Waltz

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.

Movie Review: Big Eyes

Jon The Blogcentric1 Comment

Amy Adams plays artist Margaret Keane in Big Eyes: a story of possibly the biggest art forgery of our time.
Amy Adams plays artist Margaret Keane in Big Eyes: a story of possibly the biggest art forgery of our time.

Remember those popular Big Eyes paintings from the 60’s? Did you know about the story of art forgery behind it? Some of you will first think that the film Big Eyes is about art. As true as that is, it’s also a drama about art forgery and the ones caught in the middle. This is especially of intrigue to those who remember the ‘big eyes’ paintings from the 60’s.

The film begins with Margaret Ulbrich arriving in San Francisco with her daughter. She has recently divorced her husband and is hoping to make it as an artist. Art is not only her best skill but it’s her one and only skill in terms of employability. At first she’s hired by a furniture factory to paint drawings on children’s furniture. She does drawings of caricatures in a San Francisco market to make extra change.

Soon she catches the attention of a successful ‘artist’ by the name of Walter Keane. He’s impressed with her ‘big eyes’ caricatures she draws. They’re based off the wide eyes of her daughter Jane and Margaret even says that children’s eyes are the windows to their souls.  Walter promises Margaret that he can make her art famous. He’s a good salesman as he knows how to sell real estate and his own art: painting of Paris where he claims to have been inspired by the city even though spending a mere week in it. She agrees and the two marry.

This comes as a welcome relief for Margaret as she is threatened to lose custody of Jane because she can’t afford to care for her. This is also a relief for Walter as his paintings of Paris are declining in sales. Soon Walter promotes the big eyes paintings at restaurants. He’s even willing to create phony brawls to stimulate news hype. Whatever he does, it works and the big eyes painting are catching a ton of renown.

However the secret of the success is exposed to Margaret and it’s ugly. Walter is claiming the paintings as his own. As the paintings become more popular and Walter becomes more famous, they become more and more in demand. That leads Walter to keep Amy in a hidden room where she’s to paint all the portraits. She’s practically exiled away from everyone including friends and her own daughter. Further friction grows when Margaret learns the truth about the Paris paintings. They were actually painted by an artist going by S. Cenic. Somehow Walter is able to talk his way out of it.

The real turning point is when the giant painting of a crowd of big-eyed children to be displayed at a pavilion during Expo 1964 is dissed by art critic John Canaday as ‘appalling.’ Keane can’t take it. He tries to stab Canaday but fails. He tried locking Margaret and Jane in a closet and setting it ablaze. Fortunately they escape and find a new life for themselves in Hawaii. However it’s after a visit from two Jehovah’s Witnesses that Margaret is prompted to bring Walter to justice. The trial goes with Walter playing his own attorney and doing a big song and dance for the jury but there comes the moment of truth. The film ends rather conventionally but will leave the audience satisfied justice was done.

One thing we should not forget is that art forgery is nothing new. There have been imposters claiming paintings and other works of art in the past. However this makes for an intriguing story. There are many elements why one would consider this intriguing. One would be people who remember the big eyes painting and still like them to this day. Another would be because of the conniving nature of Walter who knows how to get his way until the score is finally settled. I’m sure there’s something many people can find intriguing with the film to want to see it.

However the film doesn’t make itself too clear about what it is primarily all about. I do give the film credit for showing a story of art forgery and both the artist and scammer. I do give credit for showcasing the thriving and influential San Francisco art scene form the 50’s and 60’s. I also give the film credit about showing just how much of a conniver Walter Keane was to the point he felt he could kill a critic and even connive a judge in the court of law. And I especially give the film credit for showing the mother-daughter relationship involved with the story. In fact that was one of my favorite parts of the film where after Margaret left Walter, Margaret became a typical mother again and Jane became a typical daughter again. However it does leave one to wonder if it was mostly to do about the art or to do about the forgery behind it? It’s very possible to balance those two elements out appropriately on film but I just wonder if it was balanced out right.

Amy Adams did a very good job of portraying Margaret Keane. However I’ve seen better acting performances from her in the past. Christoph Waltz was also very good as the conniving Walter Keane. He succeeds at making you hate Walter and get annoyed with him. However there are times in which I think his role of Walter is a bit too close to his Oscar-winning roles of Hans Landa and King Schultz. Danny Huston also did well in the role of Dick Nolan. However it does seem odd how the narrator of all that’s happening gets so little screen time. There were additional good performances in minor roles from Terence Stamp and Jason Schwartzman.

Tim Burton did a good job of directing a film that doesn’t seem too much like your typical Tim Burton film. Interesting fact is that Burton owns two of Keane’s paintings.

