Sunday, November 2, 2014

2014 – My Theatrical Movie Experiences Ranked


Despite the growing success of online-streaming, I still savor my experiences in the theater, and those are the movie events I want to look back on. So, here’s my personal ranking of all the 2021 movies I saw in the theater this year, which means some other really good (and bad) films from 2021 won’t make the countdown. Again, this is my own personal opinion, these films aren’t ranked by the quality of the picture, but simply by how each left their impression on me. I saw 7 movies in total, and here's my personal ranking of each one from least to favorite.

 

#7 “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1” 

It’s the beginning of the end for the Hunger Games franchise, and like so many films with “Part 1” in the title, it’s hard to feel any kind of satisfaction knowing that you’ll have to wait for “Part 2”. “Mockingjay” was already my least favorite of the three books, and having it stretched out to two movies didn’t do me any favors. Yet, with that said, I still found myself enjoying this instalment fine … truthfully even more then I expected going in, and I still find this franchise one of the superior book-to-screen adaptions in the YA cannon. The acting is still strong, I felt the emotion when I needed to, and even with its lack of action when compared to its predecessors, I was still consistently engaged. I don’t know if I’ll be returning to this film any time soon, but I certainly look forward to “Part 2” when it comes around. 

#6 “Godzilla” 

Following the disappointment of 1998’s American “Godzilla” remake, 2014 marked the second effort to reboot the monster for Western audiences … with mostly better results. Despite playing a frustrating long game in revealing the big-G, as well as getting around to fighting the new villains, this film mostly gets everything right. It’s also my second favorite launching-pad for Godzilla behind the original 1950’s classic. The battles are big spectacles, it’s refreshing to see new monsters, the tone is darker, and the movie is very smart by giving us just enough monster action, without getting too over-blown. There’s also just enough human drama to help balance out the sheer spectacle of seeing monsters wreaking havoc. Finally, it was a nice treat to see Godzilla as a hero again, after so many films of him being the primary threat. It’s a slow-burning experience, but the pay-off is strong, it leaves me satisfied, and it’s overall respectful for an American Godzilla film.

 

#5 “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” 

Time for an unpopular opinion, as this sequel is being regarded as one of the worst, if not the worst film in the series … but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t have a good time with this film … warts and all. Andrew Garfield still delivered one of Spider-Man’s best portrayals on film to date, and the whole cast in general made this film worthwhile. Likewise, the battles are genuinely thrilling, the effects are top notch, and the films tragic finale gave me chills all over. Honestly, for all the films admitted faults, I think there’s far more good qualities to it then bad. Thanks to a stellar ending, and other merits throughout, I actually find this a favorable Spider-Man film. It may hurt the series moving forward, but on its own … it’s colorful, features menacing villains, exciting set-pieces, and a delightful romance in the center.    

 

#4 “Guardians of the Galaxy” 

I didn't know a thing about the comic this film was based on, so I was a little lost on some details, but never the less, the films charming collection of memorable characters, colorful space design, light-hearted tone, thrilling space battles, and overall fun factor made this movie a sheer delight … one that brought out the inner child in me. Despite being another Marvel branded Comic-Book adaption, I don’t really see this as just another Superhero movie … it’s something special for the Sci-Fi genera, which has virtually runout of original content. In many respects, I see “Guardians of the Galaxy” as this generations “Men in Black” or “Ghostbusters”, which is very welcome.   

 

#3 “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” 

Even though I genuinely loved the first Captain America picture … this is a special case in which I feel the sequel is largely superior to the original. With an exceptionally smart story, full of political themes, and less formulaic comic book gimmicks, this Captain America squeal knows how to respect its audience, while still entertaining them with plenty of explosive spectacles. It proved that Marvel doesn’t need to rely on big Avenger’s crossovers to make successful or memorable superhero movies. Actually, this felt like a throw-back to the classic white knuckled action films of the 80’s and early 90’s … but upped to 10.

