Godzilla (2014)

Film: Godzilla
Release: 2014, Theatrical
Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Bryan Cranston, Elizabeth Olsen
Directed by: Gareth Edwards
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: 15 years after a nuclear meltdown that tore his family apart, a homebound soldier is forced to go pay bail for his seemingly superstitious father. However when the fathers theories prove to be true, humanity is faced with a problem that has been resting beneath the earth for millenia.

Hans' thoughts:

In 1954, a Japanese film studio called Toho aped the success of the giant monster genre with their own take: Gojira! (or as it's known in the west, Godzilla! King of the Monsters!) The movie was a tremendous success and ushered in the kaiju genre as well as a long spanning movie series, a reboot in the 80's, and an American remake in 1998. The American remake starring Matthew Broderick and directed by disaster-movie master Roland Emmerich is widely regarded as one of the worst movies not only of the genre, but of that decade. When Hollywood announced they were coming out with a new take on the Godzilla characters, fans were (perhaps understandably) wary of what the west would make of their favorite big screen monster this time. 

Did I tune into a Simpsons live-action movie by accident?

So let's get the obvious stuff out of the way first, one of the biggest problems with most disaster movies is that the human parts are absolutely boring, not just by comparison with what is going on in the rest of the movie but by drama standards as well. The human actors who do the best job are Bryan Cranston as the Captain Ahab like Dr. Brody and whoever played that pleading guy trapped in a crane being dragged into the abyss. I'm sorry, I really am, but I felt little to no chemistry between any of the human characters - including up and comer superstar Aaron-Taylor Johnson whom I've previously enjoyed in his role as Kick-Ass. Most of the characters who spoke in the movie had little to nothing to say besides explaining to the audience what is going on on the screen when they weren't mugging at the camera to try and make us believe that what they were looking at was very tragic and very real. I did not believe the love between the main character and his wife, played by Elizabeth Olsen. As many flaws as the '98 Godzilla movie had, at least I cared a little more about the characters on screen - even if that care was whether they were stepped on or eaten. Frequently the movie would give us a two second shot of the action going on and then immediately cut back to a full scene with nothing but human characters - even long after the focus should've cut completely to just the rampage and the reactions by the human onlookers. A fun addition to the human roster however was Ken Watanabe as this movies version of Dr. Serizawa. However Watanabe got little to nothing to do in the entirety of the film and in the first 25 minutes I was honestly wondering whether his character was supposed to be mute.

All this is really a damn shame because once the movie actually kicks into gear there is a lot of good stuff there. The special effects are really cool, the spectacle-o-meter is going into the red with all the stuff happening - you get what you came for. Senseless meaningless and all encompassing destruction. Once all the key players of the movie are on set (and let's be honest nothing in that sentence includes something human) the destruction is great. A lot of critics has treated the fact that there's more than one monster in this movie as a spoiler, however there being a second monster in the film is clearly shown in the officially released trailer. The interaction between monsters and the animation of the monsters felt more real, than the actual human characters running around trying to survive the disaster. I got more attached to evil monsters in this film than I should've and that's for shame. Godzilla is also fortunately in this movie, as opposed to the '98 disaster that simply but a computer generated T-Rex on screen. He looks like his Japanese counter part, he has the power set of his Japanese counterpart and he actually acted like Godzilla would. It was awesome to see him and his enemies smash themselves through the screen time they got - even if the designs of the new monsters were kinda cliché. The human parts may not be all that good but the people tied to the creative process obviously treated this as a petproject that they really wanted to see succeed. They get what the genre is all about, they get why Godzilla is so awesome, all they really need to do for their next outing is work on their drama skills - or maybe motivate their actors a little better. 

After the success of Del Toro's 2013 kaiju love-letter Pacific Rim we may see more and more American kaiju attempts like this one. I'll be happy if the rest of them will at least hit this level of quality and dedication when it comes to the spectacle and special effects. If the sequel to this movie simply ups its game when it comes to the human parts, we may actually get the great western action blast that the king of monsters truly deserves. 

Dragon Ball: Curse of the Blood Rubies (1986)

Film: Dragon Ball: Curse of the Blood Rubies (Doragun bôru: Shenron no densetsu)
Release: 1986, theatrical
Starring: Colleen Clinkenbeard, Monica Rial, Jeremy Inman
Directed by: Daisuke Nishio
Next in the series: Dragon Ball: Sleeping Princess in Devil's Castle
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In the mountains, a boy named Son Goku lives in total seclusion until one day he meets a young treasure hunting girl named Bulma - meanwhile in a small kingdom, the king has grown cruel and greedy in the hunt for the highly valuable Blood Rubies.

Hans' thoughts:

For kids all over the world, Dragon Ball has played the role of their first introduction to the shounen manga genre. The tale of a young boy, his friends and their action filled hunt for the legendary seven dragon balls that can fulfill any wish has proven to be such a popular genre the the series has spun off several video games, four cartoon shows, a slew of merchandise and of course a long line of movies. This time we're looking at the very first Dragon Ball movie, Curse of the Blood Rubies. The movie is centered around a small kingdom ruled by a king that has recently grown malevolent and has a extreme hunger he believes can only be removed by the magic of the dragon balls, he sends out his two elite soldiers to find the remaining balls he needs, meanwhile the movie also retells the first four or five chapters of the original series as we get the origin of Goku and Bulma's meeting, as well as a re-introduction for Master Roshi the turtle hermit, Yamcha the bandit and Oolong & Pool the two shapeshifting animals. As far as the retelling goes, I have to admit that while I perfectly understand their reasons for doing so I had far preferred they'd kept the origins out of the movie. The original stories the introduced the characters were pretty heavily grounded in the raunchy comedic nature of the show and some of the best moments have been left out - most likely due to the perceived age-rating of the film. However to their credit the writers of the film has managed to keep the spirit of the series very much alive and all the characters have their personalities intact. It should also be mentioned that this film has a running time of a meager 47 minutes, so it doesn't outstay it's welcome at all.

