Cesar Chavez: A Review (Review #2141)

CESAR CHAVEZ

Today was Cesar Chavez Day. March 31, 1927, was when the United Farm Workers cofounder was born. His memory would have been celebrated. More than likely, his centennial next year would have been a major production. Now, his name is verboten after allegations of sexual assault, grooming and rape were made against him 33 years after his death. Literally days after the accusations were made, various Cesar Chavez murals and statues were removed. Chavez had been "cancelled" faster than Robert E. Lee. What the future holds for Chavez's legacy remains to be seen. The same fate of expunging from history might not befall Chavez's biopic. Cesar Chavez, however, would have faded on its own. Now, it will serve as a time capsule of sorts, recalling when Chavez was seen as heroic versus demonic. 

Cesar Chavez (Michael Peña), in his words, went from owing the land to working the land. This change in status, however, allows Cesar to move away from the union office to the fields. Here, he can get up close and personal with the migrant farmworkers. Their lot is especially hard. They get low pay for long, backbreaking work. They get no bathrooms (the wealthy white landowners suggesting that as Mexicans and Filipinos, the farmworkers would not know how to use them).

Into this comes Cesar, his wife Helen (America Ferrera) and their eight children. The oldest, Fernando (Eli Vargas) loves baseball more than anything. His first question when told that they are moving to Delano, California is what team plays for them. Fernando, however, resents how much time and energy Cesar gives to "La Causa" (The Cause). Fernando is bullied and beaten for being both Mexican and the scion of the union organizer.

Chavez's biggest opponent is landowner John Bogdanovich, Sr. (John Malkovich). He, unlike the other landowners, both speaks Spanish and is an immigrant from Croatia. Like his fellow growers, however, Bogdanovich is leery of these Commies. Cesar Chavez now must fight them with both labor and hunger strikes. He gets an unexpected ally in Senator Robert F. Kennedy (Jack Holmes). He gets an unexpected antagonist in Fernando Chavez, forever angry at being neglected. Will Cesar balance out the Huelga with being a good father?

Now that more than a decade has passed since Cesar Chavez was released, parts of it can be oddly comical. Fernando tells his dad that the kids called him a "beaner". "I've been called worse", Cesar comforts him with. I thought, "I bet you and Fernando were ever called "rapists"". That is looking at Cesar Chavez through the current denouncing of his memory. Had I seen Cesar Chavez prior to the maelstrom of controversy, I would probably have still laughed at what are meant to be serious moments.

Take for example the very lengthy sequence of his hunger strike. I put aside how there did not seem to be much thought into it. His various dreams and struggles looked a bit exaggerated. Cesar, all but emaciated, is supposed to be helped to a Catholic mass where he will finally break his fast. Michael Peña did not look worse for wear. In fact, he looked downright silly attempting to play someone on the brink of starvation. His performance, his mannerisms, all looked too theatrical. In short, it looked fake.

Add to that how director Diego Luna did not build up what could have and should have been a very serious, somber moment. This man is finally about to break his long fast with the bread of Christ. It does not have any effect. Luna opted not to make this a major moment. No stirring music. No focus on the significance. Nothing.

Perhaps Luna and screenwriters Timothy J. Sexton and Keir Pearson (story by Pearson) expected us to be in awe of Chavez the same way that everyone in Cesar Chavez was. This Cesar Chavez had basically no flaws. The closest that he came to one was when he balked at having Helen arrested for violating court orders to not mention the word "huelga" (strike in Spanish). "You can't get arrested!" he tells her. "Why not?", she replies. "Who'll take care of the kids?" is his curt reply. 

This little display of machismo is the only suggestion that Cesar Chavez is less than ideal. 

For most of Cesar Chavez though, the main character is pretty much a great man. Cesar Chavez falls into an unfortunate trap that capture many biopics. We are presented with a symbol and not a person. The film attempts to give us domestic drama with Fernando. It just never goes anywhere. Oddly, Cesar Chavez does not even give us big speeches from the now-disgraced union leader. He is just...there.  

Cesar Chavez is also both poorly cast and acted. Michael Peña did not do a bad job. He just never had any charisma to make people believe that he could lead a conga line, let alone a picket line. Rosario Dawson was completely miscast as Dolores Huerta. She looks nothing like the real-life person. Dawson, it should be pointed out, is of Cuban, Puerto Rican and African roots. Huerta is none of those. It is worse given that she was pretty much a shadow, having nothing to do in Cesar Chavez. It is so rare that Dawson' character is referred to as "Dolores Huerta". Most of the time, she was just "Dolores" and could have been any random Dolores.

America Ferrera would have been a better choice as Dolores Huerta than she was as Helen Chavez. Granted, Ferrera is not of Mexican descent either. However, she is closer in appearance to Huerta than the taller, thinner Dawson. Cesar Chavez wastes Ferrera in a nothing role. She is there to provide domestic drama. Ferrera has nothing to work with. Wes Bentley as UFW lawyer Jerry Cohen just popped in there. Jack Holmes' RFK was just bad. It is hard to sound like Robert F. Kennedy. It is harder to sound like Robert F. Kennedy. Holmes failed on both counts. 

John Malkovich is pretty good as the not-so-harsh antagonist. Hearing him speak Spanish, however, is oddly hilarious. You have Malkovich's distinct cadence and voice coupled with his efforts at a foreign language. That ought to make for interesting watching.

Speaking of languages, Cesar Chavez has a lot of Spanish dialogue. That is correct but it also was to where I initially thought that I had hit the dubbed button by mistake. 

Cesar Chavez will, I figure, no longer be screened on this or any other day. It was already bad on its own. Now, it is forever tainted with association to someone damned to be hated on all sides. No one could have foreseen that a mere twelve years after Cesar Chavez was released, and over a quarter-century after his death, this biopic's subject would be tossed out like rotten grapes. 

1927-1993

DECISION: D+

How to Make a Killing: A Review (Review #2140)

HOW TO MAKE A KILLING

Family can be such a bother sometimes, especially when they keep you from getting a vast fortune. How to Make a Killing gives us a dark tale of one young man's rise to the top only to fall through no fault of his own.

