk accent seemed out of place here in the Big Easy. 

One aspect that was surprising was when Baldwin as Stanley removed his shirt to reveal his very hirsute torso. It was to where his chest hair made it look as if he was wearing a vest. 

As a side note, Baldwin was the only Tony nomination that the 1992 A Streetcar Named Desire revival received. It makes one wonder what the American Theater Wing and Broadway League so disliked about this revival to skimp out on recognition. 

One of the elements that brings down this A Streetcar Named Desire is Glenn Jordan's directing. Put aside how sometimes almost the whole cast seemed a bit mannered. Some of his choices were just odd. In the climactic moment when Mitch presents Blanche's sordid past to her, she calls out, "I don't want realism. I want magic!". Yet, for reasons that I cannot guess at, Jordan opted to have us look not at Lange's Blanche but at Goodman's Mitch. I cannot comprehend why Jordan decided that Lange did not merit even a two-person shot at Blanche's slow unraveling. Instead, we needed to keep our eyes on Goodman. 

At the birthday party, Jordan seemed rather fond of moving the camera all over. It soon became rather silly seeing them almost like in a merry-go-round.

It is difficult to look on this A Streetcar Named Desire without thinking of the 1951 film version. It is doubtful that any filmed production will match that adaptation. This version is respectable if flawed.   

6/10

Frankenstein (1931): A Review (Review #2135)

FRANKENSTEIN (1931)

There have been many adaptations of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein since its publication. Film has given us quite a few. Some have stayed close to the source material. Others have been eccentric if not downright exaggerations. Only one, however, has been so impactful that we still think of it when we think of the mad scientist and his creation. The 1931 adaptation stands above all pretenders and challengers as the definitive version. It may not match the novel. However, it still is the standard by which all other Frankenstein adaptations are measured to. 

Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) has been graverobbing. It is not treasure that he is after. It is cadavers. He is bent on bringing life from death. Henry has cut himself from his family and friends. His only company is Fritz (Dwight Frye), his hunchback assistant who stole a brain for the bad doctor's monstrous creation. Fritz, however, did not notice that it was a criminal's brain.

In desperation, three people force their way into Henry's isolated castle/laboratory. There is his fiancée, Elizabeth (Mae Clarke). There is their mutual friend Victor Moritz (John Boles). The last person is Henry's former mentor, Dr. Waldman (Edward Van Sloan). The latter in particular has been long alarmed at Henry's mad plans. Henry, however, is enraged that anyone would think him mad. He almost mockingly has them witness his experiment, which proves shockingly successful. "IT'S ALIVE! IT'S ALIVE!" Henry declares.

And his Creature (Boris Karloff) is very much alive. He is hideous in form but innocent in manner. However, the Creature is met with hostility and cruelty by those around him. Fritz in particular taunts the frightened Creature with fire. However, things take a turn when Fritz goes one step too far. Henry and Waldman are convinced that the Monster must be destroyed. The Monster, however, will not go quietly.

Henry has a breakdown. Fortunately, this is good as it allows him to finally marry Elizabeth. The Monster, having escaped, causes unintended deaths just as the German town is set to celebrate the nuptials. Will the tragic death of a child be avenged? Will Elizabeth live to see her wedding day? Will the monster and his maker be destroyed?

Frankenstein, despite the pre-title warning, is not frightening. I do not think it would be considered so nowadays. What it is, instead, is deeply atmospheric. A lot of things are suggested but have just enough to shock us. Take for example, Fritz's demise. We hear Fritz's scream and then come upon his hanging shadow. It is enough to shock us. Director James Whale also does wonderful work when the Creature crashes Elizabeth's boudoir. 

He puts the audience ahead of Elizabeth by having us see the Monster. As he comes closer, she keeps slipping away from him. This builds up the tension and suspense until she finally sees him. The cutting between her screams and his grunts punctuate this tense scene.

Whale also counterbalances the child's death with the jolliness of the wedding celebration. This leaves the viewer both shocked and saddened. The actual death of Little Maria (Marilyn Harris) was initially so shocking that it was cut in rereleases. Seeing it now restored, I can see how it must have startled viewers then. It is still a pretty distressing and disturbing sight. However, we now see that the Creature meant no harm and was as equally horrified by the unintended results.

Boris Karloff gives what I think will remain the definite interpretation of Frankenstein's Monster. His first appearance, highlighted by a series of cuts as we move in closer, is startling. Karloff makes the Creature a sympathetic character. He is an innocent, unaware of things. A brief moment when he sees sunlight and stretches his arms is surprisingly moving. 