 

#2 “How to Train Your Dragon 2” 

The previous “How to Train Your Dragon” has a secure spot as, not only one of my favorite animated movies of the past decade … but I’d honestly place it among my top three personal favorites … which leaves much for this sequel to live up to. Thankfully, this movie skyrocketed my expectations … it’s just as good … and possibly even better in some respects. It expands upon the foundation of the first in every way a good sequel should, with stronger characters, more human drama, a lot more dragons, plenty of comedy, better flight scenes, and some top-notch animation. "How to Train your Dragon 2" is every bit as stunning, beautiful, and uplifting as its predecessor and has a secure spot along with the ranks of “Toy Story 2” as one of the greatest animated sequels I’ve ever seen.  

 

#1 “X-Men: Days of Future Past” 

This is hands down my favorite of the X-Men series thus far … by far … as it’s a mega crossover bringing together the Original Trilogy, the First-Class series, and even the Wolverine films together into one perfect package. It’s also a respectable adaption of its iconic source material, and raises the bar for X-Men at the movies. It took the series to new heights, with bigger spectacles, Oscar worthy visual effects, and sensational action, but it also has a consistently strong story, a script that never forgets it’s characters, and it even boasts respectable moral themes at the center. Just a personal opinion, but in my view, "X-Men: Days of Future Past" highlights the best of the series, and gives you more … including powerful performances, an intriguing time-travel plot, alternate realities, plenty of high-stake action, and it never loses that substance at the center, which makes X-Men so special to me. Without question, this is currently my favorite of the X-Men film series, and it has a secure spot as one of my new personal all-time favorite movies.

So, concludes 2014 … and may the thrill of the theater stick-around next year. 


My Top 10 Cutest Animated Girls (Updated)


          I never under stood how an animated girl could come off as hot or attractive to some people, but they certainly can be cute. With the right personality, the right voice and the right charisma, animated girls can be nothing short of adorable. I’m not looking at who’s drawn the most attractively, or who’s the most well developed character, this list is all about the animated girls that I find to be just plain cute.  





#10 Kiki from Kiki's Delivery Service



     In this Hayao Miyazaki classic, a young teenage witch leaves home to make a life for herself, and fate leads her to a small town where she becomes a delivery girl for a bakery. From there on, it’s just the life and times of this young which, the people she meets and all the little adventures she has along the way. This could have been a very boring premise, but thanks to its lead heroin, it’s one of the most simplistic and charming experiences I’ve had with an animated movie. Kiki is just so genuine and delightful that I just love following her in this light as air story. In Disney’s English dub version, Kiki is voiced by Kirsten Dunst and she just hit’s it out of the park by bringing Kiki to life with a personality that’s both young and sweet, but also grown up and mature, it’s just the perfect balance. She doesn’t even feel like a traditional “character”, she actually comes off more like a friend that I’d just want to spend some time with, and that’s the real magic of the movie. She’s simply one of the most delightful characters I’ve ever seen from one of the most delightful animated movies of all time. 



#9 Wendy from Disney’s Peter Pan



     Here’s one that usually wouldn't be mentioned on a list like this, but it’s another personal favorite of mine. Despite being younger then all of Disney’s marketed princesses, Wendy's actually one of the most grown up and mature of all the Disney females. Huge props to voice actress Kathryn Beaumont, who can take a by the numbers innocent child and make her sound like a mature, intelligent and honestly quiet entertaining character. It’s actually interesting how she contrasts with the other classic Disney Princesses like Snow White or Sleeping Beauty because they always felt like little children in adult bodies, while Wendy felt like an adult in a child's body. Now, this description may not make Wendy sound cute the same way I’ve described the others on my list, but she has a lot more charm on display then not. While Wendy is very mature, she is still a kid, and the film does a great job balancing her two personas. She does get curious, excited and when she act’s cute, she’s really cute.



#8 Sakura from Cardcaptors ( or Cardcaptor Sakura as it's called in Japan)



      Sakura Avalon was just a normal, everyday elementary school girl with big hopes and even bigger dreams. One magical day, fate chooses her to take on the responsibility of protecting the people she loves from magical oddities that have a tendency to accrue at unexpected times in her home town. While she makes for a strong hero character that never backs down from a fight, she also never loses her charming every day girl persona that makes her so lovable. This is a kid that’s just full of life, she brightens everyone’s day and gets overjoyed by the simple little things in life that so many people take for granted. While the original Japanese Anime is far superior to it's Americanized counter part, I do still prefer the English dubbed voice actress Carly McKillip who infuses Sakura with a voice and personality that’s both sweet and innocent while also making her sound smarter and older then her age would suggest. Of course her design is fantastic, only Japanese animators can make a face that cute, and I especially like how her costume changes in each episode. Named after the word “Cherry Blossom”, Sakura is every bit as sweet and as wholesome as her colorful title would suggest.