Told mostly in flashback from death row, we hear from Becket Redfellow (Glen Powell). Becket is speaking to a priest, presumably his last confession before being executed. Becket recounts his tale of woe.

Becket Redfellow, had there been true justice, would have grown up in wealth. He is the scion of the incredibly wealthy Redfellow family. However, as his mother Mary (Nell Williams) got knocked up by a cellist who promptly dropped dead, she and Becket are exiled from the Redfellow family.

Fortunately, the Redfellow trust precludes any Redfellow descendant from being excluded from the family fortune. Theoretically at least, Becket does have a chance to inherit everything provided that he is the sole living heir. Unfortunately for him, there are seven people ahead of him in terms of inheritance. A chance encounter with his poisonous object of desire Julia Steinway (Margaret Qualley) pushes him over the edge. He has desired the more affluent Julia since they were children. Now, with his job lost to the owner's nephew and no real prospects, Becket decides that he has one course open.

He must kill all seven Redfellows who outrank him to gain his rightful fortune.

Easier said than done given that Becket, at heart, is a nice guy. Not a nice guy is his cousin Taylor (Raff Law), an obnoxious finance bro and first victim. At Taylor's funeral, he meets Taylor's father Warren (Bill Camp). Uncle Warren is genuinely guilt-stricken over how Mary and Becket were treated. Warren, who is genuinely kind to his nephew, gives Becket a job at his trading firm, where Becket soon masters the art of the deal. 

He also masters the gentle art of murder. Next on the hitlist is another cousin, faux-photographer Noah (Zach Woods). All it takes are some chemicals mixed with Noah's smoking to have him smoked. Noah leaves a surprising gift for Becket in his girlfriend Ruth (Jessica Henwick). She finds Becket attractive as he does her. Becket killing other Redfellows becomes both easier and harder. It is easier because the other Redfellows are mostly a lousy lot. It becomes harder because the FBI is starting to note how so many Redfellows seem to be dropping dead at an alarming rate.

Soon, his cousin, fake evangelist Steven (Topher Grace), along with society doyenne Aunt Cassandra (Biana Amato) and Uncle McArthur (Adam Lennox) all meet untimely deaths. Becket's relationship with Ruth blossoms. Becket's relationship with Julia keeps butting in. She is determined to put the squeeze on Becket to get money for her financially strapped husband Lyle (James Frecheville). Becket won't play dice no matter how many times Julia thrusts her shapely legs at him. How can he kill Uncle Warren, who is a decent man? How can he get to his reclusive grandfather Whitelaw Redfellow (Ed Harris)? Will Becket get away with all his crimes? Will he be brought down by his own actions or by the most unexpected set of circumstances not of his own making? 

How to Make a Killing is supposedly "inspired" by the Alec Guiness film Kind Hearts and Coronets. Judging by the end results, the only thing that separates the two is that the various victims were not played by the same person. How to Make a Killing seems pretty much a remake in all but name. I do not know if writer/director John Patton Ford ever opted to just declare How to Make a Killing as a remake/updated version. Perhaps another time I will look over the two versions. However, for now, let us look at How to Make a Killing.

I think there are a couple of issues that push How to Make a Killing Down. The first is Glen Powell. Powell is not a bad actor. Powell, however, is a very likeable actor. As such, his various kills and growing ruthlessness seem so out of character for him. I understand that is probably why Powell was cast as Becket Redfellow. Initially, his bumbling manner early on in the first few kills could be plausible. However, as How to Make a Killing goes on, Powell keeps being almost too nice to be this cold-blooded person. Becket is motivated by a sense of anger and entitlement. Glen Powell, as competent as he is, never seems to make Becket into this merry murderer.

The second major issue is in the actual killings. How to Make a Killing makes it pretty easy to get rid of the other Redfellows because for the most part, they are rather loathsome. Ford's screenplay does not give us people. He gives us caricatures. Taylor, Noah and Steven are such awful people that we feel nothing when they are dispatched. The runtime, admittedly, does not give us much time to get to know them. They are nothing more than cannon fodder. The end results, unfortunately, are that the various victims are nothing more than quick cameos. Topher Grace in particular comes to mind. It is easy to paint Steven as a huckster. However, there is no buildup to how he is swindling people. When you plan to kill someone, even someone that you dislike, one figures that there would be a bit of a moral struggle. There would not be if you have no moral compass.

Becket, however, does. You therefore end up with a curious situation. The killer, who is actually a pretty nice fellow, has no struggle killing people who are pretty awful. Add to that how the film has to rush through things. Aunt Cassandra, for example, is popped off so quickly that I do not think that she was in the film for even five minutes. 

The performances kept to the broad manner that How to Make a Killing was going for. Margaret Qualley was the standout. She just had to prop up her legs and deliver her dialogue in a sharp manner to show herself as the alluring, slightly bored, temptress. Qualley made Julia into this selfish and shrewd figure, able to get what she wanted. Jessica Henwick was also strong as Ruth, the woman that Becket loved and lost. It does seem a stretch to see how or why Ruth would be with Noah. However, it is not outside the realm of possibility. Ed Harris seemed to be having a hoot as the loony, murderous patriarch.

How to Make a Killing made an effort to be wry and satirical. It however got a bit lost. It did not have the sharp enough edge to be either as ruthless or as comic as it aimed for. Attempting to be both, it ended up being neither. How to Make a Killing is too nice to slay. 

DECISION: C-

Project Hail Mary: A Review

PROJECT HAIL MARY

Praise can be a dangerous thing, more dangerous than even microbes killing the Sun. Such is the case with Project Hail Mary. It has been less than three weeks, as of this writing, since the Academy Awards were held. Project Hail Mary, again as of this writing, is now seriously talked about as a major "awards contender". I will leave my exhaustion at the incessant awards season aside to look at the film itself. Project Hail Mary has some nice images and music. It is also far longer than it needs to be and is fast slipping into the most overrated film of 2026. 

In space, no one can see you stumbling into consciousness. A man finds himself awakened and receives various shocks. He is shocked to find two people dead. He is shocked to find himself floating in deep space. 