If you're familiar at all with the show, you know pretty much the standard fare for what you're in for. Goku is our super strong but fairly naive and stupid hero that saves the day with the help of his more world-weary cynical allies that are pretty much only in it for themselves. As far as Dragon Ball movies go, the storyline for this one is pretty good - Dragon Ball is a very action heavy but also storyline oriented series so trying to make something that fits somewhere into the story can be pretty trying - most of the time, the movies will mix up who were alive and had what powers at a certain point of the series. That's probably why they initially decided to make the movie take place at the very beginning of the story, making this some sort of alternative plotline. The actual big bad of this plotline in the series was the vindictive Prince Pilaf, who is nowhere to be found in this movie.

The villains have very simple designs compared to almost all other instances this series has ever seen, a low amount of color and more focus on body type is also a witness of how early on in the run the movie was made. Our main villain is kept in shadow for most of it, and does look interesting one he's finally revealed but the villains we spend the most time with are just two people in uniform. It's simplistic, but in the context of the story it works very well. By this time in the series, we had yet to be introduced to the major science fiction aspects the show would later encompass, and as such the film as much more of a medieval fantasy feel to it with Bulma's Capsule Corp. technology being the only real reminder of the shows setting most of the time. The animation of the movie is also very simplistic, I imagine it was done on the same budget as the show as it makes high use of still-frames to tell it's story. While mostly good, there is the case of the character of a little girl made especially for the movie, she's the films main character outside of the series mainstays and while she has a simple and cute design very akin to the iconic Akira Toriyama art style, the animators decided to animate some of her hairs separately and that unfortunately gives off the effect of her looking like a glorified Raggedy Ann doll.

I watched the Funimation version of the film, so I was treated to the English voice cast. While it's certainly apparent that the cast has become much better since it actually turned out to be a decent enough dub. Of course at times the difference in sound level between the high quality microphones used for the dub and the background music did become fairly obvious but never to the point that it took me out of the experience. There exists some very horrible voice-overs of Japanese animation out there and you can do far worse than the Funimation dub of Dragon Ball that as to some people become neigh iconic and a preferred choice. That's the boat I'm in, as I have never been a big fan of especially Goku's original voice, while it's standard fare for women to voice main character in japanese animation, in the case of Son Goku I felt the actress let him be way too high pitched. As I said however, this version had the Funimation voice cast and they do a well enough job of conveying the characters and their emotions. 

Superior quality of the original series aside, this movie holds it's own among the dragon ball animated movies and is a fitting start for what would become one of the most popular animated series in the genre. A mix of a sweet and simple story, some nice comedic moments and a fair quality of the series staple of martial arts action scenes. Curse of the Blood Rubies may not be the greatest Dragon Ball story out there but it manages to be a fun animated kids movie and an entertaining nostalgia trip for long time fans.

Doctor Who: The Day of The Doctor (2013)

Film: Doctor Who: The Day of The Doctor
Release: 2013, Theatrical
Starring: Matt Smith, David Tennant, John Hurt
Directed by: Nick Hurran
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In 2013, A strange man in a blue box is brought to the royal british gallery to receive a letter written by Queen Elizabeth the 1st. In a time forgotten, another strange man in another blue box is contemplating a horrible sacrifice for the sake of the universe.

Hans' thoughts:

50 years running, the science fiction adventure series Doctor Who produced by BBC has made a roaring comeback after it's series revival starting in 2005. The Doctor, of course, is a timelord - a super-intelligent alien from an ancient race with remarkable life-spans and technology. Throughout his adventures he's fought countless of strange beings and universe threatening catastrophe, somehow being personally connected to planet Earth and always bringing along one or more human companions to show them the wonders of time and space. When a timelord dies, he regenerates and gains a completely new face - which is the core reason for why the show has run this long. Whenever an actor felt it was time to find new ventures, he could be replaced by someone else and as such The Doctor has become comparable to James Bond. Everybody has their favorite incarnation and companion, everybody has their favorite villain and adventure. Everybody has a 'first' Doctor. Personally I was very late to the party, not jumping on the series till the introduction of Matt Smith in the 11th incarnation. He's the current Doctor (slated to be replaced this Christmas by Peter Capaldi) and the movie revolves around him meeting the 10th incarnation played by David Tennant, and a previously unknown incarnation played by John Hurt. Having such a strong legacy, it's no wonder that this is probably one of the most anticipated events of 2013 - with the special even being screened in cinemas worldwide. So how does this actually hold up?

Because of the announcement that some of the classic Doctors would not make an appearance despite the movie being announced to have different incarnations meeting each other I went into this with some degree of wariness. Fortunately, I was legitimately surprised by how good some of the moments and how overall great this movie turned out to be. It is not often you have something that builds up a great amount of hype and actually manages to live up to expectations. I found all actors involved to do a great job, Matt Smith is tried and true as the Doctor and David Tennant was able to jump straight back into the role in spite of the time between now and his last appearance as the adventurous timelord. Newcomer is of course John Hurt, portraying an all new incarnation of the time-lord and playing a character with a lot of weight on his shoulder - who exactly he is, and where he fits in would be too much of a spoiler to disclose here but suffice it to say that he makes for a really good incarnation more than living up to the series. The one I feel did the best job of portraying The Doctor is Matt Smith, channeling this fun loving yet weary character much more strongly than the goofball adventurer of David Tennant but that also has to do with the difference between their characters (Yes, The Doctor is one character yet more at the same time). 

Companion-wise we have the return of Clara, played by Jenna Coleman. We have recently seen her introduced as "The impossible girl" and she does a very good job her, while I understand why she's included (this serves as special episode and fits into series continuity after the episode "The Name of The Doctor") she thankfully takes a backstep to let us have fun with the interaction between The Doctor and his other selves. We also have a return of Billie Piper in an unexpected appearance, she was announced to appear in the episode months ago but I don't think anyone would've expected her to show up in this version. Piper, I have to say, does a much better job in this than I feel she has done in any other of her appearances. I was never a fan of the Rose Tyler character so I was pleasantly surprised that she doesn't become the focal point of the story and has a much more reserved performance than the highly emotional Rose from her initial run on the series. The supporting cast, while sparingly utilized all do a very good job at portraying their individual characters but I feel the movie definitely would have benefited from instead using more established characters as opposed to introducing new ones - there are characters long time fans would quite frankly be baffled do not show up to assist our time-travelling heroes. However, there exists room to expand upon some of them in the future so I'm hoping they will make a return to more traditional episodes so we can actually get to know them. On the story side there exists a bit of a schism when it comes to kind of high stakes we're used to, while fans of the series will recognize The Time War as being a great event that very much defines the character there is not much in the way of urgency when it comes to the danger our characters face. While there are certainly shots of Daleks encountering civilians and causing distress the foes that dominate the film are the alien shapeshifters known as the Zygons, a minor monster race that has only appeared once or twice in an episode many years ago. 

