Kammerer

Oscars 2025 Best Picture Reviews: Part Two

Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

It’s interesting for my next blog of Best Picture nominees. One film is a remake of one of the most captivating monster stories ever and the other film tells the story of the tragedy that produced one of the most legendary plays ever. They’re both unique in their own way.

Frankenstein

Ever since Mary Shelley has published her book titled Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus back in 1818, the story and the monster have captured the imagination of the world. The monster definitely more often than the story. The Frankenstein monster has been featured and parodied frequently to the point people have created their own versions of Frankenstein on both the character and the physical appearance. People on Halloween especially have a field day with Frankenstein costumes and their own Frankenstein stories. Crazy thing is most of these stories stray greatly away from the original story of Mary Shelley. They may get the basics like a mad scientist creates a living person from the body parts of deceased people but they are too loosely based. The very first Frankenstein film, a silent film from Edison Studios released in 1910, was a film the director intended to be ‘broadly based’ on Shelley’s story or call itself a ‘liberal adaptation.’ The most famous film adaptation has to be the 1931 film which was an adaptation of a stage play. Frankenstein’s monster in that film, played by Boris Karloff, has the most iconic image of the Frankenstein monster with the rectangular forehead and green skin. That film also includes the memorable line: “It’s alive! It’s alive!”

This film is Guillermo del Toro’s adaptation of the story that is still off the original in some amount but is closer to Shelley’s story. The film is set in 1857 and a Danish ship of the Royal Navy is stuck in ice. The ship becomes like a hospice for a gravely injured Victor Frankenstein who was hurt from the wave of an explosion. The ship is then attacked by a fur-laden humanoid creature that appears indestructible. As Victor notices that’s the creature he created, he tells his story, which becomes Part I: Victor’s Tale. After Victor tells his story, the creature tells his story in Part II: The Creature’s Tale. This layout of the story sets up for the finale where the creature finally makes peace with Victor and Victor apologises for being too cruel to the creature. It’s after Victor’s death that the creature departs, but not until he frees the ship from being stuck in the ice.

Some of the most noticeable differences are in the novel, Victor’s mother dies of scarlet fever. In this film, she dies of childbirth giving birth to William. While the novel shows Victor discovering the possibility of creating new life through his studies, the film shows him actually conducting his proven findings in front of professors and being expelled. In the novel, Victor is shocked and repelled by the creature he created and abandons it in the cold snows. In the film, he’s proud of his creation but enslaves him. In the film, Victor wins the love of a woman named Elizabeth. In the film, it’s William who courts Elizabeth and Victor tries to win her, but his mad science and arrogance prevent her. Victor even kills Elizabeth and William. Also in the film, Elizabeth embraces the creature when he rushes back to Victor to demand a female creation for him. It turns out Elizabeth has more feelings for the creature than for Victor. The creature in the novel becomes lost in the wilderness and has both seen the best and ugliest of humanity. In the film, he is given refuge to a farming family whom the blind man treats him well. The other family think he killed the blind man when they return and try to shoot him. There is the reconciling of the two on the ship but the creature remains on the ship at the end of the novel while the creature leaves the ship but is powerful enough to push the ship free of the ice.

This adaptation that is both written and directed by Guillermo del Toro is a story that is more faithful to the book than most stories. Del Toro already knows how to do an excellent job of stories involving monsters like Pan’s Labyrinth and The Shape Of Water. Here, he shows off his expertise again with an excellent adaptation of the story. Making it two stories, of Victor’s story and The Creature’s story, is done quite well without deviating too much from the original. The two stories do a good job of playing themselves out leading to its eventual connection in the end. The result is not only an adaptation well done but an adaptation that will capture your attention and get you caught up in the story and the drama as it unfolds. The story will also get you feeling for The Creature as well as it showcases he’s not only a human in flesh but he’s a human in feeling. If you see the story, you will agree that the creature has more heart than Victor. Del Toro masters the story and the drama.