Over the course of Project Hail Mary, things begin to fall into place. Through a series of flashbacks, we learn that our floating astronaut is not Major Tom. It is Ryland Grace (Ryan Gosling). He is a renegade molecular biologist whose fight against orthodoxy has led him to be a middle school science teacher. His class, in fact, the whole world, is vexed by the Petrova lines. This is a strange infrared line between the Sun and Venus. The end result of this phenomenon is that it is slowly eating the Sun. This will cool the Earth within 30 years, dooming the planet.

There is, however, hope. Dour, humorless German Eva Stratt (Sandra Huller) gets Grace to examine the microorganisms collected from the Petrova lines. He finds that these microorganisms, named Astrophages, are infecting more stars. They can provide fuel for a desperate space journey to the distant star Tau Ceti. This is the only star that has not fallen to the Astrophage. It is time to find what if any immunity Tau Ceti has and if it can be brought to Earth.

Unfortunately, there is no way for the spaceship Hail Mary to return. Despite having no family or friends, Ryland will not go. "I put the "not" in "astronaut"", he insists. Circumstances, however, put him aboard.

All that is revealed in bits and pieces as Project Hail Mary tackles Plot B. Once he realizes where exactly he is, Grace works to complete the mission. Once near Tau Ceti, Grace is astonished to find another ship hovering nearby. Eventually, he finds that there is another creature who is working on the same problem. After a few fits and starts, Ryland is able to communicate and even become friends with an Eridian whom he names "Rocky" (James Ortiz). They jointly find that Tau Ceti-e, a planet in Tau Ceti's orbit, contains a microbe that prevents Astrophages to procreate and thus keeping Tau Ceti alive. The mission to retrieve that microbe off Tau Ceti-e (whom they rename "Adrian") is dangerous. The potential return journeys for both Grace and Rocky also put them in danger. Will amazing Grace and Rocky still manage to return to their respective home worlds? Will their distinct separate home worlds be saved?

Project Hail Mary has been wildly praised by both critics and audiences. I can speak only from what I saw both on screen and the screening that I attended. The people next to me were audible in their complaints about Project Hail Mary's runtime. Noting that Project Hail Mary is over two hours long, they noted that they were twenty minutes in with nothing that interested them. They walked out shortly afterwards. Project Hail Mary is two hours and thirty-six minutes long. As such, it needed cutting.

I note that Project Hail Mary has not one but two karaoke scenes. I understand that Stratt breaking from her usual humorless manner to sing Harry Styles' Sign of the Times has been embraced as this moving moment. However, did we really need to see Grace and Rocky with his digital voice doing a little bit of Let's Call the Whole Thing Off? 

As much adoration as Project Hail Mary is getting, I think people need to pause for a bit to look at how some things do not work. I might walk that back a bit. I think they work in a predictable, almost cartoonish manner. Rocky's somewhat cutesy voice is already a bit hard to take. It is, however, how almost everything he says ends with the words "statement" or "question" to emphasize that they are statements or questions that is a bit childish. For me, it runs the risk of not having us take what should be a dangerous situation seriously.

So much time is eaten up by the Grace/Rocky bromance that it veers dangerously close to being a straight-up comedy. Perhaps Drew Goddard's adaptation of Andy Weir's novel was meant to be that way. However, it also took stabs at what was intended as serious drama. Take for example when Grace launches the two dead crewmen into space. Project Hail Mary was meant to have this as a very moving, dramatic moment. However, given how Project Hail Mary was structured, we really did not know who these people were. We did not see Grace interact much with them in the various flashbacks. There was no chance for him to interact with them when they were all in deep hibernation. Therefore, I cannot feel emotional over people I do not know. 

Project Hail Mary is longer than it needs to be. We have Grace give an infodump via his middle school class. Unsurprisingly, Grace is one of those "hip" science teachers who makes science cool. Put aside how I find the notion that Grace could have a doctorate and find no other work except a middle school teacher laughably absurd. I find that a bit clichéd too. I do not know if any middle school would hire someone so wildly overqualified as Dr. Ryland Grace. Yet, I digress.

I find a few things wrong with this scene. First, there is no sense of urgency or danger about how the Sun is slowly dying. The kids are not well-directed to express their fears of impending doom. Ryan Gosling is not well-directed to show that he is trying to simultaneously shield and inform them. Second, I figure that we could have found another way to give us the information. Granted, we would have lost the "cool teacher forced into space" bit. However, we get another infodump when Grace is taken by jet to a battleship. Third, we do not connect with the kids or ever see or hear from them again. I'm not sure that they are even ever mentioned by Grace again. For being a hip teacher, Grace forgets the kids once he finds Rocky.

Project Hail Mary has also been lauded for having practical visual effects. I admit that when they go to Tau Ceti-e, it did look beautiful. However, the other visuals were laughable, at least judging in part from the audience reaction. The Hail Mary and Rocky's spacecraft looked like they were from a lost 1980's Doctor Who episode. They did not look real. They looked like children's models. Yes, some CGI can also look fake. This, however, looked like it came from something closer to Mystery Science Theater 3000 than from a major studio. I genuinely expected the Satellite of Love to come wandering in and join the Hail Mary.

The performances as directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller were less than what they could have been. Most of Project Hail Mary is a one-man show. That would be Ryan Gosling. His character felt at times too goofy to be this serious scientist sent on an Earth-saving mission. I can cut the film some slack in the initial opening when he is attempting to recover his memory. However, as Project Hail Mary went on, I kept wondering why such a goofball would be sent into space. 

The film reveals the reason: he was drugged and essentially kidnapped into it. I have a genuine question. Eva Stratt is supposed to be forever professional and humorless, calculating everything to near perfection. However, how is it that she never conceived of having multiple teams of Hail Mary crew on standby in case something happened to those scheduled to go up? Instead, after an explosion kills the scientist who was going to fly up, she is forced to turn to someone who apparently never had any real training to fly the ship or knew his way around it. Stratt first gives Grace three hours to think about it. After he states that he doesn't want to do it, Stratt, ever aware of the dangers, first attempts to force him into the ship. As he attempts to escape the facility, she then gets her goons to chase after him. This results in him getting drugged and corralled onto the Hail Mary without his knowledge or approval.