I certainly like the creatures but one can't help but think that Daleks, or indeed any other more well-known Doctor Who villain would make much more of an appearance in this 50 years anniversary special. Cybermen, The Master or The Sontaran race is not included at all and you have to stop for a moment and wonder if, aside from the actual Time War event, any of these dangers couldn't have been handled by a single incarnation of The Doctor. The Day of The Doctor takes some time to get up and running but once it finally gets going there is fun and games all around, Tennant, Smith and Hurt have surprisingly good ping pong between them and, while sparingly used, the other actors of the movies all turn in a very good performance. I recommend this to fans only however, if you are only passingly acquainted with the series you will have a hard time keeping up with who's doing what and why their lines are significant, references to 50 years worth of sci-fi is spread throughout the movie so if you don't know who The Doctor is you'll likely be a tad confused. However, for fans this is a loving tribute to what has become an icon of the genre and one that I hope we will continue to follow for years to come.

Frankenweenie (2012)

Film: Frankenweenie
Release: 2012, theatrical
Starring: Charlie Tahan, Atticus Shaffer, James Hiroyuki Liao
Directed by: Tim Burton
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: After the death of his dog, the child genius Victor Frankenstein decides to bring him back to life. When the other kids in his class catches wind of it, they try to steal his secrets in other to win the upcoming science fair

Hans' thoughts:

It's starting to become general consensus around Tim Burton fans that the director is at his best when he sticks to making movies based completely on an original idea, rather than adapting someone else's work in his own unique style. So what happens when the man decides to adapt one of his own former creations for the big screen? Well, let's take a look at Frankenweenie.

Taking a middle school spin on the classic tale of the man who created a monster, Frankenweenie is a lot more heartwarming story about a boy and his dog - and how the boy decided to play god in order to have the dog stick around post mortem. The original Frankenweenie was only about 25 minutes long and the story has certainly gone through some changes in order to better fit the big screen. More plots have been added, more characters and the film is now littered with references for the horror fans to pick up on. The movie is of course, as many other Tim Burton originals, done entirely in stop-motion animation. It's a great way to pick up on the creepiness that the Burton artstyle entails, if you've seen any of Burtons other animated features (Corpse Bride, Vincent, The Nightmare Before Christmas) you can easily recognize the style. The big and heavily shaded eyes being as present as ever. This kind of story is also where this artstyle "belongs", so to speak. While I love the style personally, it is kinda off-putting to see the style used for classic childrens stories as has been done with Charlie & The Chocolate Factory and Alice in Wonderland. Another thing they decided to do was make the entire movie in black & white, possibly to enhance the feeling of the story taking place in a 1930's Universal Pictures horror-movie, this also means that the movie has absolutely beautiful work with shadows - akin to that of the german impressionism and the movies of which it parodies. This isn't the first time Burton has delibaretly chosen to shoot in black & white, both the original Frankenweenie and his bio-pic of the desperate 50's director Ed Wood were done in this style. This isn't something tacked on, Burton has a geniune love for the era.

This is where I unfortunately have to put the praise to a halt, because while I definitely enjoyed myself during the movie it wasn't shot with my age group in mind. No, this film was supposed to be a childrens movie and I very much doubt that a superior number of kids would get much enjoyment out of this film. Much of the humor in the film comes from references to monster movies, little gags such as the japanese kid pulling out a camera at the sight  of a giant monster or a female poodle getting a white line in its hair much akin to the look of the Bride of Frankenstein. While I certainly got a laugh out of some of them, I picture a lot of kids wouldn't. Then again, I'm just some guy what the heck do I know what the kids are into these days? However, many countries must've felt the same because while the movie certainly got a theatrical release, it wasn't dubbed into all that many languages. In Denmark, for one, the movie was only released with subtitles. 

One the other hand, the extended story is actually pretty cute. I commend the ability of the animators to really capture what an animal would act like. Frankenweenie isn't some super intelligent dog who knows exactly what to do in all situations. He's still just a dog so he will act irrationally and misbehave sometimes, just like a real dog would. I don't know for certain if I should commend the movie on the animals being the most convincing characters however. As for the acting of the humans, they do a well enough job with what they've been given. The characters aren't particularly deep, but taking into account what the actors were given to work with, well there's not much else they could do than just sticking to their guns and try to deliver a great performance - which they do. The characters of the movie, while all fun to look at (sporting the burton artstyle helps) none of them are "normal". With the possible exception of Victors parents, all the main characters of the movie have some kind of absurd character trait. One kid looks, as an example, exactly like the stereotypical hunchback lab assistant that would show up in a Frankenstein movie. It is off-putting at first but fortunately the movie and the story is actually well-written enough to make the characters work and in spite of their absurdity I still found the characters likeable - I wanted them to succeed in their endeavours. You cannot ask for much more when the focus of the movie is elsewhere. 

Frankenweenie is a cute version of the classic Frankenstein tale, and had the movie not relied too much on referencing the entirety of the horror genre from a certain era the film could've been a truly great introduction for kids to the story. Key moments from Frankenstein are certainly present in the film to some extent, but the extra layer of movie references is just way too much to take in at once at some points. There is fun for horror fans, Burton fans and animation fans alike in this film - as for the rest of you perhaps you will find something in the tale of a boy and his dog, and how hard it can be to let go when the time finally comes.

Count Dracula's Great Love (1973)

Film: Count Dracula's Great Love

Alternate Titles: Dracula, Dracula's Castle, Dracula: The Movie,Cemetery Girls, Vampire Playgirls, Cemetery Tramps, Enter Dracula and Dracula's Virgin Lovers

Release: 1973, theatrical

Starring: Paul Naschy, Rosanna Yanni, Haydée Politoff

Directed by: Javier Aguirre

IMDB page: Link opens in a new window

Description: When their stagecoach breaks down in the middle of a forest, four young girls and a professor has to rely on the hospitality of an Austrian doctor living in a secluded castle, unfortunately the good doctor turns out to be none other than the king of vampires himself, Dracula!