Oscar Isaac does a great job in making Victor Frankenstein into a doctor that isn’t completely heartless but full of personal flaws. His eccentricities interfere with his ability to relate with others, have any kind of heart to his creation or even love Elizabeth enough to win her love. Surprisingly, Isaac does succeed in making you feel sympathy to Victor and even forgive him for all he’s done. The dimension Isaac bring is excellent to the role. Jacob Elordi steals the film as the creature. Creating a character of a created human with the common sensitivities of people, even having feelings of love and heartbreak, gives the film its heart and soul within the spectacular drama. Many times, you’re tempted to think Elordi is the lead. Mia Goth is also very good in her role as Elizabeth, but the role could have been given more dimension in the story. Other good supporting acting performances come from Christian Convery as the young Victor, Felix Kammerer as William Frankenstein, and Lars Mikkelsen as the Captain Andersen.

For a film like this, you can bet this has a lot of excellent technical achievements. The cinematography from Dan Lautsen captures the story very well. The costuming from Kate Hawley, the production design from Tamara Deverell, and the hair and makeup team do a great job in taking the audience back to the past and recreating scenes of the times. Alexandre Desplat knows how to deliver a score for a film and he does it again here with a score that fits the drama of the story very well. The sound team and the visual effects team all deliver the right stuff to deliver the excitement of the film.

Frankenstein is not just another adaptation of the story. It’s one Guillermo del Toro does his own telling of the story mixing his own take and trying to stay faithful to the story. It succeeds in a very thrilling way!

Hamnet

There have been many semiautobiographical films of William Shakespeare many times before but you hardly see any films, plays or literature about his children. Among possibly the least known is his only son Hamnet Shakespeare. Little is known or documented about him or what he was like. It was known that he died at the age of 11. The play Hamlet premiered three or four years after his death and scholars have frequently debated Hamnet’s young death and how much inspiration it bored on Hamlet. It is known that before Hamnet’s death, Shakespeare mostly wrote comedies and Hamlet was a significant turning point. The film makes the case in point that it was very inspirational to the creation of Hamlet. You could tell in rehearsals Shakespeare was a perfectionist and was very demanding on his lead actor. It’s possible he wanted the actor to create the spirit of Hamnet in Hamlet.

There are two things that stand out the most from this film. The first is that it is based on a novel that is historical fiction. There are many details in the film that are fact with Shakespeare’s life, but there are also a lot of myths and imagined fiction. Very little is documented about Hamnet so in her novel Hamnet, Maggie O’Donnell gave him a personality and in writing of Hamnet’s death, O’Donnell used some of her own experience when her daughter was suffering from a potentially fatal illness. The second thing that stands out is that the film is mostly focused on Shakespeare’s wife: Agnes Shakespeare. The film is more Agnes’s story as it shows her an herbalist who’s a lover of nature. She finds herself attracted to this playwright whom her family does not approve of. They fall in love, develop a family and marry. William frequently makes trips to London for his plays while Agnes does mostly motherly duties. Agnes is the one who has to deal with her twin children, their teachings and eventually their illnesses. She is the one who has to witness Hamnet’s death. No doubt she’s angry with William being away in London during that time. Years later, she learns of his plays Hamlet. She’s there at the opening. She fears the play could upset her. Instead she is touched by the play, by the actor, and by the character. It gives one the sense in seeing Hamlet played on stage, she senses Hamnet’s spirit living in him and shared with all.

The film itself doesn’t try to be a historical docudrama. It does keep many actual facts of history but it does its own storytelling. It does maintain situations that many would commonly relate to. It reminds people that Shakespeare’s choice to pursue arts or teaching was not well-regarded in his working class family. It shows William and Agnes married because she was pregnant and she didn’t want her daughter Susanna to be born a ‘bastard.’ It’s known that in between the death of Hamnet and the premiere of Hamlet, there was a period for Shakespeare known as the ‘lost years.’ What it does is it tells its story. As I mentioned earlier, the film is based on a book that is loosely based on the lives of the Shakespeares. It’s a story that connects with common situations in ones life like not being accepted into a family, loving someone their family doesn’t approve of, the loss of a child, trying to live life again and of how art connects with the human spirit. The latter, I think that’s the theme of the film. How art reflects humanity and can even be a method of healing. The film does an excellent job in having its story connect with the viewer while also maintaining intrigue towards the family of a legend. That’s its biggest quality.