Bugs Bunny going up against Marvin the Martian had more logic to it. Yet, again, I digress.

Sandra Huller had one thing to do in Project Hail Mary: look serious. The dour, humorless German who looks like she takes everything literally and seriously is pretty much a stereotype. 

I can find things in Project Hail Mary to praise. Daniel Pemberton's score was nice and worked well in the film. Of particular note is a tango used during a montage. Some of the visuals, such as when they go to Tau Ceti-e, are also quite beautiful. 

Project Hail Mary is not a bad film. It has some good qualities within it. However, it is also too long for the story that it is telling. It also is a bit too jokey for what is meant as a serious situation. I think there is an overpraising for Project Hail Mary that will, in time, be seen as rather absurd. Project Hail Mary is fine enough, but it is not among the greatest science-fiction films ever made. That people are making it out to be may indeed be a Sign of the Times. 

DECISION: C+

Two Short Film Reviews: A Friend of Dorothy and Extremist

These are reviews for two short films: A Friend of Dorothy and Extremist. The first is A Friend of Dorothy. It runs 21 minutes.

A FRIEND OF DOROTHY

The euphemism "friend of Dorothy" to mean "gay man" takes the pun route in A Friend of Dorothy. Moving and effective, A Friend of Dorothy tells us a charming little story even if it took one bad turn.

A will reading brings two very different people together. On one side is Scott Woodley (Oscar Lloyd), wealthy white privileged man. On the other is JJ (Alistair Nwachukwu), a poor black man. What ties them together is the late Dorothy Woodley (Miriam Margolyes). JJ was an aspiring footballer who had kicked his ball into Dorothy's garden. Feisty at 87, Dorothy lives alone and is surprised to see someone come up to her door.

JJ helps her open a jar. He also marvels at her extensive library. JJ especially marvels at the various male nudes in the library's gallery. Dorothy senses that JJ secretly loves literature, especially plays. JJ admits that he would much rather be an actor than a footballer. In exchange for weekly visits, JJ can have the run of Dorothy's extensive library collection. It helps that Dorothy and her late husband were patrons of the arts.

Soon, JJ becomes a friend of Dorothy. It is never overtly stated, but he is almost certainly a friend of Dorothy in the more traditional sense of the expression. His flirtish gaze at another man in a corner market suggests as such. JJ is one day surprised to find an obnoxious young white man at Dorothy's door. It is Scott, her grandson. Scott is not horrible per se. He is, however, arrogant, dismissive and condescending towards everyone. Dorothy's lawyer Dickie (Sir Stephen Fry) reveals that Scott's father Peter will get the house. Scott will get 50,000 pounds. JJ will get her entire library of plays. 

He also gets a seemingly strange instruction from Dickie to look at a specific act in a specific play. JJ finds The Inheritance the play that first drew him and Dorothy together. Inside, tucked away is a check for 50,000 and an application to the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts. There is also a note urging him to apply. 

A Friend of Dorothy plays with the double meaning of the term. Curiously, JJ would not understand, at least initially, that "friend of Dorothy" was a euphemism for "gay" or "homosexual". In A Friend of Dorothy, JJ has no idea who Judy Garland is. It is a bit unclear whether JJ's lack of knowledge is due to his age or background. Him not knowing what The Inheritance is, that is understandable. Him not knowing who Judy Garland is, that is slightly more understandable if perhaps not completely believable. 

Writer/director Lee Knight does a fine job hinting at JJ's sexual orientation without forcing it on the viewer. We see it in how JJ looks at the various nude men painted in the various portraits. We see it in the scene where he and another man throw little smiles at each other. I wonder, though, if having a football (soccer) player turn out to be gay is a bit cliched. I also wonder if said football player, who is probably gay, wanting to be an actor is also a bit cliched. Is the suggestion that only gay men want to be actors?

A Friend of Dorothy is well-acted by just about everyone. Miriam Margolyes is delightful as the sensible Dorothy. She shows a zest for life that is not diminished by advancing age. Dorothy is not enthusiastic about life due to the various infirmities she faces. She also has to live with how her family is not all that interested in her. Her relationship with JJ, however, gives her a new albeit brief revival. Margolyes plays this quite well.

Nwachukwu is not as strong as JJ. I put that down to the character. He is meant to be a bit more hesitant. He especially would find himself a bit perplexed by this white world of art and bitchy relations. We do not learn anything about his background. The viewer can only guess that his family pressured him to pursue football rather than acting. That speculation goes towards whether his family would be homophobic. In his small part, Stephen Fry is pleasant as Dickie, the solicitor who follows Dorothy's instructions to the letter.

The worst aspect of A Friend of Dorothy is Oscar Lloyd's Scott. It is not that Lloyd gave a bad performance. It is that, again, it is a cliché. I would have thought it better if Scott weren't such a bitchy little twit. He could have been more clueless but caring over his grandmother. Having him be civil but curt towards her and JJ was, I think, a mistake. It forces the viewer towards being sympathetic towards people whom you already are sympathetic to. One does not need to hammer down on what awful people everyone except Dorothy and JJ are to get the point across.

A Friend of Dorothy also has a nice score from Stuart Hancock, elevating the material. Overall, A Friend of Dorothy is pleasant, charming and with a positive message. "One should never apologize for an interest in literature", Dorothy tells JJ after finding him reading one of the plays. Good performances and an engaging story will have everyone be a friend of Dorothy.

DECISION: B-

EXTREMIST

The second short film is Extremist. It runs 18 minutes and is in Russian.

Extremist is based on a true story. As such, it is a bit disappointing to find that Extremist ended up making one less sympathetic to the main character.

Sasha Skochilenko (Viktoria Miroshnichenko) is living in an apartment with her lover Sonya (Tina Dalakisvilli). Their landlady Galina (Lilian Malkina) thinks of them as good girls who keep to themselves and are always polite and respectful. 

In reality, both Sasha & Sonya and Galina live in alternate universes. Sasha and Sonya are immersed in anti-Putin activities. They gather friends in the woods to create anti-war pictures. Galina accepts the Putin propaganda as fact. Just before Sasha & Sonya go on their woodland excursion, Sasha makes a quick visit to a grocery store. Without telling Sonya, Sasha secretly replaces not Folger's crystals but price stickers with little notes detailing the truth about the Ukraine war.