That is not to say that Boris Karloff cannot be menacing. Given the film, I think we would have reacted as he did. Waldman did try to kill the Creature. He would be within his rights to preserve himself. As he rampages in a mix of revenge and desperate survival, one is both shocked and allied with the Creature. At the end when the Creature is dangling Henry, the villagers scream "There he is! The murderer!". Perhaps unintended, but I think that declaration applies more to Henry than to his Creature.

Frankenstein is almost universally well-acted. Colin Clive brings an unhinged intensity to Henry Frankenstein. His mad declarations of "IT'S ALIVE! IT'S ALIVE!" may have eventually come down to us as things to spoof or parody. However, it is indicative of the cultural impact of Frankenstein that people who have never seen the film know the reference. Dwight Frye seemed to specialize in oddball lunatics. Here, his Fritz (not the more popular "Igor") is crazed and rather frightening. Edward Van Sloan has great gravitas as Dr. Waldman, who is powerless to stop his former protégé. 

One thing that I do not think has been commented on as much is the surprising amount of humor in Frankenstein. This is through Henry's father, Baron Frankenstein (Fredrick Kerr). Playing more like a stuffy, befuddled Englishman than a German noble, Kerr has some of the best lines in the film. Attempting to curry favor with the Baron, a local official calls Henry "the very image of his father". "Heaven forbid", is the Baron's curt aside. 

The film is surprisingly short, running at a brisk 70 minutes. As such, a lot of material is left off from both the novel and various stage adaptations that Frankenstein drew from. I found that the film did not feel rushed or short in any way. 

Frankenstein will not frighten. What it will do, however, is leave a lasting impression. With a career-making performance from Boris Karloff, Frankenstein dominates the screen. 

DECISION: A+

A Big Bold Beautiful Journey: A Review

A BIG BOLD BEAUTIFUL JOURNEY

A good idea can somehow flounder in execution. Such is the case with A Big Bold Beautiful Journey. There are as many ideas running around A Big Bold Beautiful Journey as there are random doors in this universe. That is one of the film's many problems.

Single man David Langley (Colin Farrell) is off to a friend's wedding when his car is booted. Conveniently, there is a sign for "The Car Rental Agency" right where David can see it. The two attendants at the almost Kafkaesque facility (Phoebe Waller-Bridge and Kevin Kline) give him the only car available: a 1994 Saturn SL. They also push a GPS on him.

At the wedding, he finds Sarah (Margot Robbie). She and David have a conversation so opaque that it makes the dialogue between Frank Sinatra and Janet Leigh in The Manchurian Candidate sound like a Noel Coward comedy. On his way back home, the GPS starts talking to him, asking if he would like to go on "a big bold beautiful journey". David is pretty much pushed into doing so. That leads him to Burger King, where Sarah is also on "a big bold beautiful journey".

From here, David and Sarah travel through many doors, reliving their lives. They go to a Canadian lighthouse where David traveled alone. They go to a museum where Sarah and her late mother would visit after hours once a week. David relives his high school years when he confessed his love to his How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying costar. Sarah recreates an imagined visit to when her mother died while David sees his father (Hamish Linklater) when David was born. 

Things take a turn when they are in an accident and the car explodes. Desiring to go home, both end up in their past homes. David is his own father, Sarah's mother (Lily Rabe) sees her as her 12-year-old daughter. Will they find peace with their pasts and each other in the present?

I figure that A Big Bold Beautiful Journey had the very best of intentions. Seth Reiss' screenplay wanted to be whimsical. It wanted to be metaphysical. It wanted to be deep. It seems almost cruel to point out that A Big Bold Beautiful Journey was none of those things. Instead, A Big Bold Beautiful Journey ended up confused about itself. It wants to ground itself in some kind of reality while also being so removed from it. 

Sometimes the end results can be downright loony. Take when Sarah, accompanied by David, goes back in time to the hospital when her mother died. This is the actual dialogue between Sarah and Dr. Vernon (Joyce Guy).

Doctor: How is everything at school?

Sarah: I think at this point I was having an affair with my professor. Can we just get to it?

Doctor: Sure. Your mom passed away about an hour ago.

Sarah: Was she comfortable?

Doctor: She was comfortable.

Sarah: No pain?

Doctor: None.

Sarah: You're f---ing sure?