Hans' thoughts:

In the 1960's and early 70's, the classic horror icons had made a triumphant return to the screen with the movies by Hammer Films. The films had blood, gore and beautiful women becoming victims of overpowering monsters. One of the most popular monster series from Hammer was the Dracula films starring Christopher Lee, a role in which he would become simply iconic. I imagine those were what the creators had in mind when a small spanish studio decided to do their own Dracula feature, filled with all the big selling points from the era. Before you make any assumptions, no I'm not saying that the Spanish can't make horror movies, in fact they created what many consider the best version of the 1930's Dracula movie, shot side by side with the Bela Lugosi version. El Gran Amor Del Conde Dracula however, is nothing like that. This movie is as barebones as it gets.

the most convincing actors of the movie, the horses, unfortunately
leave early on.

So after an actually not too bad opening scene, we see the first problem with the movie. During the opening credits, the death scene of a man rolling down some stairs is looped. blatantly. I don't know if the creators had run out of time when they got to this point, but just for the record: If you want to show all your credits in the beginning of the film please at least show something else in the background than what amounts to looking at the same .GIF animation for three minutes. I'll be honest and say that I actually shut the movie off by this point for a couple of hours, I needed mental preparation for what I was in for.

So after being huddled up in a corner muttering to myself for a few minutes, I was ready to jump right back into the movie. Forcing myself to sit through the draining force of the opening credits. What awaited me on the other side was almost just as bad. We meet our "heroes" in the stagecoach. Here they're having a conversation about local tales from the area, what fascinates me is that even through the poor English dub of the movie, I could still recognize poor acting ability AND poor writing. I don't know if the sentence "What beautiful stories I will have to tell when I get back to Munich" followed by the horrific legend of Dracula sounds natural in the movie's native language but I very much doubt it. This is of course, a pretty shortsighted attempt at delivering exposition. Get used to this, because almost every line spoken by any character in most of the movie is not natural conversation at all but rather blatant exposition dumping. 

To be fair, being told a good horror story is not the reason this movie was made at all. It becomes pretty clear by the 20 minute point that this movie was made almost exclusively with the male demographic in mind, when the main characters aren't flashing their mammaries, they're walking around with pretty low-cut dresses. At the very least the film is honest about it's intentions early on. I don't think it's a secret to anyone why this particular piece was a feature on "Movie Macabre", a TV-show presented by hostess character "Elvira, Mistress of the Dark". It was a late night comedy tv-show where the hostess would sport revealing clothing and show B-list horror films. Therefore, once you've come to terms with what exactly this film is you can most likely turn your brain off and enjoy the fun. The rest of the movie is pretty much what you would expect from a film like this. The four girls are turned by Count Dracula one by one and forced to torture young women from the nearby village. 

I have to defend something in this movie though: I really like the sets. As cheesy as it is, whatever mansion was chosen to act as the castle in this movie gets the job done and when it does have to at least pay homage to the setting of the film, it does so well. Poor acting abilities aside, I like the scenes where they actually attempt to build up an atmosphere even though they fail in most cases. If you're able to watch absolute lowest denominator crap and still have a good time with it, this is for you. This movie just barely hits the "so bad it's good" mark which is what made it tolerable. You have to give the movie points for at least trying to deliver a fun experience, if you want a different look at Dracula this is a fun, albeit poorly made, attempt.

As with "Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter", this film is in the Public Domain, meaning you can watch the movie RIGHT NOW. Right here in the article. Alternatively you can download the film right HERE. 

Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter (1966)

Film: Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter

Release: 1966, Theatrical

Starring: John Lupton, Narda Onyx, Cal Bolder

Directed by: William Beaudine

IMDB page: Link opens in a new window

Description: While on the run from the law, notorious criminal Jesse James hides out in the castle of Maria Frankenstein, the granddaughter of the legendary scientist who created monsters from the bodies of the dead.

Hans' thoughts:

Originally released as part of a double feature with another famous horror icon meeting a real life western legend (Billy The Kid Vs. Dracula). This film is probably the one with the most serious tone, core concept notwithstanding. Set in 1882, the movie actually takes place after the announced death of Jesse James. For the curious here's some actual historical insight: In the movie they state that James is supposed to have been hanged publicly before the events of the film, but in reality Jesse James was shot in the back of the head, betrayed by a member of his gang. The other titular character is the GRANDdaughter of the original Doctor Frankenstein (why the title says daughter I have no idea), she and her brother has continued the original doctor's experiments and been forced to move to America from Vienna. If we're strictly counting years, these being the grandchildren of Doctor Frankenstein would sort of make sense, if we go by the logic that the original tale took place at the same time of the novel: 1810.. But I digress.

Narda Onyx (right) and John Lupton (left) each play the
titular characters of the movie.

As far as the concept of the movie goes, I have serious trouble believing that there was a market for this particular crossover. As far as I can tell, the two stories have absolutely nothing to do with each other and the "golden age" of horror films had ended in the beginning of the 1940's. Strange as the crossover may be, I actually really like the character of Maria Frankenstein. She makes for a great villain, with little to no regard for her fellow humans. She even treats her own brother, the disillusioned and reluctant Rudolph, with little to no respect. While nothing like the historical Jesse James, I also like the performance by John Lupton. He's very calm and collected, unphased by most of the problems around him so he makes for your typical bad ass western hero. As for the monster of the movie, they chose to go with a sort of Mice & Men dynamic between Jesse James and his partner who would later become the mindless creature. He's a physically strong, slightly dimwitted man who seems to be merely misguided into the criminal life. The design of the monster is also VERY simplistic to say the least, most likely due to the movie being low-budget. But honestly, in spite of their choice to make a notorious robber and murderer into their main character, the Jesse James in the movie is played nothing like the sort of person who would become this feared.