Galina is startled when she sees the stickers while grocery shopping. Not seeing the actual prices on her groceries is already a bit of a surprise. Having little statements of Russians bombing hospitals startles her. She immediately does her patriotic duty and contacts the police about this propaganda on Aisle 5. The police, who despite Sasha's beliefs are not idiots, quickly find the naughty girl. Galina is startled to find both of her good girls arrested. 

Soon, Sasha sees the seriousness of her actions. She faces eight years in prison for her stunt. Sonya was quickly dismissed as it is established that she knew nothing of this political act. Galina at first cannot believe that Sasha could be some kind of subversive. At worst, Galina thinks that it was a dumb and foolish prank. However, being a good and patriotic Russian, she accepts that Sasha is a danger to Mother Russia. At Sasha's trial, Galina calmly but firmly denounces Sasha for her actions. The verdict is never in doubt. However, we get a little joke to close Extremist, complete with confetti. 

The problem that I had with Extremist is that the film ends up having the opposite effect that director and cowriter Aleksandr Molochnikov intended. We are, I figure, meant to sympathize with Sasha. She is speaking truth to power, albeit in the most innocuous manner. She is on the right side of history. She is even a lesbian, a dangerous thing to be in Russia right now.

However, Sasha is also something of a bossy figure. She willingly puts her lover Sonya in danger. She does not seem to take seriously how dangerous her actions are. She seems, rather, more upset about the consequences to herself than about what could have happened to Sonya.

Try as I might, and try as Extremist might, I found Sasha unlikeable. I did not want to see her harmed. I also, however, could not shake off the idea that she thought the stunt would not put others at risk. I grew more concerned for Sonya than for Sasha. I kept thinking about what if the police did not believe that Sonya was also part of this act of political subversion. 

It is not that I am opposed to fighting against dictatorships. It is rather than Sasha appeared uninterested in how her actions might have affected her lover. Again and again, I thought less about Sasha and her plight than I did about both Sonya and Galina.

I started to wonder if Extremist might have done better if it had focused on Galina instead of Sasha. Galina, excellently acted by Liliyan Malkina, is reflective of the average Russian. She is at heart a good person. She loves her country. She also knows Sasha and Sonya to be good people. Galina accepts what she sees as fact for good or bad. She believes the endless propaganda of Russian state television without giving it much thought.

She also thinks well of her tenants. When the police come to arrest them, she is absolutely shocked. She yells at the police that they must have the wrong people. If memory serves right, she tells them either at her arrest or at the police station that they are decent girls. To prove her point, she tells them that they do not even bring men up to their apartment. 

Galina is so traditional that she cannot conceive of the concept of lesbianism. She thinks Sasha and Sonya are respectable single women who do not indulge in fast living. I do not think that Extremist ever firmly established that Galina figured out that Sasha and Sonya were more than just friends. It does establish that when confronted with proof of Sasha's actions, she accepts what she is told without question. Seeing her condemn the prisoner for being anti-Russian is sad given that Galina is a good person. There is no malice in her actions. Instead, it is the endless lies that she has been fed as truth that led her to this wrong conclusion.  

I think Extremist might have done better to shift the focus to Galina's point of view versus attempting to make Sasha a martyr. Molochnikov and his cowriter Mikhail Durnenkov were, I figure, attempting to draw attention to the real-life case of Aleksandra Skochilenko. However, I think they ended up making a short film that did her and those like her a disservice. 

It does not help that the film ends on an extremely jokey way. Extremist ends with the judge's head exploding into a shower of confetti. Sonya and Sasha can look at each other almost in delight at the absurdity of it all. The ending fell flat to me. Adding a postscript where we are told of the extreme and paranoid laws that have people arrested for such trivialities is a poor counterpoint to confetti-exploding judges.  

Stories like those of Sonya need to be told. There is a strong scene where Sonya is forced to strip. The comments directed against her by the police are also troubling. "I wouldn't rape you. Too weird," she is told by a female cop. However, I found Extremist to be slightly smug in its telling. It seems a terrible shame given the importance of the subject. 

DECISION: D+

The Spencer Tracy Legacy: The Television Documentary

THE SPENCER TRACY LEGACY

Spencer Tracy had been dead almost twenty years when The Spencer Tracy Legacy premiered. Hosted by his long-term mistress and nine-time costar Katharine Hepburn, The Spencer Tracy Legacy is meant to make the case for his importance in film. Using film clips, interviews and personal reminiscences, The Spencer Tracy Legacy is an affection portrait of the man.

"For Spencer Tracy, acting was one thing. Living was another," Hepburn says early in the special. The rest of The Spencer Tracy Legacy makes that case. We see that Tracy's greatest skill when acting was to be natural. Tracy was a firm believer that you convince an audience by not drawing attention to yourself. 

If Tracy had an acting mantra, it would be "act natural". There was nothing showy, theatrical or grandiose to his acting. Instead, it was simple and direct. This is why, Hepburn muses, that his paring with Clark Gable worked so well. Gable was by no means hammy. He too would be natural. However, Gable was more a romantic lead. Tracy was the everyman, the person audiences, particularly male audiences, could better relate to.

Tracy worked hard and achieved stardom with San Francisco. In this film, with its climatic earthquake scene, was the film that finally made him a star. Hepburn reads from Tracy's journals, one of The Spencer Tracy Legacy's highlights. Tracy expresses great pride in Captains Courageous, the film that won him the first of his two consecutive Best Actor Oscars. He returned to the sea in a roundabout way in The Old Man and the Sea. There was something that he related to with these stories of simple men facing off against the elements.

No mention was made on how this Irishman playing a Portuguese and/or Cuban fisherman might now count as cultural appropriation. 

Tracy would venture into various genres with varying degrees of success. His work on Northwest Passage led to a lifetime loathing of location shooting. In both Edison, the Man and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, he did rare makeup work. He was not fond of those films. 