Doctor: I'm f---ing sure.

A Big Bold Beautiful Journey does not initially make clear until after this oddball exchange that this did not happen. At the time of her mother's passing Sarah was bonking her professor, Sarah tells us. The previous time travels, we are led to believe that they occurred as presented (the lighthouse, the museum, David as J. Pierpont Finch). This time, however, it was imagined. Perhaps our first clue should have been when Dr. Vernon does not react to Sarah's startling confession. The entire exchange, however, is so deadpan one wonders if director Kogonada wanted his actors to be so droll at what should be a traumatic moment. It does not make things, which already are taking more offbeat turns, look rational even in this fantasy world.

One cannot blame Kogonada alone for how jumbled and disjointed A Big Bold Beautiful Journey feels. The lion's share should go to Reiss' screenplay. We can be a bit generous in how David's car being booted was the catalyst for getting things started. We can be less generous in how a bizarre GPS that looks like a junior Hal-9000 is giving people directions and orders. Somehow, it makes David and Sarah look weak to be taking orders from the GPS (voiced by Jodie Turner-Smith). Frankly, I would be frightened by such a turn.

I'll walk that back a bit in that I would already have been frightened by "The Car Rental Agency" (as awful a name as has been created for film). Phoebe Waller-Bridges for reasons no one may ever understand spoke with a bizarre German accent and dropped F-Bombs with abandon. That usually led to "Female Cashier" laughing at her own wittiness. Kevin Kline was quite unrecognizable as "The Mechanic", but not in a good way. His sole scene was when he was at the "Timely Inn", where he looked disheveled and even confused. Creepy was the term that I wrote.

I think the "Timely Inn" is why A Big Bold Beautiful Journey ultimately flopped for me. It was far too on-the-nose to take even the eccentric premise seriously. The Timely Inn is a literal hotel where people whose cars have burned and their phones failed can stay. In other words, people who are in the middle of their Big Bold Beautiful Journeys. There seemed to be other guests here. That might have been an interesting subject to explore. 

That is the big thing with A Big Bold Beautiful Journey. There is an interesting idea or set of ideas coursing their way through. However, it is like they were all thrown in together to see where it would go. David, for example, both interacts with his father and ends up as his own father. The first is when David was born (his father terrified about a heart condition that David was born with). The second is when he ends up "home". The film is unclear whether or not David was even aware that he had this heart condition. It was something that was introduced here, late in the film, and not brought up again. 

I want to say that Colin Farrell and Margot Robbie gave it their all to sell the characters. I will give them a little leeway in that there was not much in the material that they could use. However, more often than not, both looked downright bored. The only time that there seemed to be any spark was when they ended up performing a number from How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. It looked odd but at least it gave both the actors and characters a bit of pep. 

Other scenes, like how they ended up dumping their separate lovers at the same restaurant, came across poorly. It felt gimmicky and unrealistic, even in what is meant as a fantasy. The faux-cutesy Joe Hisaishi music did not help matters throughout.

A Big Bold Beautiful Journey is everything but big bold and beautiful. 

DECISION: D-

Laughing Sinners: A Review (Review #2133)

LAUGHING SINNERS

Laughing Sinners is a bit of a misnomer in that at least one of our sinners is not that jolly. However, Laughing Sinners gives viewers a chance to see two future stars working well together. 

Showgirl Ivy "Bunny" Stevens (Joan Crawford) is in love with traveling salesman Howard "Ozzie" Palmer (Neil Hamilton). Ozzie is passionate about our cabaret performer. He is also going to marry the boss' daughter. He leaves her a Dear Jane letter after she performs the torch song I Love That Man to him. Despondent, she is about to commit suicide when she's pulled off the bridge. Her rescuer is Carl Loomis (Clark Gable). 

Loomis is in the Salvation Army, spreading the word where he and his fellow Salvation Army members Brighten the Corner Where You Are. Bunny is hesitant to join, but eventually she finds salvation in the Salvation Army. A year passes. Ozzie and his buddies are still traveling salesmen, taking advantage of the situations. Both are shocked at seeing the other. Will Ivy slip back to being Bunny to her hunny? Will Carl keep her on the straight and narrow?