Acting wise, while both of our titular characters are given pretty good performances, the rest of the cast are kind of stiff in their deliveries, most things are also "over-explained", giving the feel of a story that was originally meant for an anthology comic, ala Tales From The Crypt. Honestly I feel that the more restraining time-limit the movie would have been given in a anthology piece, perhaps Creepshow, would've worked more in the story's favour. As it stands, I feel the movie has way too many scenes with out characters just being in the wild west, completely leaving out Maria Frankenstein for almost the entire second act. Instead we have a few western-clichés, like doing a robbery or fighting native Americans. This doesn't help the movie at all, because as I said the only two really good performances in the movie are those of the two titular characters and having most of the movie leaving out one of them just leaves the audience losing their patience. When the two titular characters finally DO meet up, there is a love triangle in the story that, frankly, seems like it came out of nowhere. Giving Maria Frankenstein more of a reason to hate Jesse James does make for a nice motivation from a dramatic standpoint, I just wish the movie instead had spent the time trying to build up the atmosphere or, more importantly - Have more scenes with the monster.

Yes, poor design of monster aside I would very much have preferred to have more time with it than the time we got. It is obvious who the monster will be from the beginning of the film and having more time of Jesse James duking it out with Doctor Frankenstein and her monster would have made for some great action scenes. It would also have made for potential drama, considering the monster is made from Jesse James' former friend. I would have liked to have seen more of that, instead of a love triangle that never really starts before it ends. Once the monster does show up however, this is when the movie actually gets enjoyable and the sheer cheese factor of the monster creation scene sold the entire movie for me. This is what I came to see and I was not disappoint by how much scenery chewing the good Doctor gets to do in this scene. That and wearing a funny hat. A funny hat always helps.

Now normally, this is where the article would end. Leaving you to find this very obscure film to your own but it just so happens that Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter is an abandoned film and therefore in the public domain. Therefore I am glad to present to you with the film, right here in it's full length for your enjoyment. Alternatively you can download it from The Internet Archive right HERE and watch it at your own leisure. Was I right? Was I wrong? Feel free to watch it and leave me a comment to this article!

The Wolf Man (1941)

Film: The Wolf Man
Release: 1941, Theatrical
Starring: Lon Chaney Jr., Bela Lugosi, Claude Rains
Directed by: George Waggner
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: After the death of his brother, the last surviving heir to Talbot castle returns home to England from California. However, something becomes really wrong with the small country town when a gypsy family comes, just as the wolfsbane blooms.

Hans' thoughts:

Bringing us many of the now accepted elements to the werewolf legend, Universal Pictures' 1941 monster classic sat at the very tail end of the golden era of Horror movies. Like it predecessors, The Wolf Man brings in human issues to the mix to better appeal to a general audience. In The Mummy, it was a love story that spun a thousand years, in Frankenstein it was giving flesh to ones deepest desires and here in The Wolf Man, the story is very much about the duality of mankind. The fight between reason and instinct, as it were. Our reluctant hero, played by Lon Chaney Jr., is a happy go lucky simple man of simple pleasures. Unlike his father who's into astronomy, he is not a scientist and prefers to work with his hands rather than jot down theories and trying to comprehend the universe. That's what makes Larry Talbot such an appealing character, aristocratic ancestry aside, Larry is very much an every man - compare that to the obsessed genius of Doctor Frankenstein or the cruel sexual predator of Count Dracula and the reason for the popularity of the character himself becomes clear. He did not bring himself into the problems he face, instead he is a victim of circumstance. That must've sat pretty well with the audience of 1941, in the beginning years of a world spanning war and the final years of the depression, the people of the movie's contemporary time stood before challenges they often times had little to no chance of fighting against. Lon Chaney Jr. would go on to portray both The Wolf Man (and later The Mummy) in several films afterwards, some of them in continuity with this one following the increasingly desperate attempts from Larry Talbot to get rid of the curse.

This is a very atmospheric movie, set in Great Britain (it's undisclosed exactly where) the night scenes are abound with foggy wooden areas, where the ground is so damp that one's legs disappear into invisibility. Throughout the movie a poem is repeated meticulously, probably to make it catch on to audiences and make sure they understand exactly how the curse works. The photography of the movie is pretty well done and the werewolf cane remains one of my favorite cinematic props. The design is just so bizarre, yet straight forward. One can only wonder who - or what would create an item like that. That is left in the dark though, rightfully so, it is more creepy to let it be left to the imagination. On the acting side we have a pretty good performance from most of the cast, much in contrast to Frankenstein even the minor roles does a good job in this one. There's not really any stand out performances in this one, so consider this a "good job" mark to the entire cast. The look of the movie is very cool, as I said most of the movie takes place on foggy night and I really like what they did in regards to The Wolf Man himself, not looking all that much like an actual wolf but still something beastly and unnatural - something that will give into desire and instincts.

The Wolf Man is a very straightforward film, much like the nature of our main character. It gives us an interesting spin on the werewolf legend, one that oddly enough hasn't been imitated all too often. Honestly, compared to modern werewolf designs who look like giant wolves walking on two feet, or in some cases just plain big wolves, this design is much more streamlines and dare I say it, humane. This monster actually looks like a man taken over by the beast within more than just a person turned into a big anthropomorphic wolf creature like in movies like Underworld, Van Hellsing or Dog Soldiers, but I digress. If you want the movie that kickstarted werewolves into public conscience, this is most definitely it. And it is a timeless tale of being overcome by the duality of man.

Frankenstein (1931)

Film: Frankenstein
Release: 1931, theatrical
Starring: Colin Clive, Mae Clarke, Boris Karloff
Directed by: James Whale
Next in the series: Bride of Frankenstein
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: The young genius and heir to the Frankenstein baronial title, Henry, has secluded himself with his work. Far away from prying eyes. His highest ambition to give back life to the dead, he steals corpses in the night.

Hans' thoughts:

Released at the heels of Dracula and arguably the most popular of the classic Universal Pictures horror line-up, Frankenstein has become one of the most imitated monster movies of all time. From the scientist/hunchback dynamic to the childish demeanor of the monster itself. When people think of Frankensteins monster these days, the look of it is almost always similar to the monster design from this movie, it is just iconic. Rightfully so, for this is to this day a really good movie and honestly one of the best ever made. People who has not even seen this film know of scenes from it and can make at least one quote from it. It's just that much of a powerhouse.