He was, however, fonder of Libeled Lady. That was another atypical type of film for Tracy. Libeled Lady was a screwball comedy. He was also fond of his Libeled Lady costar Jean Harlow. There was no suggestion of romance. Instead, it was more a general appreciation for Harlow's vivacious personality. On her death at the shockingly young age of 26, we see Tracy's simple journal entry. "Jean Harlow died. Grand girl," is all he wrote. 

At last, came Woman of the Year. Katharine Hepburn had long admired Spencer Tracy and wanted to work with him. Her first effort to get him to costar with her in The Philadelphia Story failed. With the Woman of the Year script, however, she would not be denied. Hepburn takes us to the spot where she finally met Spencer Tracy. She remembers that on meeting him, she was slightly taller than he was. Apologizing, she remarked that she would be more careful when they worked together. Woman of the Year producer Joseph L. Mankiewicz, who was with her and was a friend of Tracy's, put her at ease. "Don't worry Kate", he said. "He'll cut you down to his size". 

Hepburn speculates that what made their teaming successful was that they represented the typical American couple. Over the course of their nine films, Tracy & Hepburn would become intertwined cinematically. They would also become intertwined romantically. Tracy never divorced his wife, Louise. He also carried great guilt over his son John's deafness. While the John Tracy Clinic did great work for the deaf, Spencer never could reconcile himself to his official family.

Hepburn ends The Spencer Tracy Legacy by reading a letter that she wrote to her paramour long after his death. At five minutes, we see the great Katharine Hepburn at her most vulnerable. She speaks of her confusion at who this man was. She speaks of how he lived to act but could not live. By the end of her reading, it takes every ounce of strength within her to keep the tears clearly swelling in her eyes from not bursting out.

In San Francisco, Tracy played a priest. He returned to the priesthood in terms of roles in Boys Town, which won him that second consecutive Oscar. The role of priest was also something that he related to. Tracy was a Catholic but not a regular churchgoer. He was also a deeply troubled man who found no refuge in faith. His refuges were acting and alcohol. In The Spencer Tracy Legacy, Hepburn holds to the idea that Spencer found life bearable through acting. He could not live it any other way. 

The Spencer Tracy Legacy is the first time that Hepburn spoke publicly about their long-term affair. She waited until Louise Tracy's death which occurred three years earlier in 1983 before speaking on her decades-long liaison with Mrs. Tracy's husband. It might surprise viewers to see that Spencer and Louise's daughter Susie was friends with Hepburn. I think though that it bears noting that Spencer and Louise had been separated for a long time before Hepburn came into the picture. 

Katharine Hepburn had great respect and admiration for Spencer Tracy, the actor. She speaks with great reverence of his various cinematic successes. As for Spencer Tracy, the man, he is still opaque, a mystery to her. Hepburn loved him, deeply and wholly. Yet, she also did not fully understand him.

Such, I suppose, is the mystery of love. The Spencer Tracy Legacy ends with a five-minute monologue of sorts from Katharine Hepburn. She tells us that she can express herself better by reading aloud a letter that she wrote shortly before filming this tribute to her costar and love. The letter begins almost jolly, a touch humorous. I think she writes about having her cup of coffee while writing.  

As she continues reading what she wrote, we see that she is attempting to work out a lifetime's sense of confusion and emotion about the man she devoted her heart to. "Living wasn't easy for you", she says. "You couldn't enter your own life, but you could be someone else. You weren't you. You were safe". Katharine Hepburn, knowns as this towering figure of strength, reveals the woman within. She allows a great vulnerability to come through. Unfiltered, uncensored, this summation is not about Spencer Tracy's legacy in terms of cinema. It is a summation about Spencer Tracy's legacy in terms of her own heart. 

It is hard to not be moved by Katharine Hepburn in The Spencer Tracy Legacy. Hepburn kept a solid veil around her, where few if any could see the private, even vulnerable figure behind the formidable Yankee exterior. Here, we see Katharine Hepburn as one rarely saw her: deeply hurt, deeply pained, deeply lost. 

Curiously, her story of her first meeting with Tracy would be reused for her own documentary about her life and career, Katharine Hepburn: All About Me. I do not know the reason why the clip was recycled from The Spencer Tracy Legacy to All About Me, made seven years later. 

I confess to not being the biggest Spencer Tracy fan. That being said, I find The Spencer Tracy Legacy a good primer into his life and career. It is colored by Katharine Hepburn's continued devotion to him and his memory. However, I think there is much one can learn about this gifted but troubled man in The Spencer Tracy Legacy. 

7/10

The Bride of Frankenstein: A Review

THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN

Monsters must lead such interesting lives. That extends to their romantic lives. The Bride of Frankenstein manages to more than hold its own among the great horror films. A richer story with brilliant performances makes The Bride of Frankenstein a great cinematic treat.

It is a dark and stormy night. Three great British writers find themselves in luxurious shelter thanks to Lord Byron (Gavin Gordon). He marvels to his friend Percy Shelley (Douglas Walton) about the third member of their party. Lord Byron cannot believe that the demure Mary Shelley (Elsa Lanchester) could have come up with such a frightening tale as that of Frankenstein. Mary tells them that there is more to tell. After a brief recap of Frankenstein, we get to her new story.

Both Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) and his Monster (Boris Karloff, billed as "Karloff") survived the fire and rioting. Henry is spirited away back to Castle Frankenstein. The Monster manages to crawl out from the ruins. Frankenstein family housekeeper Minnie (Una O'Connor) sees the Monster, but no one believes her tale that the Monster lives. Henry is recovering from his experience, attended by his fiancée Elizabeth (Valerie Hobson, the only original Frankenstein actor not reprising their role). Henry wavers between rejecting and embracing his forbidden knowledge.

One person who definitely wants Henry Frankenstein to embrace that forbidden knowledge is Dr. Septimus Pretorious (Ernest Thesiger). He is Henry's former mentor who has had success with his own experiments but has been unable to get his creations to be the right size. He pushes Henry to join forces and bring man back from the dead. The Monster for his part continues rampaging the countryside. He then finds unexpected refuge in the hut of a blind hermit (O.P. Heggie). Unaware of the Monster's appearance, the hermit welcomes him and even teaches him to speak. It is until well-meaning hunters "rescue" the hermit that the Monster flees. He eventually encounters the mad Pretorious, who will now create Woman.