Laughing Sinners is the second film that I have seen where Neil Hamilton plays the romantic rake. It is curious that Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer kept pushing Hamilton as some kind of romantic lead. Curiously, he does the same thing here as he did in The Sin of Madelon Claudet: be the dashing object of sexual temptation. It looks strange, almost laughable given that Neil Hamilton now is best if not exclusively remembered as Commissioner Gordon in the Batman television series. Seeing someone who camped it up as the goofy, clueless Commissioner pose a challenge to the future Rhett Butler now looks laughable. 

It should be a sign of the pecking order of Laughing Sinners that Hamilton is billed second and Gable third. Neil Hamilton was not bad as the rakish seducer of Salvation Army girls. He was not great either.

It is the duo of Clark Gable and Joan Crawford who are the true finds in Laughing Sinners. Gable plays against type as the gentle man of faith. He is tender and kind whenever Carl works with Ivy. Gable still shows his charm and strength. After rescuing her from her suicide attempt, Carl walks her home. At the end, he says, "I wish you'd come home with me", a surprisingly daring statement even in pre-Code Hollywood. He immediately makes clear that his aunt will be there. However, this and the climatic fight with Ozzie is as brash as Gable ever gets in the film.

Joan Crawford is the star here. She showcases her hoofing early in Laughing Sinners. We get the torch song I Love That Man. Crawford shows Bunny's deep love for Ozzie. We know that he will leave her, making the scene more moving. It is earlier though that people might be surprised. There is a curious floor show where Crawford and her backup dancers are dressed as farmers. Seeing Joan Crawford trip the light fantastic while in hillbilly garb is an amusing sight. One should add that she is good here as our song-and-dance-girl. 

In the acting department, Joan Crawford delivers. She shows vulnerability and a genuine change. One wonders if she will fall back into temptation. She has a wonderful, silent moment when she sees Ozzie again. As she talks to Carl about it, Crawford has a wonderful monologue reflecting on her past and present.

It is also nice to see how Crawford has a nice rapport with a child actress. Make of that what you will.

Laughing Sinners is a short film, running a brisk 72 minutes. In that time though, it tells its story of love, lust and redemption well. It is a relatable story in how it does not demean or sanctify Ivy/Bunny. We have a nice bit of verbal comedy from Guy Kibbee as a rakish embalming fluid salesman. It is a surprise to see Kibbee with a mustache and Gable without one. Despite its frankness, I think Laughing Sinners shows its age in some of its blocking. 

Finally, a major block is Neil Hamilton. I will put aside how one now only sees the dimwitted Commissioner Gordon whenever he is on screen. His performance, while adequate, has not stood the test of time. Who would you choose to end up with: Commissioner Gordon or Rhett Butler?

Laughing Sinners is not a bad film. The film is a bit stodgy and stagy. It does have strong performances from Joan Crawford and Clark Gable, a screen duo that should be more recognized. We do not laugh in Laughing Sinners but enjoy it enough. 

DECISION: C+

Georgia O'Keefe: The Television Movie

GEORGIA O'KEEFE 

Georgia O'Keefe lived to be almost 100. How then do you capture the entirety of her extraordinary life and career in a 90-minute film? You do not try. Instead, Georgia O'Keefe concentrates on her most influential relationship. With solid performances and engaging figures, Georgia O'Keefe is a wonderful introduction to this exceptional artist. 

New York City, 1916. Famed photographer Alfred Stieglitz (Jeremy Irons) is hosting an art exhibit for a new painter that he is wildly enthusiastic about. There is one person wandering the gallery, however, who is not particularly pleased at the exhibition. That person just happens to be the exhibit's subject. Georgia O'Keefe (Joan Allen) insists that she did not give approval for her art to be exhibited or sold. Stieglitz insists that her art should be seen. She needs a place to stay. He has a spare room. They begin an affair.

Stieglitz is enthusiastic about O'Keefe as both an artist and a woman. He does for her something that he has done for no other artist or mistress. He leaves his wife, which surprisingly pleases the other Stieglitz family members. At least Mother Stieglitz (Kathleen Chalfant) is thrilled. Alfred's doctor brother Lee (Ed Begley, Jr.) is less thrilled despite himself having a mistress. Georgia finds Alfred's comment about her being "the American female Picasso" displeasing. She also finds his newest mistress and patron less pleasing. 

In frustration and desperation, O'Keefe goes to New Mexico. Here, she takes informal refuge with flamboyant art patroness Mabel Dodge Luhan (Tyne Daly). This is the perfect place for O'Keefe to paint and reflect. Stieglitz, back home in New York, is enraged to hear stories of O'Keefe cavorting with this eccentric set. He is particularly displeased that she is enjoying the company of Harlem Renaissance writer Jean Toomer (Henry Simmons). The idea that she could be lying naked with, as Stieglitz calls him, "the black prince of Harlem" particularly upsets him. 