Normally, this is credited to actor Boris Karloff who portrayed the monster. I can see why, he manages to turn the monster into both an imposing and sympathetic creature. Held back by the world around him and treated cruelly despite of how calm it starts out. My personal favorite performance of the movie however is that of Doctor Henry Frankenstein himself, Colin Clive plays the doctor and boy does he do a good job, through the first part of the movie he is obsessed with his work and he pulls a face of pure desperation and insanity, it's so intimidating yet unpredictable that it's stunning, you can never really tell what kind of lengths this man has gone for the sake of his experiments.

As for the other actors they all do a decent enough job, mind you however that this was just after the silent movie era and you can tell that some of these actors mimic more convincingly than they talk - probably originally trained for theatre. By that I mean that some of the supporting cast is unfortunately really stiff in their delivery, case in point is the female lead who just isn't interesting to look at, however I will give her credit for being a frontrunner for the scream queen characters.What more can you say about this version of Frankenstein? From it's well thought out sets to some of the most quoted lines in history Frankenstein from 1931 has turned out to be one of the most well made movies to this day, the even more interesting part is that it still holds up even more than even some movies released much later.

Big Top Scooby-Doo! (2012)

Film: Big Top Scooby-Doo!
Release: 2012, Video
Starring: Frank Welker, Mindy Cohn, Grey DeLisle, Matthew Lillard
Directed by: Ben Jones
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: When Mystery Inc. goes to Atlantic City, hoping for a bit of R&R, Fred's fascination with circuses gets them involved in a hunt for a werewolf who've been doing a jewel heist crime spree throughout the nation

Hans' thoughts:

The first thing that's going to pop out at you when you watch this movie is also one of the first things that hit the screen. This movie absolutely excellent music, peaking at an absolutely wonderful into-credits sequence. The whole sequence is done in such a way that it looks like cardboard cut-out dolls are on the screen, and the imagery combined with the twisted honky-tonk esque motif that many associate with the circus is genuinely creepy. Not scary - creepy. Which is exactly how a Scooby-Doo movie should be able to convey. That I applaud. Music like this, with the occasional exception, plays throughout the movie to varying degrees of success, none as great as the aforementioned sequence.

However, this movie has a pretty big flaw in it's monster. As sad as I am to admit it, I could not take the character design of the werewolves seriously as all. The snout looks downright strange and the eyes look way too fake. Now of course I know that the monsters in the Scooby-doo franchise are never real, but this made it to a point that it kind of distracted from what was going on, on screen. Which is a shame for the story is actually not half bad and the mystery kept me guessing as to who the perpetrator was throughout, even wondering at times if the movie was going the "monsters are real route" this time which Scooby-Doo movies have, unfortunately, done a lot. I will give the movie this though, the outcome took me by surprise.

Big Top Scooby-Doo! is, if a bit flawed, still neck and shoulder above some of the other direct-to-video and televised Scooby-Doo movies. As with Scooby Doo! Mask of the Blue Falcon this feels less like a cinematic experience and more like an extended episode of the What's New Scooby-Doo? TV-show. Don't take that as a criticism though, because that is what I feel the live-action movie should have been. A well-written mystery with some good comedy starring characters that the audience know and love. Once again, the direct-to-video Scooby-Doo movies prove that they're able to give the human members of Mystery Inc. their own appeal that doesn't need to be backed up by Scooby's antics constantly - which is an achievement almost in and off itself. 

Monsters University (2013)

Film: Monsters University
Release: 2013, Theatrical
Starring: Billy Crystal, John Goodman, Steve Buscemi
Directed by: Dan Scanlon
Previous in the series: Monsters, Inc.
IMDB Page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Mike Wazowski is a young monster who've dreamt of being a scarer for Monsters, Inc. his whole life. Tons of challenges await when he starts his freshman year at Monsters University.

Hans' thoughts:

The thing about prequels is that the audience pretty much already knows what the outcome is going to be - so you better be able to pull a lot of very good red herrings. Which is exactly what this movie does!

Monsters University, or as I like to call it, Party at the Design Department, is a colorful and happy movie. If you watch this one and it's predecessor back to back you will notice quite a lot of changes. One thing I definitely noticed was the much better use of lighting. Okay granted, the original Monsters, Inc. had technological limits and I respect that but even going by that, this movie really had an ability to set the mood. This is a movie about monsters after all, and this is a very dark movie. As in, the blinds are pulled in almost all the rooms.

In fact, not till our main characters join a fraternity do we see a more light-hearted movie. Up until then the movie has been kinda silent, well for comedy standards anyway. It does have one wild scene before the movie "starts" but I'm not gonna spoil it. This is just a review after all. As you may have expected, we don't see a whole lot of actually going to school in this movie. It IS a kids film and our main characters sitting around in a classroom taking notes would be a horribly boring kids film. The plot of the movie is believable though, there's a passable reason for why this movie has all the energy that it has.

On the voice acting side, the returning characters have their voices intact. Buscemi, Crystal and Goodman all returned for this film. I'm actually pretty impressed by the voice-range of Buscemi, seeing Randall turning into the character we know from the original is quite the treat. Crystal and Goodman also both do a pretty good job, being able to convey the emotions well enough that you believe that these particular voices would come out of these characters. 

This movie also pumped up the imagery from the original. The original movie took place in a factory so there was a lot of walking through white hallways with not much to look at. This movie however, has some pretty well-designed locations and some very cool character designs. I'm especially impressed by the dean of the school, who plays a major part. She looked very imposing and could've been a creature from an actual horror film.

On the comedy side, this is a big step-up from the original. This movie has more characters to bounce off of each other and that makes for some very funny moments. I especially liked the character named "Don". This movie having more energy also makes for some very good physical gags. Monsters, Inc. was one of the least popular Pixar movies, so going ahead and actually making a sequel to it is a surprising move - if not a bit overzealous. I'm happy to say though, that this is a really good animated movie, capturing the spirit of the original as well as building upon it's lore.

Monsters, Inc. (2001)

Film: Monsters, Inc.
Release: 2001, Theatrical
Starring: John Goodman, Billy Crystal, Steve Buscemi
Directed by: Pete Docter, Lee Unkrich, David Silverman
Next in the series: Monsters University
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In the world of monsters, everything is powered by the screams of children. One day, the energy company Monsters, Inc. is invaded by the most dangerous force in the universe: A small child.