  
#7 Mabel from Gravity Falls


      In the strange little town of Gravity Falls, twin siblings named Dipper and Mable spend their summer going on wild and hilarious supernatural adventures. Dipper plays things like a strait man, which allows his crazy hyperactive sister to set him off perfectly. Just how cute is this character ... well, right from the opening title sequence at the beginning of every episode is Mable snuggling with her pet pig, which is nothing short of precious. This is a character who seems to live in her own bizarre little world, which makes her overflow with a zany personality. While her silly antics could be annoying, she makes up for it with a clear conscience, and a noticeably big heart under neither all the crazy. Goofy characters like this are all the more lovable when you know they’ll have their quiet moments to bond with someone or be there for emotional support. Her relationship with her twin brother dipper is probably one of the sweetest sibling friendships I’ve ever seen in an animated program. Full of relentless energy and powered by sugar filled fantasies, Mable is that one pain in the neck child you just can’t help but love.            


#6 Mavis from Hotel Transylvania



     Who would ever guise that Dracula's daughter, a vampire with gothic attire could possibly be the least bit cute. Well, Dracula’s daughter isn’t just cute, she’s also endearing, upbeat and an all around fun character. Suffering from the Disney princess curse of being trapped in her tour, this young vampire just wants to get on with her life dang it. It’s a conflict we’ve seen before, but I’ve never seen a vampire go through something like this, and that was very refreshing. Of course liberation comes in the form of a young boy who wins her heart, which leads to fun times, sad times and all the situations that further highlight this character. Mixing tragic conflicts with a cheerful personality make’s her one of sweetest vampires you’ll ever see.


#5 Astrid from the How to Train Your Dragon series   



      In a series featuring cute and lovable dragons, you can expect one particular dragon rider to be just as adorable. Astrid has gone through some significant changes throughout the “DreamWorks Dragon’s” Series. Starting as a savage and reckless Viking, and then over time she became this sweeter, cheerier, more heroic warrior. Watching her character go from point A to point B just made her all the more intriguing, and her relationship with both her dragon, and best friend only made her cuter. From an impulsive Viking student, to a courageous hero, Astrid is a girl of many faces, and every one of them cute.    


#4 Katara from Avatar: The Last Air Bender




     From a magical land of four kingdoms, an evil army called the Fire Nation plots to rule it all, only a group of young hero’s stand in their way, each with their own strengths and charismatic charms, and the one champion who just fits my list perfectly is Katara, a young 14 year old who was born with the mystical powers of controlling the element of water. This character has it all, a sad back story, yet she still has a very positive outlook on life. She has a gentle heart but she also has the focus and strength to kick some series butt. She’s wise and passionate but she also has all the side effects of being young, like naive jealousy and an occasional ill temper, in other words, she’s as human as characters get, and not just a one note stereotype. Katara can also be really funny too, she just has a splendid sense of hummer. Beyond all of that, it’s her selfless determination and optimism of a better future during hard times that make her so enduring, and so likable. With her motherly wisdom, impressive fighting skills and talented voice actress Mae Whitman bringing her to life, how could I possibly keep her off my list.


#3 Anna from Disney’s Frozen



      You may have noticed a lack of Disney princess on my list, mostly because I see them as just good characters, I can only think of maybe three that are actually cute, and the one that definitely earns a spot on my list is Anna from "Frozen”. Once her sister accidently unleashes a freezing spell on her Kingdome, this princess doesn’t hesitate to do all in power to set things right. Anna is just brimming with personality, I honestly can’t think of a moment in the film in which she didn’t put a big smile on my face. Her antics are funny, I love how determined she gets, and you’ve probably seen the movie already, so what more do I really need to say?   