Alfred and Georgia do reconcile, especially after Alfred has a health scare. They learn to accept each other. Ultimately, Alfred Stieglitz dies in 1946, Georgia following 40 years later. Despite their tempestuous relationship, she becomes his champion while maintaining her own artistic output.

Georgia O'Keefe is blessed with excellent performances all around. Joan Allen commands the screen as the title figure. She does something interesting in her performance. She rarely if ever rages or explodes. Instead, she communicates O'Keefe's artistic and personal struggles with quiet grace. This is not to say that O'Keefe is a shrinking violet. One of her best qualities is her total bluntness. Early on she tells Stieglitz that she will not be his mistress. Allen's O'Keefe is a blunt broad. Yet Allen never has grand moments of theatricality. It is her forthright manner that draws us in. She is direct and honest, a woman true to herself. Allen does not make her a martyr or heroine. Instead, Allen makes Georgia into someone aware of herself and who knows her value. She does not deny her talents but does not accept compliments either.

Allen has some wonderful moments in her Emmy-nominated performance. She does a wonderful job when talking about art, who it brings something out of her into the world. It is a moving scene that makes us like and respect her.

Jeremy Irons, also Emmy-nominated, makes Alfred Stieglitz a delightful, almost comic character. He flutters about O'Keefe. He is almost apologetic about his interests in her in and out of clothes. That is not to say that Irons makes Stieglitz into a cartoon or a joke. As was observed in Georgia O'Keefe, Alfred wants to be adored, not loved. He does not shy from taking on a new mistress. However, he also openly delights in O'Keefe's achievements. Late in the telefilm, O'Keefe is horrified that her nude photos were put on display. Stieglitz tells her that to him, her beauty is too wonderful not to share. 

The film has nice moments of wit too. "An artist doesn't work for money. He works for pleasure", Stieglitz tells O'Keefe when she tells him of their financial problems. She retorts that saying something like that is a nice way to say that they are poor. Alfred's newest mistress is pleasant but not unaware of the difficulties she is causing. O'Keefe begins struggling with a particular health issue that she has not had before. A friend of O'Keefe tells her, "When she goes, so will your migraines". 

Georgia O'Keefe also has some strong work from the supporting cast. Ed Begley, Jr. holds his own as the eventually forceful Lee Stieglitz. As Georgia is recovering from a breakdown, Alfred is adamant that he must see her. Using his doctor's privileges, Lee makes clear that Alfred will do no such thing. He ends by telling him how cruel he has been, showing Lee's backbone. Tyne Daly has a lot of fun as the wacky and perhaps whacked-out Mabel Luhan. She brings a bit of eccentric humor to things. 

Bob Balaban shows himself a strong director with his cast. He also manages to move things quite well. Georgia O'Keefe never feels rushed nor compressed. That is impressive given that O'Keefe lived to age 98 and the film is a mere 90 minutes long.  

Georgia O'Keefe is respectful without being reverential. The production was blessed with the full cooperation of the O'Keefe estate. As such, we get glimpses into her extraordinary creative output. Georgia O'Keefe is a strong introduction to this legendary figure, where we see the artist come into full bloom. 

1887-1986

9/10

Wuthering Heights (2026): A Review (Review #2132)

WUTHERING HEIGHTS (2026)

I confess that as of this writing, I have not read Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights. I have also not seen the celebrated 1939 film adaptation. I will, however, venture a guess that neither had the female protagonist perform an auto-erotic exercise. Emerald Fennell's Wuthering Heights is wine mom erotica. It turns what is held up as a literary classic into a low-rent Harlequin paperback with less intelligence.

The Earnshaw family was once wealthy but has now fallen on hard times. They have managed to hold onto their estate, Wuthering Heights, but not much else. Mr. Earnshaw (Martin Clunes) has a surprise gift for his haughty daughter, Cathy. It is a street urchin that she names "Heathcliff". He displaces Cathy's playmate-cum-lady-in-waiting Nelly, the illegitimate daughter of a lord. "I suppose he'll fall in love with me", she declares.