Hans' thoughts:

After the success of Toy Story, people were pretty psyched to see where Pixar would go next. The answer? A sweet little story. So okay, maybe Monsters, Inc. isn't the greatest or most ambitious tale by the movie magicians at Pixar. Not for lack of trying though.

In the movie we follow the tag-team of James P. Sullivan, the company's most efficient scarer and his engineer Mike Wazowski. Everything is going quite good for the team, Mike Wazowski has a sweet girlfriend and Sullivan is close to breaking the record of the company. As far as work-type comedies go, this has a pretty decent setup and you definitely feel the chemistry between the two characters. 

As for the villain side, while intimidating enough you would have expected something just a bit more sinister with a setup like this. Randall is creepy, sure, but not as imposing as I would've liked. He's played out more like a bitter math-teacher that takes out his issues at home at the kids. Kinda like Crocker from Fairly Oddparents I guess.

The thing that sells this movie for me is two things, first off is the visual style. This story is about monsters, and you can tell the character designers has had at least a little fun trying to come up with all sorts of different looking colorful characters. A wide-variety of colors on screen is always a plus in my book. Of course you can't talk about the visuals in this movie without mentioning the room where they keep all the doors to childrens bedrooms. Mike and Sullivan riding a door into a giant room full of doors with lord knows how many stories is a sight to see. 

The second thing I like about this movie is the music, in particular the opening. The opening music for the movie is upbeat happy jazz, which is really pleasure to listen to and it goes surprisingly well with the setup. Before Wall-E, Sully and Mike were the oldest Pixar characters (judging by their actions anyway). Which makes them someone who might feasibly listen to jazz. Of course, this movie does have a weak point. I'm sorry to say that the jokes in this one are some of the weakest that Pixar has been involved with, it does get the occasional giggle but one particular running-gag just fell flat for me every time.

Monsters, Inc. is one of the weaker Pixar movies, but we're still talking Pixar so it really isn't saying much. The movie is still heads and shoulders above a lot of others in the genre.

Pacific Rim (2013)

granted, this poster is not official.
It's really cool, though

Film: Pacific Rim
Release: 2013, Theatrical
Starring: Idris Elba, Charlie Hunnam, Rinko Kikuchi
Directed by: Guillermo del Toro
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In the near future, humanity is brought together when monsters codenamed Kaiju start crawling out of the Pacific, killing thousands. To defend themselves they create Jägers, giant military grade robots that's piloted by two at a time.

Hans' thoughts:

Kaiju, the japanese name for a genre that is very much japanese in nature. Giant monster movies, that is. Here in the west, the general audience hasn't had all that much exposure to this particular niche. There's Cloverfield, the 90's Godzilla adaptation, The Michael Bay Transformers movies and of course the Power Rangers series. I would count King Kong if it wasn't because the creature is actually very small compared to the Japanese Kaiju creatures, the most popular Godzilla being 167 feet tall (400 in the American dub). Though his height has been of some debate during various movies (267 feet in the 1980's Return of Godzilla), it's always been quite a big larger than King Kong who is only 18 feet tall (or 24, if you go by the scenes in New York later in the original movie). Therefore, seeing a western take on this sub-genre is quite the treat to any Kaiju fan. You could almost be snarky and call it Hollywoods apology letter for Godzilla, but I digress.

Okay, so as you can probably tell I love this kind of stuff. Giant mecha's fighting creatures of unfathomable origin while the surroundings are smashed into utter muck. This is very much like watching a monster mash, Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack being a prime example (quite a mouthful!).

Of course, had this just been 131 minutes of utter action I probably would've complained quite a bit, and fortunately the movie does give the audience a breather every now and then. The actors chosen for the roles are actually doing a pretty cool job, just don't expect to see a lot of big names here. The only two I could recognize were Ron Perlman and Idris Elba. Both of whom also did great. While not spending a lot of time on character development, the screenwriter(s) have actually managed to create some very compelling characters, one of the other reasons being some very good costumes. My personal favorite being the costume of Ron Perlman's character, he is very otherworldly in this.

No, the movie delivers on exactly what paying audiences came to see: Giant robots fighting giant monsters. Also designing some very cool creatures and robots in the process, giving each a memorable name. This is a franchise in the making, and I shall expect toys, cartoons and videogames to be released shortly if that hasn't happened already. These characters are exactly the stuff I would love to buy for my nephew.

All in all, this is a very fun movie to watch. I felt like an 8 year old kid, mouthing the word "awesome" to myself constantly. If you were disappointed with the Transformers movies, this is for you. If you liked the Transformers movies, this is for you. If you like disaster movies, this is for you and even if you just like a good action flick without too much shakey-cam, this is definitely for you!

Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 1 (2010)

Film: Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallow Part 1
Release: 2010, theatrical
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint
Directed by: David Yates
Previous in the series: Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince
Next in the series: Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 2
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: All hell has broken loose in the wizarding world. Each day, more and more people, muggles and wizards alike winds up either dead or disappeared. In the midst of all this, Harry Potter is preparing to find all the Horcruxes so he can finally destroy Voldemort.

Hans' thoughts:

Here we are, the second to last movie. The final hurrah before the big blow-out in the final battle. The book of this movie is huge, which is why they decided to cut it in half for these last two movies. Making the number of movies eight rather than seven. Because of this, I decided to watch these two last movies back to back, and it confirmed for me that Part 1 actually works much better as a first and second act of one big movie. With all of Part 2 being the final act. 

The story of this movie is very much in the vein of hard work. It kinda says "Okay we know what to do, now we just have to go do it". None of it takes place on Hogwarts, as Harry instead decides to go on a treasure hunt for the "horcruxes" - pieces of Voldemort's soul that must be destroyed in order to finally off him. The movie also starts something that Part 2 would eventually finish up, that something being that Dumbledore might not be all what he's crammed up to be. Part 2 will eventually give us somewhat of an answer to that question but I have to stress that if you're really curious about not only Dumbledore's past, but Voldemorts motivations as well you really have to pick up the book instead. 

The movie instead decides to stay in the now, being very much an action-adventure story. Harry, Ron and Hermione go around to different places in the wizarding world, some of which we've seen before. It also has a very cool animated sequence narrated by Emma Watson. As a standalone movie, this would fail. It's a bit rushed at places and the characters personalities seem a bit vague. However, considering it's the 7th installment in a continuous story and only the first part of a two part movie it actually works pretty well. Everything is addressed and taken care of so that Part 2 can focus mainly on what we've waited for since the beginning.  The final battle between Harry and Voldemort is looming in the distance and rightfully in this part of the story, everything just seems to be falling apart before everything will be fixed. Just like a first and second act should be.