This film is another excellent accomplishment for Chloe Zhao. When she agreed to do the story, she also hired Maggie O’Donnell, the author of the novel Hamnet, to help with the scriptwriting. Human connection is a common theme of Zhao’s films and Chloe does an excellent job in directing a story of an artist’s method of healing and how he shares it with the world. There have often been films that show how art connects with the human spirit. This film also succeeds in displaying that theme and Zhao creates an excellent work in delivering that message.

The performance of the film definitely belongs to Jessie Buckley. The film is mostly about Agnes and Jessie does an excellent job of taking charge of her role and owning the movie. She shows many dimensions of Agnes Shakespeare: falconer, herbalist, teacher, daughter, wife, mother and griever. She showcases both the triumphs and the struggles Agnes goes through and delivers a performance that’s an achievement in itself. Paul Mescal is also great as William Shakespeare but he does not deliver the performance of Shakespeare one would expect. Here, he’s seen as a son with a stormy relationship with his father, husband of Agnes, a playwright who’s away from the family for a long period of time and one who grieves the loss of his son. His performance in making William Shakespeare a three-dimensional common person instead of the icon we all know makes for the excellence of the film.

The film also has a lot of good supporting performances. The one that most stands out is Jacobi Jupe as Hamnet Shakespeare. While O’Donnell creates a character in the son of Shakespeare we never knew, Jupe adds an appeal to him and portrays Hamnet to be just as much of a dreamer as his father. Jupe is also good at portraying Hamnet as a twin brother willing to give his life for his ailing twin sister. Jupe really catches the spirit in both senses. Also good is Noah Jupe, Jacobi’s older brother. I think there was a sense of purpose in the film of having Jacobi cast as Hamnet and Noah cast as the actor who plays Hamlet. Noah is great in having the actor capture the spirit of Hamnet in his acting and be able to connect with Agnes. Other good supporting performances in the film are Emily Watson as Shakespeare’s mother and David Wilmot as John Shakespeare who was frequently at odds with his son.

The film also has a lot of excellent technical aspects. The cinematography from Lukasz Zal fits the film excellently. The set design by Fiona Crombie and Alice Felton excellently takes the film back to the past and the costuming by Malgosia Turganska fits the times perfectly. The score from Max Richter does an excellent job in capturing the drama of the story and the artistic triumph at the end.

Hamnet is more than just another Shakespeare story. It’s a story that connects with people and it shows how the arts are the way to the soul. It’s a story of joy, of love, of tragedy and of the eventual triumph.

That completes my second look at the Best Picture contenders for this year. Six more films left to review.

2022 Academy Awards: Best Picture Reviews – Part One

Jon The Blogcentric2 Comments

The 95th Academy Awards are coming soon. Once again, I saw all ten Best Picture nominees. For the first time in three years, I didn’t need a streaming service to see any one of them. Elvis was the only one I saw outside of a theatre; on an airplane divided by two flights. The other nine I was lucky to see in theatres. There is your mix of enjoyable and unenjoyable. A mix of common popcorn fare and serious topics.

This year’s batch have some notable details. For the second straight year, a film directed by Steven Spielberg is nominated. For the second straight year, a remake of a Best Picture winner is nominated. Two of the nominated films are sequels to legendary sci-fi or action films. Two of the nominated films have four acting nominations each. On the contrary, half the films have no acting nominations. Also interesting that comedies, which normally get the sort end of the stick at Oscar time, are this year’s toast as two of the heavy favorites are comedic films.

The purpose of my reviews are to give a summary of the Best Picture nominees. I will be saving my predictions for a separate prediction blog. In the meantime, here is the first of my reviews of the Best Picture nominees of the 2022 Academy Awards:

All Quiet On The Western Front – Just like the 1930 film, this is an angry film. This film makes it look like World War I was a vanity effort. Like all the war was where it was all about the egos of those in power. While the young men fought and many died, these leaders with the power only cared about themselves and the power they wanted to hold onto. Even those who worked in the military seemed to take the losses of life very lightly. Seemingly not caring that a generation of young men were being lost. The last 20 minutes of the film would especially enrage many. Armistice had been declared for November 11, 1918. Germany was the losing side, but the German leader wanted one last battle. Another bunch of young men dead, just shortly before the war finally ended. Will definitely have you leaving the theatre asking what was it all for?