Many years pass. Heathcliff (Jacob Elordi) has grown to a tall, thin, hunky man. Cathy (Margo Robbie) has grown to a smugger and more obnoxious bitch. She may toy with her hunky plaything. However, Cathy is desperate for wealth and escape. Fortunately, the new neighbors will provide a way out. Wealthy merchant Edgar Linton (Shazad Latif) is the perfect stooge for this designing woman. Edgar's ward Isabella (Alison Oliver) is no match for our wily adventuress. She will marry Edgar despite being in erotic throes about Heathcliff. In a mix of heartbreak and rage, Heathcliff flees Wuthering Heights.

Five years pass. Cathy and Edgar are respectable but still childless. This allows Nelly (Hong Chau) to stay alongside Cathy. Nelly occasionally throws shade at the mistress of the manor. Nelly has also arranged years earlier for Heathcliff to overhear snippets of conversation where Cathy denounces him. Cathy, however, had also expressed conflict about whether to follow her heart or her purse. Now, Heathcliff has returned. He is wealthy. He is influential. He is still hunky. Despite her new pregnancy, Cathy and Heathcliff being a lurid sexual affair. Heathcliff also draws Isabella into his web of sex games. Heathcliff and Isabella's liaison is so sadomasochistic that even Nelly is shocked when finding her employer's ward behaving like a literal dog. Will Cathy and Heathcliff break through to find their erotic passions fulfilled? Will death separate our twisted lovers?

I was in the minority in finding Promising Young Woman a revolting piece of trash. I thought the same of writer/director Emerald Ferrell's second film, Saltburn. I was not in the minority for that one. With her third film, I find that Emerald Ferrell is obsessed with sex and does not care who knows it. I cannot imagine that Emily Bronte would have liked seeing Cathy pleasuring herself or getting serviced by Heathcliff's tongue in her nether regions. 

Did I mention that Cathy is pregnant when Heathcliff uses his tongue on her vajayjay? 

I suppose it takes a great skill to make Fifty Shades of Grey look downright virginal compared to Ferrell's adaptation. It takes a certain cinematic vision to make Isabella rolling around like a dog, complete with chains, reflect Bronte's Victorian vision for womanhood. Ferrell figured that she was being clever with how Isabella came across. "You're a dog in a manger!" Isabella screams at her when Cathy warns her not to involve herself with the hunky Heathcliff. We then saw that Isabella willingly let herself be chained up and behave like a dog.

I figured that Isabella, as played by Alison Oliver, was already a loon. Is that how she was in the novel? I am less inclined to read Wuthering Heights after seeing this. 

It would be uncharitable of me to not find some good things in Wuthering Heights. The costumes were elaborate. Excessively so, but elaborate, nonetheless. The film is as fixated with fog as Heathcliff is in getting into Cathy's corsets. There is lots of fog and shadows floating about. Wuthering Heights aims for atmosphere. It occasionally hits that target. 

In every other aspect, Wuthering Heights is trash. This is the first film Jacob Elordi has appeared in after his Best Supporting Actor nomination for Frankenstein. The man is hunky. He is tall. He is beautiful to look at. Those, however, are the full extents of his cinematic abilities. He speaks all his lines in this curious, dare I say careless whisper. I cannot fathom why he and Farrell thought that made any sense. Even what should be his climatic speech cursing Cathy's soul is spoken in this sotto voce manner. No matter what the situation, Jacob Elordi made Marlon Brando's Don Corleone sound thunderous by comparison.

To misquote Dorothy Parker, Jacob Elordi in Wuthering Heights ran the gamut of emotions from A to A-. 

One thing that I noticed and that I found unintentionally hilarious was Elordi's earring. When he first returns to Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff's piercing is a small gold stud. In his next scene, it is slightly larger. After that, it grew to a hoop. It was to where I thought that by the end, it would be platter-size. I found the whole earring thing odd. I grant that it was a curious thing to fixate on. However, I do not know exactly why Heathcliff's piercing seemed to grow each time he appeared. 

I think Margot Robbie saw how her steamy, hunky costar was comatose in his performance. That may be why she decided to go the opposite route. I will not say that Robbie was overacting. She was not acting either. She just appeared to decide to flail around, hoping that being whiny would help her find a character. Robbie is a competent actress. She, unlike Elordi, can act and has shown that she can create a character. Wuthering Heights is not that showcase for Margot Robbie. She cannot make Cathy's self-absorption and arrogance either infuriating or sympathetic. She is just whiny. She is a ninny. She is too mannered. It is a bad performance.