Story-liners: The Last of Us (2013)

Game: The Last of Us
Release: 2013, Retail
System: Sony Playstation 3
Starring: Ashley Johnson, Hana Hayes, Troy Baker
Directed by: Bruce Stanley
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: 20 years after the near-destruction of mankind, the smugglers Joel and Tess are hired to escort a young girl through the now dangerous and overgrown lands of the former U.S.A.

Hans' thoughts:

Already when the trailers for this game came out, it was apparent that this would be a visually stunning experience. However, looks isn't everything when it comes to videogames, so thankfully the gameplay goes right along with it. But this is story-liners! So how about the story?

As little as I'd like to admit it, female characters have never found much dignity in gaming. Video games are, to this day, primarily a male oriented hobby and it shows; Female characters are almost always grounded in the prospect of eye-candy. In a few cases, characters is too fancy a description of some of the female representations in gaming. I tell you this because Ellie, the main female protagonist, may very well be the most dignified, complete female character I've ever encountered. She may not be brave right out of the bag - but she's believably concerned. After all, this is a world infested with zombies - and this bunch is a nasty one. Not only does Ellie not seem perfect at the beginning, she doesn't seem completely broken and useless either. She's grown up in a quarantined area and has a such never had to fend for herself - she learns how to do that and so much more. Ellie is resourceful, witty and nice to be around. The player get's genuinely concerned for her safety, giving the player an incentive to look out for her - beyond the mere aspect of it being the objective of the adventure. Now, this could have been a case of just one really well-written female character with the others being two-dimensional but no, every single female character we actually get to spend time with grows as a character, and shows us a lot of sides of their personalities. You'll find no sultry femme fatales or damsels in distress here. But likewise, the characters aren't just need-no-man tomboys. They're just people who live in a very, very dangerous world and has had to adapt to that fact.

Other than females, this game also handles loss extremely well. As it should, again, this game takes place after the gosh darn fall of human civilization. Our main character Joel has seen some serious stuff and has done less than honorable things to survive for the last 20 years. We see him before and after the fall of humanity and see just how different he's become. Which he should have, people grow all their life and Joel is not exception. Is he a bad person? Well the story seems to let the audience decide that for themselves - not through the popular method of a moral choice system. No, the game is actually pretty linear, they just show Joel as he is and the things he does in order to make it to the next day. That said, he's thankfully not completely cold about murder and he's not ignoring the moral ambiguity of the things he's done. He's just learned to live with it in order to survive - that's what makes him compelling to me. He knows what he does is completely insane, but he doesn't dwell on it. He doesn't joke about it either, he just doesn't talk about it.

As for the actual plot - while some outcomes are sort of obvious in the eyes of the trained viewer, the story actually threw me through a loop more than a few times. This story has some great twists and turns and everytime is as surprising as the next. It doesn't go Shyamalon however, it knows how to balance out the surprises with the heartfelt interaction between characters and the absolute horror of the dangers they face. Let's keep it to just stating that zombies isn't the only threat waiting for the main characters out there. Far from it.

If you want a great send-off to this console generation, as well as just one of the best survival stories out there, you should pick up The Last of Us. While zombies have become fairly frequent these days - most times less successful than others, The Last of Us doesn't actually make this a body-count fest and instead focus on what made the genre good to begin with. The human race and what happens to it when everything goes completely haywire - as told by some of the most well-rounded characters in story-telling.

Harry Potter & The Chamber of Secrets (2002)

Film: Harry Potter & The Chamber of Secrets
Release: 2002, Theatrical
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint
Directed by: Chris Columbus
Previous in the series: Harry Potter & The Sorcerer's stone
Next in the Series: Harry Potter & The Prisoner of Azkaban
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Before his return to Hogwarts for his second school year, Harry Potter is visited by the house elf Dobby who warns him not to return for the sake of his own safety.

Hans' thoughts:

Once again we're brought into the magical world of Harry Potter, this time giving us a bit more insight into normal day-to-day wizard life. While "Sorcerer's Stone" was very much about being introduced to the wizard society and had a very adventurous feel to it, Chamber of Secrets is the first of the Potter stories to anchor onto the horror aspect of the series. Something that would be a defining feature for the movies to come. As far as sequels do, this movie does exactly what a movie should do. It has more locations, more characters, higher stakes and a larger than life story. Chamber of Secrets is just a much bigger movie overall. Now, this movie does have some aspects of which it is lesser than Sorcerer's Stone. First off, the shots are not nearly as ambitious as the former movie, Indeed it straight up copies the famous shot from Alien. The movie also has a lot more of a cartoony feel to it. It plays much more on the comedy of the book, which is kinda weird considering the high potential for horror this particular story has.

However, to it's credit the comedy kind of works out as a saving grace. As the movies tone manages to keep the creepiness abound but without making it completely dull - which I imagine a full-on childrens horror story could have done. As such it becomes more of an adventure story. I have to admit, I absolutely adore the sets of this movie. While the actual CGI has aged a bit worse than in Sorcerer's, the sets are as great as ever. From the look of the Weasley household, to the staircase leading up to Professor Dumbledore's office. The actual Chamber of Secrets is actually very creepy, though a bit of a letdown after all the build up. I mean hey, the title of the thing is "Chamber of Secrets" so I didn't expect it to be so.. empty. However, as it stands the climax is exciting enough to make it unnoticeable. The villains of the movie is also a lot more interesting, Lucius Malfoy making for a very real threat. We also get some backstory for He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. In all seriousness, if we're only going by the movies this was needed - badly! He was barely established in Sorcerer's. 

As for the acting, I can't feel the difference when it comes to the child actors. They're still kind of stumbling through it, but good enough that it doesn't take you out of the experience. The addition of Kenneth Branagh is a fun change though, He makes for a fun character. This is the movie of the series I've seen the most, as this is the one that came out when my Harry Potter fandom was at it's peak. As such, this remains to this day my absolute favorite - as opposed to the ones coming up. But we'll talk about those when we get to them.