With that, the Monster demands a mate!

Pretorious pushes and eventually forces Henry to return to his nefarious experiments to create the Bride of Frankenstein (Elsa Lanchester in a dual role). Pretorious stoops to using the now Baroness Frankenstein as a hostage to ensure Henry's collaboration. Will the Bride find the Monster to her liking? Who will live and who will die in this climatic showdown?

The Bride of Frankenstein should be studied in how to make a good sequel. The Regency Era prologue gives us a quick recap of what has come before while integrating itself well to the new film. We get the needed information while still finding something new within it. 

Despite being the title character, the actual Bride of Frankenstein does not appear until an hour and ten minutes in The Bride of Frankenstein. Given that the film runs a surprisingly short one hour and fifteen minutes, it is more remarkable that she has so little screentime. Despite that, it was a brilliant decision by director James Whale and screenwriter William Hurlbut to hold back until almost the end. That built up anticipation, the audience knowing that she would eventually appear.

It was also a brilliant idea to have Elsa Lanchester play both Mary Shelley and the titular Bride. In the opening prologue, we see Lanchester as the demure proper Regency lady. At the end, we see this frightening figure. Lanchester plays both roles brilliantly. Her turn as the Bride is now iconic despite the brief appearance. Her sharp head and body movements as well as the sounds that she makes evoke a new creature unaware of anything around her. That is, until she sees her intended husband. Without any knowledge of beauty or ugliness, her frightened reaction is both unsurprising and tragic.

Tragic in terms of how Boris Karloff played the Monster. Karloff had initially opposed having the Monster speak. In this case, we see that Karloff was wrong. The Monster speaking actually enriches the character. It makes the Monster more sympathetic and tragic. He is something of an innocent in this world that routinely rejects him. It also makes him more menacing when needed. Perhaps not since Garbo Talks! in Anna Christie has a cinematic figure become richer textually than Frankenstein's Monster.

Ernest Thesiger is delightfully and wickedly campy as the mad Dr. Pretorious. This is a character who finds joy in his wickedness. His wry commentaries on the various tiny humans that Pretorious has created are in turns funny, arrogant and bitchy. Pretorious is not someone to be trifled with. He is also theatrical and a bit loony. Una O'Connor brings comic relief as Minnie. With her own wacky wardrobe and flights of screaming, O'Connor makes Minnie a figure of fun. She manages to be funny even when she is expressing vindictiveness against the Monster. Her reaction to seeing the Monster standing next to her brings levity to the proceedings.

The Bride of Frankenstein manages to bring a lot of humor to things. There are the performances of Thesiger and O'Connor. There is some of the witty dialogue. After Pretorious' two graverobbers finish, they express horror at their actions. Karl (Dwight Frye, returning in another role from that of Frankenstein) comments to his partner, "This is no life for murderers". Karl's efforts to play off exactly how he got a fresh heart are simultaneously funny and creepy. Earlier, the pompous Burgermeister (E.E. Clive) talks firmly to two policemen after the Monster is first captured. "Now I can get back to more important duties", he snaps. "And leave us to ours," one of the police tells his partner. Clive's double take lends to the humor.

Another Clive, Colin Clive, keeps to his past performance as Frankenstein. It seemed a bit more crazed than last time. It was a bit more exaggerated than I think it needed to be. That was nothing compared to Valerie Hobson as Elizabeth, Baroness Frankenstein. She seemed downright theatrical. I found Hobson wildly overdramatic in The Bride of Frankenstein as to be almost grating.      

A perhaps overlooked element in The Bride of Frankenstein's success is in its score. One might be surprised to find that this horror sequel would have the legendary Franz Waxman write its music. Waxman however, to use modern parlance, understood the assignment. He created charming and elegant music for the Regency-era prologue. He created eerie, menacing music for most of the film. he even threw in vaguely church wedding like bells for when Pretorious announces, "The Bride of Frankenstein!". 

Few sequels match let alone exceed the original. The Bride of Frankenstein is fortunate in that it does exactly that. I believe that The Bride of Frankenstein is a deeper, richer and curiously, wittier film than its predecessor. Given that Frankenstein is already a brilliant film, its bride manages to outshine it. The Bride of Frankenstein has as a tagline, "The Monster Demands a Mate!". With The Bride of Frankenstein, it is a match made in heaven. 

DECISION: A+

The Bride! (2026): A Review

THE BRIDE!

What. Was. That. 

There is something called the "Norbit" Effect. It is now almost an annual tradition to have a prohibitive Oscar winner appear in total garbage during awards season. Eddie Murphy was inches from winning Best Supporting Actor for Dreamgirls until the monstrosity known as Norbit derailed his bid. A few years back, Eddie Redmayne shamed his way into winning Best Actor for The Theory of Everything, managing to survive the monstrosity that is Jupiter Ascending. Now, it is Jessie Buckley's turn to fight against The Norbit Effect. As of this writing, she is seen as the de facto Best Actress winner for Hamnet. If she does win, it will be a good thing that The Bride! was not released during the Oscar voting period. The Bride! is a monstrosity in every way possible. 

The ghost of Mary Shelley (Jessie Buckley) speaks to us from beyond the grave. She is frustrated by death, unable to tell the story of the Bride of Frankenstein that she wanted to. However, now there is a chance. Mary Shelley will possess the body of Ida (Buckley in a dual role). Ida is a gangster's moll in 1936 Chicago. Restaurant patrons are startled to see this broad gyrate bizarrely, speak with a strong British accent in a rapid-fire stream of consciousness manner. She rambles too much about the machinations of mob boss Lupino (Zlatko Buric). Eventually, the two hoods with her kill her, albeit accidentally.

Into this comes "Frank" (Christian Bale). He is Frankenstein's Monster, still wandering the world. He is also still lonely and in need of female companionship. The Monster Demands a Mate. Who better to help in that cause than local mad scientist Dr. Cornelia Euphronious (Annette Bening). The bad doctor encourages Frank to stay at her hospital for observation, though she is unaware that he routinely sneaks off to see the movies of his favorite performer, Ronnie Reed (Jake Gyllenhaal). Dr. Euphronious agrees to find a corpse. It is that of Ida. Ida, who was (is?) possessed by the ghost of Mary Shelley.