#2 Starfire from Teen Titans



     Here’s yet another female superhero for my list, but unlike Shadowcat, Starfire isn’t just the heart of the team, this is an explorer, someone new to our world, the people in it and it adds another level of innocence and charm to her that phew other animated characters have. She’s an alien who found her way to earth, joined a team of crime fighters, and she’s arguably one of the sweetest super hero’s I’ve ever seen. While she has all the cool traits you usually associate with superheros like enhanced strength, the ability to fly, and the power to shoot energy beams, she’s also really funny. It kills me whenever she gets confused about earth behavior, or gets phrases mixed up. Starfire is cheerful, compassionate and always acting like a cute, innocent child. She could have easily been my number one favorite, if it weren’t for my next character.



Before I revival my #1 pick, here are some Honorable Mentions...


Princess Eilonwy from Disney's The Black Cauldron 

Teru from Tales from Earthsea 

Shadowcat from X-Men Evolution 

Roxanne from Disney’s A Goofy Movie


Tanya from An American Tail: Fievel Goes West




#1 Gadget from Chip N’ Dale Rescue Rangers



     Being completely honest, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more charming or all around likable animated girl then Gadget. She’s a brilliant inventor, but also a clumsy goof, which are the perfect ingredients for hummer and charisma. In many ways she’s the smartest member of her team, crafting high-tech vehicles ranging from plains, to boats, and even a submarine just using small, common everyday things that she finds lying around, but at the same time, her brilliant, hyperactive mind leads to a lot of funny scenes or situations. What can I say, I love how energetic she is, I love how excited she can get creating inventions, I love her chemistry with the other characters, and I love how funny she can get when doing something completely unintentional. Any one of the animated girls from my list can put a smile on my face easily, but Gadget has this special charm that’s all her own. She had a wonderful personality, she was inventive, heroic, funny, emotional, tough, caring and always a real joy to watch. 


           The End

Monday, October 20, 2014

The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) (Movie Review)


  All throughout October, I’ve been posting movie reviews of Universals eight classic monster movies, and now we come to the final classic monster movie. Sense I kicked off the season with a review of 1931's "Frankenstein", it only makes sense to book end the event with its equally iconic sequel ... and I've saved arguably the biggest film for last. The 1935 Horror picture titled “The Bride of Frankenstein” is wildly regarded as the absolute best of Universals monster movies and is often labeled as a horror movie legend. Any list of the greatest horror movies of all time would probably feature this movie among the top ten best. It’s also worth noting that of the eight classic Universal monster movies, this is the only one that’s a direct sequel to one of the previous films. Interesting because every one of these classic monsters would have their own chain of sequels, and even “Frankenstein” would have several more sequels after this one. Even though this is a great movie, it’s only excuse for being among the classic eight is due to the introduction of the Bride. So, what do I think of this film ... well, I wouldn't call it my absolute favorite of the series, but I'd certainly rank it among the top three best. 


 This is the third of the Universal monster movies to be directed by James Whale, and he still proves to be the best in the business. The movie begins with a prolog featuring Mary Shelly, the author of the original “Frankenstein” novel, but she’s played by actress Elsa Lanchester. She and some house guests recap on all the events of the last film, set to a clip montage, and in the end Mary Shelly comments that the story doesn’t end with the burning windmill. Even though the first movie was nothing like the book, I still like this opening a lot because it gets me excited for what I’m about to watch, and it’s also nice for the movie to give direct mention to the source material. Anyway, the movie then continues immediately after the events of the last film. The family that lost their doubter in the first movie are exploring the remains of the downed windmill to make sure the monster died. Too bad for them, the monster emerges from the ruble, kills them both, and tries desperately to find its place in the world. Meanwhile, Dr. Henry Frankenstein is ready to leave all this science behind and spend more time with his wife, but a new mad doctor named Pretorius inters the picture and plans to continue Frankenstein’s work. 


 It’s interesting that the first movie revolved around the doctor, and the monster was a secondary character. Now things are reversed, as it’s Dr. Henry Frankenstein who gets pushed to the side lines, and the monster gets all the attention. He may not seem like an interesting character to hold an entire movie, but the writers handle him very well. First of all, the monster has an intellect in this movie, and even speaks. While the creature does kill some people, the film also gets us to sympathize with the beast on more than one occasion. There’s a scene when a girl falls into a lake and starts drowning, then to make up for drowning the little girl in the first film, the monster willingly leaps into the lake and rescues her. Unfortunately he’s rewarded by having people shoot at him. There’s another scene in which he sees his own reflection, and is ashamed of what he looks like. The best scene of all is when he takes refuge at the home of an old, blind man, who he forms a friendship with. Seeing these two bond is just as funny as it is heartwarming, and it’s become a classic scene. It’s here that the creature learns to speak, and forms an intellect, but most importantly, it shows that the creature does have a heart. Of course, this scene also marks the famous moment in which the monster expresses his dislike of fire ... "Fire, no good!"  