Martin Clunes is one-note as Mr. Earnshaw despite using two tones: loud and soft. I cannot figure how audiences would not laugh at him bellowing out "I AM THE KINDEST MAN ALIVE AND YOU TREMBLE AT ME!" when he starts giving child Heathcliff a whipping. I know that it was meant to show Earnshaw as unaware. It just made it all look like farce.

Hong Chau is the only one who does not embarrass herself as Nelly. She communicates so much with just a glance. Even when Cathy dismisses her from service, you can see in Chau's performance that Nelly has a few cards left to play to keep her position. Chau also throws some of the best lines in the film. "If I were in Heaven, I would be so miserable," Robbie's Cathy declares when describing her conflict about Heathcliff. "Because you don't belong there," Chau's Nelly deadpans. Later, Cathy whines, "I think you like to see me cry". "Not half as much as you like crying", Nelly snaps coldly. Her reaction to Isabella's degradation reveals the shock at something even her calculating mind could not have conceived. It also reveals genuine sadness at Isabella's condition.

There is no eroticism or romance in Wuthering Heights. I laughed at the sex montage. The people behind me were also laughing when Heathcliff takes Isabella on the dining room table. I will concede that I have not read Wuthering Heights. It has a lofty reputation. I do not, however, imagine that the 2026 film adaptation will achieve that same lofty reputation. 

Who knew Emily Bronte was such a super freak? 

DECISION: F

Frankenstein (2025): A Review

FRANKENSTEIN (2025)

The tale of mad scientists and their creations who hate them gets a rich gothic treatment in Frankenstein. Visually sumptuous though rather long, Frankenstein drowns a bit in said sumptuousness.

With a ten-minute Prelude, Frankenstein is evenly split between two tales. There is Part I: Victor's Tale and Part II: The Creature's Tale. The Danish ship Horisont is trapped in the North Atlantic ice. Captain Anderson (Lars Mikkelsen) is determined to get to the North Pole. However, there is something wicked out in the snow. The crew is shocked to find a man with a metal leg dying out in the snow. They are more shocked when a monstrous creature is attacking the Horisont, determined to get at the injured man. A blunderbuss seems to send the creature to the depths of the ocean. 

Weak and in delirium, we hear Victor's tale. Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac) had a tyrannical father, Leopold (Charles Dance). Leopold, a renowned doctor, favored his younger son, William (Felix Kammerer). Despite his favoritism, Baron Leopold has groomed Victor to follow his footsteps into medicine. Victor is still resentful and grieving over his mother's early death in childbirth. After Baron Leopold's own death, the Frankenstein brothers are separated. William is sent to Vienna, while Victor eventually ends up in Edinburgh.

As an adult, Victor is determined to conquer death itself. The Royal College of Medicine Disciplinary Tribunal denounces his work as sacrilege. There is, however, one man who does not consider Dr. Frankenstein a mad scientist. He is arms manufacturer Heinrich Harlander (Christoph Waltz). In exchange for a favor to be named later, Harlander gives Victor unlimited resources for his research. 

One thing that Victor would have loved to be part of that deal is Harlander's niece, Elizabeth (Mia Goth). Victor falls madly in love with her. Elizabeth, however, has a fiancée, none other than William Frankenstein himself. William finds a remote unused water tower for his brother to conduct his experiments. Harlander grows impatient and soon we know why. On the dark and stormy night that Victor will bring his created cadaver to life, Harlander asks for that favor. Harlander is dying of syphilis and insists on transplanting his brain into the new man's body. It cannot be done, Victor insists. In the struggle, Harlander dies but a new being lives.

A strange, tall being appears to Victor. This is his Creature (Jacob Elordi). Victor is at first thrilled with his new metaphorical son. However, the Creature cannot say anything other than "Victor". Baron Frankenstein considers his experiment a failure. He also does his best to hide Harlander's fate from Elizabeth and William. They eventually discover the Creature. William is shocked but Elizabeth is sympathetic towards the Creature. Things culminate when Victor attempts to destroy everything, including the Creature. 

Now we get to The Creature's Tale. The Creature has forced his way onto the Captain's stateroom where Victor is. He now will tell his story. The Creature survived the explosion (Victor's leg was severed in it, thus his metal leg). He wandered in the forest, coming upon the corpses of dead soldiers. He also has come upon a secluded rustic home where a family ekes out a living. He starts picking up their language and in exchange does secret work for them. They do not know who he is but thank him as "the Spirit of the Forest". When the family leaves to hunt wolves for the winter, the Creature makes his way inside where the Blind Grandfather (David Bradley) welcomes him. He mistakes the Creature for a wounded, shellshocked soldier. Soon, a bond is built, but a wolf attack leaves the Blind Man mortally wounded. To his shock, the Creature finds that he cannot die even after the family, which blames him for the grandfather's death, shoots him.