Scriptwriters Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski did a good job with the script even though it lacked consistency and focus. The set designers and costumers did a very good job in setting the scenes to the time of the film. And the score by Danny Elfman also fit the movie well.

Big Eyes is an intriguing look at the artist, the art and the forgery behind it. Even though the story was a bit off in terms of focus to its central theme, it does keep one interested.

Movie Review: Django Unchained

Jon The Blogcentric2 Comments

Django Unchained movie still

If you’ve seen Lincoln already, you’ve already seen one man’s approach to slavery. Now Django Unchained is another man’s approach to slavery that’s more what Quentin Tarantino had in mind and not what you’d expect.

The film starts with the Speck brothers walking a group of male slaves down across Texas in 1858, three years before the Civil War. Their journey is interrupted by Dr. King Schultz who appears to be a traveling dentist. He offers to buy one of the slaves, Django Freemen. Before the Specks can refuse Schultz shoots one of the Speck brothers to death, shoots the other leaving him in pain and frees the other slaves to let them kill the wounded Speck.

Schultz confesses to Django he’s no longer a dentist but a bounty hunter who kills fugitives for reward money whenever the opportunity arises. He especially chose Django because he can help identify his next targets, the three ruthless Brittle brothers. Schultz admits he hates slavery and offers Django to help with freedom, $75 and a horse as a reward. Django assists successfully in helping Schultz shoot down the Brittles.

Not only does Django get his promised rewards but Schultz hires him as his bounty hunting associate. This comes as Schultz learns that Django has a wife: Broomhilda ‘Hildy’ von Shaft who is also a slave now owned by a separate owner. Schultz is hoping making Django his associate will reunite him with Hildy. Schultz does a good job in training him and Django is fully ready with the shooting skills and the desire for blood. His first operation on Smitty Bacall is a success from hundreds of feet above off a cliff. Django and Schultz are successful in other bounty shootings too and soon learn Hildy is owned by plantation owner Calvin Candie. Once arriving as his plantation, Candyland, we learn Calvin is a charming but brutal man who has his male ‘mandingo’ slaves fight to the death for his entertainment pleasure.

The two try to pose as ‘mandingo’ purchasers to Candie however the purchase turns real when they witness a slave mauled to death by angry dogs. They then ask for Hildy as an addition. Candie agrees to the sale but it raises the suspicion of Candie’s staunch slave Stephen who suspects Django knows Hildy and is up to something with this sale. Upon the advise of Stephen, a drunken ruthless Candie gives Schultz a deal: Hildy for $12,000 or death. Schultz agrees and shoots Candie after the offer. A shootout occurs with Schultz shot and Django shooting many of and many of Candie’s men dead only to end when Stephen threatens to kill Hildy is he doesn’t surrender.

Django is sent to punishment by Stephen and Candie’s sister working as a coal miner worked to his death. That’s what Stephen thinks as Django is able to outsmart the slave drivers, kill them and take their dynamite. This comes for the set up at the end for Django’s revenge on Stephen and all those at the plantation. Even though most people know what the ending will be, it’s the style that it’s done in that’s the treat of the movie.

One thing about this movie is that it’s not supposed to be the answer to slavery. It’s not supposed to be even a version of how slavery should have been solved all along. What this movie is basically is Quentin doing what he does best: a revenge movie done in his style. I’ve been an admirer of him since Pulp Fiction. I remember when I first saw it near the end of 1994. I was a college student of the time and Pulp Fiction was a movie that impressed people of my generation. I came from a generation that was strongly anti-censorship and looked at commercialism in movies as a downgrade in creativity and an attempt to soften the authentic. When Pulp Fiction came out, we were impressed. Finally a movie where the director/writer has complete creative control and it excels. Finally a movie that takes filmmaking to new levels as filmmaking should. Finally a film that pushes envelopes as us Generation Xers in college felt all art should. Finally a movie that makes original pay off at the box office. Finally an independent movie that could make the Hollywood fare at the time look like a laughing stock. Finally a film that doesn’t censor itself and doesn’t bow down to pressures of ratings boards or family values groups and it excels. In the end, Pulp Fiction has been hailed by most as the best film of the 1990’s.

Eighteen years have passed since Pulp Fiction has been released. While most directors have had a flare last for a number of years only to flare out over time, Tarantino never did. He still delivers movies that know how to charm and even enchant. Also while it appears that there’s a lack of taking film in new directions right now and more interest in creating a box office winner, Tarantino is still one who dares to stand out, take risks and do things his way. One thing I’ve come to know of Quentin Tarantino’s movies over the years is that he aims to deliver a film in style. It’s seen very clear in the films he shows that he attempts to tell a story via film noir or blaxploitation or spaghetti western style. He wants to deliver a stylized story as he’s done in his past movies and he does it again here.