 There’s also a lot of religious symbolism and metaphors laced throughout the movie, which feels a touch out of place. The image of Christ on the cross is present in a number of shots, including a dissolve effect in the old mans house, which singles out the crucifix hanging on the wall before fading to black. There's even a moment when the monster is strung up by the angry villagers, and his poss resembles Christ on the cross. Personally, I don’t get what James Whale is trying to get across by connecting Christianity with monsters. I think the big question this movie asks is “What makes something a monster?” All throughout the movie, we see this creature try his best to just fit in with the world, but it’s everyone’s hatred and actions that cause him to become a murderous fiend. This is also how he gets an intense hatred for living things. Boris Karloff is back in his signature role as the monster, and this time he’s given a lot more to work with. Unlike most of his villain roles, this film allowed Karloff to display a wider range of emotions, and it just livens up the creature's overall screen presence. 

    
 Colin Clive also returns to his signature role of Dr. Henry Frankenstein, and still does a good job, but like I said earlier, his character isn’t the focus of the movie, and he doesn’t leave as big an impression as he did in the first film. The real star who steals the show is the new evil Doctor Pretorius. Even though he’s not one of the eight classic monsters, he’s personally one of my favorite villains from the universal catalog. This is the classic mad scientist, and actor Ernest Thesiger is fantastic in the role. He also speaks one of the franchises most famous lines, in which he makes a toast stating ... "Let's raise a glass to the new world of Gods and monsters". There isn’t a hunchbacked assistant in this film either, although Dwight Frye does make an appearance as a lab assistant named Karl. This of cores is the same actor who played the hunchbacked assistant in the first "Frankenstein" movie, and the crazy Renfield in “Dracula”. In other words, these movies really liked to recycle their cast members. 

  
 On that note, the only character with a noticeable cast change is Dr. Frankenstein’s wife Elizabeth. In the original she was played by Mae Clarke, but in this film, she’s played by Valerie Hobson. While this new actress is certainly more attractive, I also felt that the other actress was classier and more dignified. There’s just something about this new actress's performance that comes off as overly theatrical at times. Also, she falls victim to the classic cliché of getting kidnapped by the monster. Unlike all the other films, this monster has no interest in her at all, and is only using her for leverage, which is slightly more original. Speaking of annoying performances, actress Una O’ Connor, who previously played a loud and over the top character in James Wales “The Invisible Man”, returns here to play yet another loud and equally annoying character. While the film is enjoyably campy, her performance is the one thing that goes a little too far for my liking.  


 Just like its predecessor, the films visuals and scenery are big spectacles, and almost steal the show. The new lab for example is much busier and has some really fun set pieces on display. For 1935, many of the effects in this movie are quite impressive and still hold up to this day. My favorite scene is when Doctor Pretorius displays a collection of shrunken people that he grew in his lab. It’s a fun variety of different characters that blend in with their surroundings perfectly, and it might just be the first time shrunken people were ever featured in a motion picture. There’s also an electrifying musical score which only adds to the films overall charm and entertainment. Interestingly enough, the first time I ever heard this score was a scene from the 1999 movie “Small Solders”, which featured its own lab scene. While on the subject of the technical details, I should note that this movie even received an Oscar nomination for best sound design, which is saying a lot for a monster movie from the 30's.

    
  Oh yeah, I should probably talk about the Bride ... after all, isn’t that the title character of the movie? Well, at the very end of the film, the two doctors do create the bride, but she’s only on screen for about six minutes. No joke, once the bride comes to life, the Frankenstein monster tries to be gentile and comforting, but even the bride is scared of him, which provokes the monster to kill her. During her time on screen, she hardly dose anything, just makes a lot of hissing sounds, and jerks her head around like a peacock. Also, she never appears in any of the squalls that followed. The Bride is played by Elsa Lanchester, who also played Mary Shelly in the prologue. I suppose she looks the part, and dose a serviceable job with what she has to work with, but the only reason the Bride has become such an icon is due to her overall design. The movie never explains why her hair is all weird and electrocuted-up like that, but it’s become one of the most famous hair-dues in the history of cinema, and imitated countless times after. 