The Monster Demands a Mate. Who else to get one from than from the bad Doctor himself? The Creature becomes the ultimate wedding crasher when he goes to Victor on William and Elizabeth's big day to make his Tinder request. Nothing doing, says Victor. From this comes a slew of deaths and tragedies. Who will achieve their goal of revenge? Will there be forgiveness? Who will live and who will die?

I will say this about director Guillermo del Toro's take on the Mary Shelley novel. Bill of the Bull certainly throws a big visual feast at the viewer. Frankenstein is luxurious looking, full of grand sets and costumes. They blend a sense of the Victorian era with a more Gothic look. Alexandre Desplat's score is equally grand, doing good work in setting the atmosphere. I would say that his music for when Victor is putting his creature together does sound a bit carnival-like. However, I figure that this was in keeping with the lunacy of reviving the dead.

I grant that it has been ages since I read the original novel. That being said, I do not think that del Toro's screenplay cared much for fidelity to the source material. Even with my hazy recollection, I do not recall Victor having a German sponsor to go all Re-Animator on him. I also think the Creature crashes Victor's wedding to take his revenge on the mad Baron. I do not recall any accidental killings.

Perhaps this is why Frankenstein was not nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay. The film does seem more like a jumping-off point than a straightforward adaptation. I do not know why Frankenstein took such detours. I do think that they made the film much longer than it needed to be. Frankenstein runs a lengthy two-and-a-half hours. I wonder if it needed that much time. It takes ten minutes to go into Victor's story. His story takes up about an hour and a half. The Creature's story takes about as much time. 

I wonder if we needed that Prelude to begin with. I figure that we could have gotten to Victor's story faster. I figure we could have cut down on Victor's backstory with his Daddy and Mommy issues. Exactly why William and Victor were separated to Vienna and Edinburgh is a detail that I might have missed. The less charitable part of me suspects it was so that William's German accent could make sense. I also figure the one-sided flirtation between Victor and Elizabeth could have been cut down a bit. The Creature's story of being the Spirit of the Forest too could have seen some trimming.

In terms of acting, Jacob Elordi is the Frankenstein cast member who was singled out with a Best Supporting Actor nomination. Oddly, I do not begrudge this nomination. The role is perfectly suited for Elordi's acting skills. He is tall and he is emotionless. Those are the only attributes that Jacob Elordi is capable of bringing to any role that he does. As with Amy Madigan in Weapons, I suspect that it is hype that got Elordi recognized for his flat Creature. 

As a side note, I am curious on a technical point that I trust others can guide me on. During his time with Victor, the Creature was bald. Once he escaped the inferno, the Creature was able to grow hair. I was wondering how that happened. 

In fairness to Elordi, he was a model of restraint compared to two of his costars. Oscar Isaac delved into his Victor with almost crazed abandon. Veering between hammy and crazed, Isaac was pretty much on mad scientist mode. It is as if his enunciations had to carry such a grand manner as to look downright hilarious. Falling not far behind is Waltz. He went all-in on the Prometheus tie-in. "Can you contain your fire, Prometheus, or are you going to burn your hand before delivering it?", Harlander tells the bad doctor early on. That, perhaps, I can let slide. However, the second mention of Prometheus was a bit too overdone. "I WILL BE THE EAGLE THAT FEEDS ON YOUR LIVER!" a crazed Harlander tells Victor as they struggle in their final confrontation. Del Toro's line is already a bit too on-the-nose. Waltz's delivery makes it a bit hilarious.

Mia Goth was the standout in Frankenstein. She was gentle but shrewd throughout the film. Goth could be catty against Victor's incessant attempts at wooing. She could be gentle and kind with the Creature. Mai Goth elevates all her costars whenever she works with them. 

In terms of production, Frankenstein does exceptionally well. Fidelity to the Mary Shelley novel is a bit hit-or-miss. The film is worth viewing for the lavish sets and costumes. It is, however, longer than it should be. it also has acceptable though not great performances save for Mia Goth. It is fair to say that Frankenstein is a bit of a monster production. 

DECISION: B-