Another thing Quentin does in his films that he does again here is deliver a movie with stylized characters with eerily charming personalities and deliver their acting with style. We see it with the characters of Django Freeman, Dr. Schultz, Calvin Candie, Hildy and Stephen. All of them have their personalities in their likeable traits and their hateable traits. All also deliver in their stylized acting without coming off as ridiculous. Few times can an actor get away with doing such a showy stylized character in movie performances without looking ridiculous or over-the-top. It’s here in Quentin Tarantino movies where it works the best. It’s funny because when I learned Django was about a slave getting revenge, I was expecting the actors to play characters with mannerisms from the 1850’s. Not in a Tarantino movie.

Also noticeable is how Quentin works to avoid the sentimental and touching in his films and it’s seen again here. The two where I got the biggest sense of this was firstly the scene where Django shot Smitty Bacall from a cliff and we see Smitty’s son coming to him on the ground. There’s no scene of the son’s reaction. The second was the scene where Hildy saw Django after being away from him for so long. I was expecting Hildy to be in tears and embrace him. Instead she faints at the sight of him. Not what I expected but should’ve in a Tarantino movie.

If there’s one glitch to comment about the movie, it’s that it’s yet another revenge flick from Tarantino. Back in the 90’s his films had the focus of the criminal mind. I was good with that. In the 21st Century, his movies have been focused on the theme of revenge, from the Kill Bill series to the Death Proof part of the Grindhouse movie to Inglourious Basterds. I didn’t have a problem with that because it was done entertainingly and even enchantingly at times in some scenes. Here it was a case where I went with the feel “Not another revenge story from Quentin Tarantino.” I’ll admit that it was a very stylishly done movie that delivers in entertainment value but seeing Tarantino toy around with the theme of revenge once again gives me the impression he’s masturbating to that theme a little too gratuitously.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to say in my review that this is the movie that is the turning point for my respect for Tarantino. In fact I still consider him one of the best filmmakers out right now. I would however like to see him work with other themes too. Like many people, I feel one trait that makes for a great director is one that can do many genres well. Steven Spielberg is an example of a director that can do a multitude of film genres. Martin Scorsese may be famous for gangster films but he showed he can do other styles of film well too, even family movies. Ang Lee is another filmmaker that has demonstrated versatility. I would like to see Tarantino become more versatile in the films he delivers. This may sound odd coming from a fan of his movies but I’d like to see him try it.

Okay, enough of me both praising and sacking Quentin. The film’s acting consists of character acting that knows how to be stylish without coming across as ridiculously showy. Jamie Foxx was impressive as Django Freeman. The only problem is that he was constantly upstaged by the supporting players. Christoph Waltz delivered excellently as King Schultz with all of his charming arrogance who somehow had a heart. Leonardo DiCaprio also was phenomenal as the charmingly hateable Calvin Candie. Samuel L. Jackson was excellent as the hateable Stephen: the former slave who now owns and beats his own. He makes you want his payback in the end. Kerry Washington was also good as Hildy but her character lacked the depth and style the leading male characters had. The sets were perfect in fitting the time. Even the springy tooth on Dr. Schultz’s coach looked less ridiculous over time. The music mix was also excellent. Another trait of Tarantino’s movies is the inclusion of music that enhances, stylizes and even enchants in the movie’s story and Quentin delivered again. It was a mix of original music and of songs from decades past that blend like magic into the film.

One would assume a movie like this would be one to cause controversy. And they’re right. This movie has had people speaking out against it on the subject of either the violence or the subject of slavery or the use of racial slurs. The most outspoken critic has been director Spike Lee. Spike has been critical of Quentin Tarantino in the past for the use of a certain racial slur in Pulp Fiction. Spike hasn’t really spoken about the use of that slur in Django but he has spoken about the movie itself and has declared it: “an insult to my ancestors.” This is particularly questionable since there are African American actors in leading roles. If they felt it was an insult to their ancestors, they would have refused to be in the movie. Besides I’ve always gotten the impression Spike Lee wants the world to think he’s the voice of all of black America simply because of Do The Right Thing. Fortunately the controversy hasn’t generated too much news overload.

It’s interesting while Lincoln showcased justice given to slavery, Django Unchained is about one slave’s revenge. Ironic how both are released in the same year and both have expectations to win the Best Picture Oscar. As for Django, it’s starting to feel redundant to see another Tarantino revenge flick but his stylized filmmaking compensates for that and delivers a winner of a movie for the most part. Not for all to see but it will entertain those that do see it.