PerthZine

Tag: movie review

  • Classic Movie Review – Near Dark (1987)

    Classic Movie Review – Near Dark (1987)

    Katheryn Bigelow’s Debut Has Bite

    Rating: 3 out of 5.

    In her directorial debut, Katherine Bigelow (who has gone on to make many great movies, from Point Break to The Hurt Locker) takes on the ever-popular vampire movie genre. I read that she actually wanted to do a western but couldn’t get backing from studios, so we end up here with a part vampire horror, part western that doesn’t quite know what it is.

    As we know the mid to late 80’s was boom time for vampires with The Lost Boys leading the charge (released within months of this movie). Near Dark stars Adrian Pasdar as Caleb Colton, who meets Mae (Jenny Wright) in the wee hours of the morning and gets a bite that leads him to join a crew of vamps roaming the countryside looking for blood and mayhem.

    Jesse Hooker is the leader of the pack (played by Lance Henriksen, best known as Bishop from Aliens but also pops up in countless classics from the 70’s, 80’s and beyond), with Bill Paxton (Also in Aliens and another link to James Cameron, Bigelow’s significant other around this time) playing the wildest of the bunch, Jenette Goldstein (Aliens again) as Jesse’s gal, and rounded out with Joshua John Miller playing Homer, a middle-school aged vampire who is grown up mentally but stuck in a child’s body for eternity.

    This is actually a pretty decent horror/western, and I guess that’s a sign Bigelow had plenty of talent and was destined for greater things. As a first effort it is shot really well, feeling closer to 90’s cinema than the generally cheesier horror movies of the 80’s. Having said that the soundtrack is very 80’s synth heavy. Special effects are good apart from a couple of interesting fire effects as the action heats up (sorry).

    Ultimately, it is a love story, but I’d say it’s not quite sure of itself. For a while there I actually thought Caleb was going to go along for the ride with the vampires, but it shifts suddenly with an unusual encounter at a hotel. Pasdar and Wright have good enough chemistry, and the romantic backbone works well enough. The rest of the vampire group are fun, rampaging through the desert making me wonder how they survived as long as they did, being extremely reckless and barely covering their tracks.

    The Lost Boys it is not, but it isn’t really trying to be, despite the teen vampire plotline. It’s more violent and action packed so if that’s your thing, it is worth a visit. It’s also interesting to see the beginnings of the 90’s action movie aesthetic, not just following through to Bigelow’s later work but James Cameron and others as well.

  • Movie Review – Frankenstein (2025)

    Movie Review – Frankenstein (2025)

    Del Toro Brings the Gore and Sex Appeal

    Rating: 3.5 out of 5.

    Guillermo Del Toro seems to be in the doing-dream-projects phase of his filmography. After a varied career with some incredible fairytale-like stories alongside sci fi and fantasy films, he’s taking on the classics with Netflix. First came Pinocchio, now he’s had a go at Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (perhaps Moby Dick next?).

    Oscar Isaac plays Victor Frankenstein, the scientist raised by a strict father to know everything about the human anatomy and now obsessed with re-animating dead human bodies. Isaac is solid and suits the mad scientist role nicely. He meets a man who is willing to back his cause and fund the experiments (Christoph Waltz, always a pleasure to watch), and falls for his brother’s fiancé (Mia Goth, absorbing but a little underused).

    Most will know what happens next from either the book or the other film adaptations – Victor successfully sews a bunch of body parts together and brings his creation to life. Jacob Elordi plays the monster and plays him very well, especially the earlier scenes where he’s mostly mute. Though still somewhat grotesque, this must be the hottest version of the monster we have seen. Despite the stitches he’s still tall, dark and handsome with a ripped body; it’s an interesting take on it, and very much aligned with the tall, slender monsters we see in modern horror.

    I appreciate the true-to-the-novel approach, including the monster’s perspective. It is a nice touch that captures Shelley’s masterful shift to give the monster emotional grounding and evoke sympathy for him. Otherwise, we have some interesting diversions from the novel, namely the monster being invincible (even explosives seem to have no effect). It’s been a while since I read the novel, but I don’t think he was a superhero/villain. There is also quite a bit of gore, with body parts and animals being torn to shreds – not for the faint hearted. The novel themes, such as God/creation and alienation are all dealt with and add some depth to the shimmering surface of the movie.

    As far as the visuals and styling go, it is what we come to expect from Del Toro, with heavy CGI that at times looks colourful and vibrant, if video game-like, and some questionable bits (come on, haven’t we got the budget to do better sheep and wolves?). The pacing is good and mostly keeps the viewer entertained; plenty of action. I can’t say I felt bored during the 2-hour 20-minute runtime.

    Overall, this is a better adaptation than the last true novel adaptation starring De Niro as the monster (1994, directed by Kenneth Branagh, who also played Victor), if a little more Netflix, home-popcorn entertainment style.

  • Classic Movie Review – Innocent Bystanders (1972)

    Classic Movie Review – Innocent Bystanders (1972)

    The Name’s Craig, John Craig

    Rating: 2 out of 5.

    I can’t remember what led me to watch this movie but it may have been a conversation between Leonard Cohen and Paul Nelson in the book I Like People That Can’t Sing. Anyway, something made me do it, and despite not quite finding a consistent tone, it’s not a bad spy movie.

    Directed by Peter Collinson, (most known for The Italian Job) the plot is the usual spy fare. Stanley Baker plays ageing British secret agent John Craig, programmed to do that and only that (no hanky panky, they zapped this out of him years ago), tasked with finding a Russian defector and returning him (take your pick, several countries want him). Double crossing and bargaining is guaranteed.

    Along the way he kidnaps Miss Loman, Miriam Loman (Geraldine Chaplin, Charlie’s daughter), who makes up one of the more interesting characters in the film. She accompanies him on his hunt and naturally tries to seduce him, but there is a lot more emotional connection here than what you’d get with Bond. He’s also chased by a couple of agents who ham things up, and it gets even hammier with a Turkish hotel keeper talking in a ridiculous Aussie accent (he helped the diggers in the war, and picked up all the lingo), who starts out on the wrong side but ends up a faithful sidekick.

    Aside from Baker’s mullet, Chaplin is a standout, playing the delicate but not-completely-useless female lead, offering help peeling away layers of our battle hardened but broken secret agent. I’m also a fan of Donald Pleasence as Loomis, the posh but ruthless British spy boss. He plays it with a nice nose-up arrogance.

    It isn’t the worst spy movie, especially looked at as part of the shift in movies becoming more ‘modern’ in the late sixties and early seventies (it comes closer to the sixties). The pace is good with a bond-ish soundtrack rolling things along, and plenty of action from judo chops to gunfights, plus some exploding cars for good measure. Worth a look if you are into the genre and wanting something a little more obscure.