It is becoming rather convoluted, isn't it?

The revival is a success, though the newly reanimated Bride has no memory of who she is. Of course, they are going to hit the Depression-era rave scene. Here though, Frank kills to protect his Bride. Now, they are on the run. Pursuing them is weary Detective Jake Wiles (Peter Sarsgaard) and his Girl Friday, Myrna Malloy (Penelope Cruz). Truth be told, Malloy is the real brains of the operation, but her brilliance cannot shine because she is a woman.

Frank and The Bride now go on a crime spree across the nation. Her rebellious nature inspires other women into fighting against their men. They are part of the "Brain Attack". They encounter Ronnie Reed, who is less than thrilled to find fan Frank gushing over him. Wiles and Malloy also find Frank and The Bride. Wiles recognizes her as his moll mole, one whom he slept with. As the crime wave rolls on, will the monster version of Bonnie & Clyde relive to happiness? Will Malloy triumph over the patriarchy? 

The Bride! has distinguished itself early in the year of our Lord 2026 as perhaps the worst film of the year. And we are barely in March. I attended a screening with four people counting myself and my cousin. He fell asleep. The elderly couple there walked out early in The Bride! Seeing one of them push herself as fast as she could on her walker proved a better sight than The Bride! itself. 

The Bride! is a disaster. A sheer, total, absolute disaster. It is as if everyone involved were asked "what bad decision could we make?" and managed to find one even worse than whatever had been suggested. I am an honest reviewer, and I cannot say that I hated The Bride! I can say though, that whatever enjoyment I found in The Bride! came from seeing alleged professionals make fools out of themselves.  

At one of the film's musical numbers, Frank and The Bride perform a dance routine reminiscent of Michael Jackson's Thriller video. This number is set to, of all the songs writer/director Maggie Gyllenhaal could have chosen, Putting on the Ritz. There can be only two reactions to such a sequence. One is astonishment that you have Putting on the Ritz in a new Frankenstein movie. The other is uncontrollable laughter that you have Putting on the Ritz in a new Frankenstein movie. 

I opted for the second reaction. I had already broken out in chuckles at certain parts of The Bride! However, seeing this frenetically shot number, with the backup dancers moving about equally crazed, as Frank and the Missus are dancing to the Irving Berlin classic was too much. You don't have a Frankenstein movie where you have the characters break out into Putting on the Ritz and expect to be taken seriously. 

What possessed them to echo, not the 1935 The Bride of Frankenstein, but Young Frankenstein instead? Christian Bale, Jessie Buckley and Penelope Cruz might, might get a pass if they genuinely were not aware of the 1974 Mel Brooks spoof. It is a stretch to think that Gyllenhaal, her brother and husband (who both appear in the film) were not aware of it. However, was every extra and crewmember also totally unaware of how flat-out stupid their version of Putting on the Ritz would look? I have read somewhere that they were fully aware of the Young Frankenstein connection. It, per my understanding, was meant as metacommentary. If so, it was dumber than I give them credit for. 

Many have commented on how The Bride! ends with Bobby "Boris" Pickett's novelty song Monster Mash while various Brain Attack femmes torture Lupino. The question that should be asked is if The Bride! was meant as a comedy or a serious film. I think it was just a case of the filmmakers raging and rambling incoherently. 

The plot, such as it is, makes no sense. Why would the ghost of Mary Shelley, apparently trapped in a vague netherworld, select some flapper floozy to tell her story? Moreover, a lot of The Bride! seems to forget this part. Poor Mary Shelley just pops up at random. Add to that this bit of oddity. Shelley wrote the novel. However, "Frank" is real. This flapper floozy, whom Mary Shelley possesses from beyond the grave, ends up as the Bride of Frankenstein that Mary Shelley would have written about if not for the patriarchy.

It is all gibberish. Total gibberish.  

You also get a very bizarre set of performances. Jessie Buckley followed up her Best Actress Oscar-winning performance in Hamnet with this. The justification for Michael B. Jordan winning Best Actor for Sinners is that "he played twins". Using that logic, Buckley should win a consecutive Best Actress Oscar for playing both the Bride and Mary Shelley. Credit where it is due in how Buckley had a good American accent. Everything else though is simply cringe-inducing. Her hysterics, rantings and theatrics are so awful that The Bride! could have demolished her Hamnet chances had it been released during voting season. 

Christian Bale, fellow Oscar-winner, looks bored throughout. He did his job, though apparently with no enthusiasm. Annette Bening looked appropriately crazed as Dr. C. Euphronious (she has to place her initial because sexism). She was leaning in on the idea that The Bride! was a spoof, at least judging on her performance. Jeannie Berlin plays the housekeeper Greta like a cross between Una O'Connor's Minnie in The Bride of Frankenstein and Cloris Leachman's Frau Blucher in Young Frankenstein. Truth be told, Berlin made Leachman look like Jessie Buckley in Hamnet by comparison.

Both Peter Sarsgaard and Penelope Cruz look like they wandered in from a whole other genre. They played their roles like they were in a film noir spoof. Sarsgaard's Detective Wiles looked more bored than Bale. I get that he was meant to be "world-weary". It just looked as if he was sleep deprived. Penelope Cruz's whole role is odd. No one apparently wonders why "Myrna Malloy" has a strong Spanish accent. Apparently, Myrna is the real brains behind the investigation, with Wiles just the front man. She, however, was unaware that Wiles had schtupped Ida prior to her killing.

I have seen comparisons to Joker: Folie a Deux when it comes to The Bride! Those comparisons are very warranted. It's some kind of horror musical comedy. It is incoherent. It is a terrible thing to sit through. It thinks it is far cleverer than it actually is. 

The Bride! has nothing to recommend it unless it is to laugh at it. Those who are not lulled to sleep with it will find endless about of untended laughter at The Bride! It was no graveyard smash.  

DECISION: F

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+