I’m planning on doing a comparison of this film to the 1930 original for after the Oscars. So in looking at this film, I won’t compare it to the original. I won’t even call it a remake because even the original was adapted from a novel. It’s possible this film is a re-adaptation. I will say the film is an excellent work. The film does a good job in telling the story from the point of view from the young soldiers and the meetings with the leaders. It shows the two different worlds between the two very well. The battle scenes are also intense to look at. Of course, war is ugly. There’s no compromise in the story here. Most surprising is how they slowed down the last 24 hours of World War I over a period of just over twenty minutes. That paves the way for the final dramatic scenes that would make the viewer angry at the end.

Top credits go to director/writer Edward Berger. He brings back the horrors of World War I in grand style and delivers a film that has a big message to send even now as Ukraine is going through a war of its own. The acting from newcomer Felix Kammerer was also excellent, even if his part didn’t have that much depth. Albrecht Schuch was also very good at Kalczinsky. The film also had excellent technical elements like the music of Volker Bertelmann, the cinematography of James Friend and some of the best production design and visual effects of the year. The visual effects really did a good job for the battle scenes.

Avatar: The Way Of Water – Usually when a sequel comes out, the freshness of the original seems lost and the rehash seems to be too similar to the original. Nevertheless the story does aim to have some notable differences from the first. One of which is Jake’s new family on Pandora, including his relationship with his oldest son. The other is facing rivalries both from Earth and his world. The best thing about this film is that the first Avatar took the audience to a new world. This film is also successful in taking people to a new world. Although it feels there may be something missing in this film, it’s still very spectacular and gives the audience the escape they’re looking for. The new twists in the story will also give people the drama they’re looking for and the action scenes they all enjoy.

James Cameron does it again. Not only does he bring back the world of Pandora successfully, but he does it so in breaking box-office records! To think James Cameron films have knocked each other out in setting the record for the highest-grossing ever! First Titanic, then the first Avatar, and now this! However it’s not simply box-office numbers. Cameron succeeds in creating a world where people can escape and be enchanted by. Pandora dazzled people back in 2009 and 2010 and it does it again here. Cameron also wrote an excellent story with four other writers and compiled the official script with two of the writers. They had to make it a believable story, especially since this film is thirteen years since the first. It does a story that works for the film. There was very good acting from returning actors Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana. Also excellent was newcomer Jamie Flatters in playing Jake’s oldest son. The film’s best qualities, nevertheless, are its visual effects. It’s these effects that give people the escape to Pandora they’re looking for and keep their attention on the drama as it unfolds. Simon Franglen also does a good job in composing a good score for the film.

The Banshees Of Inisherin – This is a film not everyone can understand at first. Even after one sees the film, they can only guess what the film is about. Some say it’s about human weaknesses, or about men and their inability to relate, or even about Irish pride as seen through the eyes of McDonagh. I’ve often felt the story is as much about the island town of Inisherin as it is about the central story. Inisherin is a town away from the mainland and lucky to be out of the range of fighting during the Irish civil war. However Inisherin comes across as a town where nothing really happens or nothing really improves. Anybody who wants to get anywhere have to be like Siobhan and leave the island. Sometimes it seems like the dead friendship of Padraic and Colm is symbolic of how dead the town of Inisherin is. In addition Inisherin being a small town, it’s often a case where word easily gets around about what’s happening. The feud between the two soon becomes the talk of the town.

This film is unique as it attempts to make a comedy out of something intense and dramatic. It’s a story of a drama that is slow, but the slowness is its quality. A story about a man deciding to end a friendship because his friend is ‘dull’ and spend the rest of his years composing music seems odd and pointless. Nevertheless the film allows for the intensity to build over time. It also has its ugly surprises, but the surprises become important to the drama. The different characters also add to the story. They help provide for the environment of the story almost as if the film is based on a classic Irish fable. In addition, the scenery adds to the story. The film is as much about the scenery and the landscapes as it is about the town and its drama. Its addition to the film help builds the story.

Top credit should go to director Martin McDonagh. McDonagh infrequently shells out works. It seems like almost once every four to five years. In fact his last film before Banshees, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, was five years ago! This is quite possibly his best work. It’s a story that gives you the unexpected and Martin did an excellent job with it. Also when you see the ending, you easily forget that this film is a comedy. Once again, a case of a film that mixes comedy with tragedy, and it does a memorable job here.