  Her intro also serves as the finale of the movie, which may seem a little anticlimactic, but it’s actually a really good ending. Once the monster is turned down by the bride, he lets doctor Frankenstein and his wife escape, but keeps the evil doctor Pretorius, and the bride in the Castle to die. What I find hilarious about this climax is that Dr. Frankenstein has a convenient self-destruct lever, which the monster pulls and blows up the castle. Why on earth would the doctor install that? Well, the movie does have a very corny tone overall, and even though a self-destruct lever is silly, it doesn’t feel that out of place when compared to everything else that happens in this film.

 
    
  Boris Karloff would return to play the monster once more in the 1939 sequel titled “Son of Frankenstein”, which may not have been a classic, but it was still a very good sequel in its own right. Further sequels like “Ghost of Frankenstein” in 1942 and “House of Frankenstein” in 1944 would go way over-the-top with the stories and would feature different actors in the role of the monster. For whatever it’s worth, these were actually entertaining monster movies, but not on par with either of the originals. The Frankenstein monster made several more appearances in crossover movies like “Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man” in 1943, “Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein” in 1948, and the creature even made a brief appearance in the 1945 Dracula sequel titled “House of Dracula”. It’s probably the first long running monster franchise of all time and would set the template for other endless monster franchises like “Halloween” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street”.   
  

 Just like all the other universal monsters, Frankenstein had a large number of remakes beginning with Hammer studios 1957 motion picture “The Curse of Frankenstein”. This led to yet another long running series of Frankenstein movies consisting of six installments. However, these films focused more on the doctor, and the monster changed for each movie. In 1994, Kenneth Branagh directed and starred in the movie “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein”, which is probably the creatures most popular modern remake. It stayed closer to the novel, stared Robert De Niro as the Frankenstein monster, and even the bride made an appearance, played in this film by Helena Bonham Carter. Over the years, both Frankenstein and the Bride have become pop culture icons, and the monster himself is one of the most famous mascots that you see every Halloween. I wonder if the real Mary Shelley ever imagined the creature from her novel going down in history as one of the most marketable and popular monsters of all time. Well, the book may be a literary classic, but it’s really the 1931 motion picture classic "Frankenstein", parried with its sequel that helped make both monsters immortal.  


 “Bride of Frankenstein” is undeniably a campy film, full of hammy performances from the supporting cast, and is very short on scares, at least for modern audiences, but it’s held up remarkably well over the years. The effects are still very impressive, it’s a visual marvel to look at, the pacing is great, and it’s a rare kind of horror movie that actually explores the soul of a monster. I really can’t think of any other monster movie that can get an audience to sympathize with its signature villain as well as this film, which just makes it feel special in its own way. It's also earned its status as one of the great iconic movie squeals that's arguably superior to the original ... which was already a classic. This may not be my absolute favorite entry in the Universal monster series, but it is still pretty damn good, and without question, it’s earned the right to be called a horror movie legend.   


Thanks for reading my review of the 1935 horror classic "The Bride of Frankenstein" ... and that’s it, my October marathon has concluded, hope you enjoyed it, treat yourself to one good scare, and as always ...

                          Happy Halloween!  


Sunday, October 12, 2014

The Phantom of the Opera (1943) (Movie Review)


    All October I’ve been reviewing movies about vampires, werewolves, mummy’s and reanimated corpses, but today’s monster is something very different, and completely human. The 1943 motion picture “The Phantom of the Opera”, is definitely the odd ball of the 8 classic universal monster movies. It’s the only film to be shot in color as opposed to black and white, it didn’t have any sequels, it’s based 100% in the real world with no science or sorcery, and even though it’s the first sound version of the film, it’s still not quiet as iconic as its silent movie predecessor. All the classic monsters had silent movies prior to the sound versions, but the 1925 silent film “The Phantom of the Opera” was a landmark achievement that’s often regarded as one of the greatest horror movies of all time, and is often regarded as the best film version of this characters story. When you combine that with the booming success of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s classic 1986 musicale, the 1943 classic seems to fall by the waist side. This happens to be my least favorite installment of the 8 classic Universal monster movies, and just like my experience with “The Mummy”, I was introduced to several other renditions of the film, and the musicale first, which already put this at a disadvantage.