Additionally, the story came alive from the excellent acting. Colin Farrell did a great job making Padraic to be kind and loyal and always trying, but pushed to his limits near the end. Brendan Gleeson was also great as the stubborn Colm. He captured his hardness very well. Kerry Condon was also great as Siobhan, the sister who tries to find a way out. Also great was Barry Keoghan, the troubled son of the policeman Padraic and Siobhan try to help out. The supporting characters like the Garda, the banshee and the priest also added to the story. There were also additional technical feats with this film like the cinematography of Ben Davis and the score from Carter Burwell.

Elvis – It’s not easy doing a musical biography and making it into something different. On top of it, you can be sure there have been countless made-for-TV movies made about Elvis. So how can you make an Elvis movie for the big screen of 2023? One ingredient that makes it different is the story being told from the point of view of Colonel Tom Parker. Those of us who know a lot about Elvis may have overlooked his relationship with the Colonel, especially the rocky moments. Another is to add some creative flares. Those that remember Moulin Rouge will remember how that film has creative flares. Luhrmann applies similar creative flairs from Moulin Rouge here. Another ingredient is to have the best songs of a musician’s career as well as their career’s most significant moments. You can’t pack everything about Elvis into 159 minutes of story. This film does showcase the most famous moments of his career.

Another excellent work from Baz Luhrmann. Just when you thought you couldn’t bring Elvis back to the big screen, Luhrmann does it, and in a stylish winning way. He pulls the right moves to deliver an Elvis film people of today will want to see at the theatres. Of course it’s the performance of Austin Butler that has to be the biggest quality. A thirtysomething of today able to epitomize Elvis? The answer is Yes! Butler does an excellent job in playing The King in with a performance with dimension and doesn’t go cartoonish, as one can risk doing performing Elvis. Tom Hanks is also quite good as the colonel. It’s hard to picture him with a Dutch accent, and there were a few times when I questioned if it was off or not, but he did a good job with his role. The technical details also make the film excel. The cinematography, production design, makeup and costuming are all some of the best of this past year.

Everything Everywhere All At Once – Now there have been some absurdist films that have been nominated for Best Picture or other major categories. What makes this film-of-the-absurd is that this takes place in a multitude of worlds. Thanks to technology, Evelyn is able to make many trips of the mind to many different universes and assume many different personas: past, present and future. Even the persona of a rock somewhere in the desert is possible! Usually most people look at stories like these and ask “What the hell?” This is one absurd story that many people found enjoyable. The kung fu fighting scenes also helped a lot too. And to think this all started as Evelyn’s taxes were to be done and she was to get some bad news!

To think it’s the magic of the directing/writing team of the Daniels (Kwan and Scheinert) that delivered this gem. The two have not had a lot of directing experience. Until this film, they’ve only directed some short films together and their only feature was Swiss Army Man from back in 2016! Here they have the perfect breakthrough film for them, and boy is it unforgettable. It’s a fun, thrilling story that comes off as weird and bizarre at first, but starts making more sense as time goes on.

Also excellent is the combined acting. Michelle Yeoh shines as Evelyn. When I first saw her in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, I had a feeling she would go far. She had a lot of grace with her. Although this role is way more multidimensional, she still does excellently here and delivers one of the best performances of the year. Ke Huy Quan is also excellent as the meek Waymond. Quan is also this year’s former child actor comeback story. He is best remembered as Short Round from Indiana Jones and the Temple Of Doom and Data from The Goonies. Here he gets the adult actor breakthrough he was waiting for, and what a scene-stealing performance! Additional scene stealers are an unrecognizable Jamie Lee Curtis as the IRS agent and Stephanie Hsu as the daughter whose nihilism threatens the multiverse. All the aforementioned actors had a lot to do with their main role and their various roles in the many worlds of the multiverse. That’s a lot of work! Additional technical credits go to Shirley Kurata for the costuming and the band Son Lux for the score that fits the film well.

And there’s the first of it. This is the first half of my review of this year’s Best Picture nominees. Second half coming in a day or two.