     The movie is based on the 1910 novel “The Phantom of the Opera” by Gaston Leroux, and keeping in tradition with all these movies, it changes some things from the book. Here’s the set up, Christine DuBois is a cores girl at an Opera, and many people there believe that she has so much potential to be a real star. One shy violinist named Enrique Claudin is determined to help Christine in her singing carrier, in fact he is obsessed with her vocal talents, and rights her a new song. His single obsession slowly starts ruining his life, he loses his job at the Opera and he owes a lot of people money. Then after he mistakes someone for stealing his music, a fight breaks out, which ends with acid being thrown in his face. While his face gets horribly burned, Claudin survives, steals a costume from the theater, and hides in the sewers. Now he becomes Christine’s watchful guardian, who dose all in his power to make sure that she becomes a famous singer, even if that means killing an actress or two in the process.

    My first big reservation with this movie is that there’s nothing mysterious or interesting about this movies lead monster. Most other versions of “The Phantom of the Opera” portray him as this mysterious person who pears out to us from the shadows. Very little was known about him, and most of the characters were so frightened by his mystique that they mistook him for a ghost, which is why they called him the Phantom of the Opera. This movie however shows us his story from the ground up, we know how he got the disfigured face, we know who he was before hand, and we know exactly what he wants, which defeats his mystique entirely, and ruins all the fascination you could have for a character like this. The other characters don’t even refer to him as the Phantom of the Opera throughout the entire movie, everyone knows who he is, and what he’s capable off. I will say that I love all the shadow effects in which we see the phantoms shadowy outline against a wall, these are the only moments in the film in which he feels mysterious and foreboding. 

     Now, giving us the Phantoms story from the ground up could have worked if he was the main character of the film ... but he really isn't, in fact he comes off like a secondary character, and isn't even featured that often in the film. Most of the attention is given to Christine, her carrier and her love life, which really undermines our films lead monster. One thing this movie absolutely has going for it is its production design, which is quiet impressive. The sets are so detailed, so grand, and sense it's all in color, you can really take in the beauty, size and scope of its layout more than the other Universal monster movies. The theater's stage is always a dazzling and elaborate set, and even the underground sewers are very impressive to look at. As such, of the eight original classic Universal Horror movies, this was the only film to get recognition and awards from the Oscars. It had four nominations all together, two of which included Best Sound Recording, and Best Music, which was composed by Edward Ward. "The Phantom of the Opera" then won the later two Academy Awards for Best Cinematography and Best Art Direction. 

    I also like the Phantoms overall design, the makeup for his scarred face is nothing special but his costume is really good. This is the film that introduced his iconic opera mask which would be universal in all his other media portrayals, and I really like his big hat which ties his costume together nicely. The Phantom is played by Claude Rains, a great actor who’s done well even in supporting roles like the father in “The Wolf Man”, but oddly enough, he seems to represent both the best and worst of what the Universal monsters have to offer. He was outstanding in the title role of “The Invisible Man” from the 1933 classic, and to this day, it’s still my favorite villain performance I’ve ever seen in a horror movie. However, his portrayal of the Phantom in this film is actually my least favorite of all the Universal monster performances. Personally, I just don’t think he was given much to work with, in “The Invisible Man” he had long monologues in which he elevated his voice in a way that was deeply thrilling to listen to. He also displayed a wide variety of acting talents, ranging from sympathetic, to funny, to frightening. As the Phantom, he’s only sympathetic, and while he does that well, he just doesn’t convey enough menace to leave an impression.

    In the plus column, our female lead Christine, played by Susanna Foster is fantastic, in fact, she might just be the best of all the female leads featured in any of these Universal monster movies. Not only is she incredibly beautiful, but she’s also charming, independent and has her own personal conflicts, choosing between the people she loves or the carrier of her dreams, which makes her a little more interesting. While she is regrettably reduced to damsel by the end, she at least manages to keep strong in the situation. In general, her character thankfully isn't quiet as one note as most other female leads from the monster movies of the time.  

    Unfortunately, for every positive comment I can give this film, there’s always two more negative things to say, and now we get to the worst part of the movie by far. In most renditions of “The Phantom of the Opera”, Christine has a boy friend named Raoul, who stands between her and the Phantom. Well, Raoul is featured in this film as a boy friend played by Edgar Barrier, but his character is all wrong. He’s an inspector who occasionally acts like a selfish jerk, and looks like he belongs in a “Pink Panther” comedy. Also, there’s this other opera singer who’s also in love with Christine, which is ridiculous, because the subtle love triangle of the novel has now become an overly complicated love square. It’s not like this other guy is there to be a victim, in fact, he’s a main lead that’s present from beginning to end, and even gets more screen time then Raoul, the boy friend we're supposed to care for. The comedy in this film is atrocious, with a lot of time wasted on overly long scenes involving Raoul childishly bickering with the opera singer to win Christine’s hand. The movie at times feels like a completely different film, like a pore slapstick/ romantic comedy. It’s almost as if the writers forgot about the phantom, and through him into the plot at last second.  

   The pacing in this movie is also a complete mess, as some scenes drag, and are very dull, while others scenes come off as rushed, this is most evident during the climax. Of course, we get the classic scene with the phantom dropping the chandelier during a live performance, but it’s so short, and so rushed that we can’t savor any excitement. Then when Christine is kidnapped and taken into the lair of the Phantom, and everything wraps up as quickly as it started. The two boyfriends immediately come to her rescue, a completely random cave-in collapses the phantoms lair, and gives our three hero’s a thrilling escape. I’m not joking, a random cave-in conveniently takes out the bad guy, and the whole climax is wrapped up in about five minutes. There is at least one cool moment when we see the Phantoms mask amongst the rebel, with his violin by its side. That would have been a strong note to end everything on, but unfortunately we have an epilogue. Christine turns down both of her boyfriends to pursue her singing carrier, leaving Raoul and the other guy to have another stupid comedy scene together, and everything ends on the lowest note you could possibly end this movie on.  

   The movies biggest problem is that it looms in the shadows of so many other superior versions of this story. 
Like I said earlierthe 1925 silent film “The Phantom of the Opera” is considered the immortal classic, and it doesn't stop there either. In 1962, Hammer studios released a remake of “The Phantom of the Opera”, and I actually saw this version first. While the production wasn’t quiet as big, I actually fond this to be a far superior movie with better characters, and far more mystery surrounding the Phantom. Once Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical rendition of “The Phantom of the Opera” hit the stage in 1986, everything changed. It was such a hit that people began to associate the character completely with the theater and music, forgetting about its horror movie roots. I doubt that you’ll ever see Dracula or Frankenstein ever go through a change as big or as ground breaking as what happened to The Phantom of the Opera. Robert Englund, famous for playing Freddy Krueger in “The Nightmare on Elm Street” also got his chance to play the Phantom in a very dark 1989 remake of "The Phantom of the Opera", which turned out a mixed offering. Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical then made its transition to the big screen with a motion picture in 2004 starring Gerard Butler as the Phantom. While it wasn’t a critical hit, it was still successful, and has gained plenty of fans. I’ve actually grown to like this one a lot over the years, and it proves again that Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical is the classic version of “The Phantom of the Opera”, even more classic then either of the original horror movies.  
 

   Overall, the 1943 movie version of “The Phantom of the Opera” is not a completely terrible film, and is still a minor classic in it's own right. It has incredible sets, its shot very well, the female lead is terrific, Claude Rains delivers in the role of the Phantom, and there’s just enough excitement to hold your attention for a single viewing. Having said that, I still feel it's the weakest of the eight Universal Classic monster movies, as the villain just isn’t as interesting or as exciting as he should be, the supporting cast is terrible, the story always feels out of focus, the comedy is awful, and there’s so many other better versions of “The Phantom of the Opera” that are worth watching instead.

Thanks for reading my review of the 1943 Horror Movie classic “The Phantom of the Opera” ... and be sure to treat yourself to one good scare this October. 

NEXT TIME: One of the previous monsters will return ... for a wedding.