Movie Review - Frankenstein

Director: Guillermo del Toro
Genre: Horror/ Fantasy
Runtime: 149 minutes
Year: 2025
Starring: Oscar Isaac, Jacob Elordi, Mia Goth, Christoph Waltz, Charles Dance, David Bradley. Lars Mikkelsen, Felix Kammerer, Ralph Ineson
 
Description: Dr. Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac), a brilliant but egotistical scientist, brings a creature (Jacob Elordi) to life in a monstrous experiment that ultimately leads to the undoing of both the creator and his tragic creature.
 
Review: I think “Frankenstein” is one of the books with the most movie adaptations in its name. And if I could have chosen a director for the 2025 version, I would have definitely picked Guillermo del Toro. He is suited for this story, he knows how to visualize classics like “Frankenstein”. And I wasn’t wrong, because it’s so good.

We all know the story. Victor Frankenstein is an ambitious, somewhat egotistical scientist, who brings a creature to life. This eventually leads to the undoing of both him and his creation.

Guillermo del Toro manages to bring Mary Shelley’s gothic style to life. The visuals are stunning. The aesthetics, the sets, costumes and atmosphere are all spot on.  The film is layered, which is closer to Mary Shelley’s book and explores important themes such as creation, humanity and identity. The focus on the romantic connection between the monster and Elizabeth, and Victor’s resulting jealousy is an interesting addition to the original story.

The performances are really strong. The absolute star is Oscar Isaac, who portrays a layered Dr. Frankenstein and conveys his madness fantastically. Jacob Elordi is a surprising choice for the monster. He breaks through his “hunk” image he built up with previous roles. He plays the role credibly and vulnerably. Mia Goth and Christoph Waltz proves strong supporting roles and add extra color to the ensemble.

Many people criticize the slow pace, but they clearly never read the book. I think the pacing is perfect, taking time to tell the story and get to know the characters. It’s a long film, but I never felt that.
I absolutely loved this adaptation of “Frankenstein”.

Rating: 4,5/ 5

10s Movie Review - Dracula Untold

Director: Gary Shore
Genre: Action/ Drama/ Fantasy
Runtime: 92 minutes
Year: 2014
Starring: Luke Evans, Dominic Cooper, Sarah Gadon, Art Parkinson, Charles Dance

I WATCHED THIS MOVIE FOR MY 2023 MOVIE CHALLENGE.
WEEK 36: A PREQUEL
 
Description: As his kingdom is being threatened by the Turks, young prince Vlad Tepes (Luke Evans) must become a monster feared by his own people in order to obtain the power needed to protect his own family, and the families of his kingdom.

Review: “Dracula Untold” is an origin-story about the most famous vampire: Dracula. Set in fifteenth-century Transylvania, Vlad the Impaler keeps the Turkies armies at bay by adopting the superhuman powers of a primordial vampire, but naturally pays a price.

I expected the origin story of Dracula would be way bloodier. This was not even a horror film. It was just fine. I didn’t think it was terrible, but it wasn’t good either. I liked Charles Dance in it, I like him in everything to be honest. But a vampire movie with barely a drop of blood, isn’t really a successful vampire movie.

Rating: 2/ 5

Movie Review - Against the Ice

Director: Peter Flinth
Genre: Drama/ Adventure
Runtime: 102 minutes
Year: 2022
Starring: Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Joe Cole, Charles Dance

Description: In 1909, two explorers (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Joe Cole) fight to survive after theu’re left behind while on a Denmark expedition in ice-covered Greenland.

Review: More than a century ago we had mapped most of our planet. Only of the most inhospitable parts was it not yet clear how the land masses formed. Greenland was one such area. The Danes undertook a number of expeditions to prove that even the furthest and coldest part of Greenland was theirs. The last of these daring expeditions was led by Captain Ejnar Mikkelsen. He wrote a book about his adventure that is till worth filming decades later.
Mikkelsen was sent out to find one of his predecessors. Perhaps for no more than an honorable burial, but hopefully also to secure evidence for the Danish claim to all of Greenland. Indeed, the United States claims that a northern piece of Greenland I not attached to the Danish remainder and therefore need not be Danish. Mikkelsen does find something, but for the really conclusive proof, he will have to make a months-long trek across the icy plains, into the snow-white interior. His crew is not eager to join him, except for Iver Iversen, the rookie.  
With this mechanic with no experience above the Arctic Circle, the somewhat gruff captain treks deep into the Arctic Circle. On the way, the two encounter the necessary dangers and inconveniences on their dog sleds loaded with food, until they finally find the documents for which Denmark had sent them, emaciated and heavy-handed. For most films, writing about this would have been a spoiler of sorts, but for “Against the Ice”. Finding evidence is one thing, securing it is another. Returning alive to the waiting ship and then Denmark is an immense challenge, as is keeping the peace along the way.
The drama weaves together these stories without losing sight of the bigger picture. That finding some frozen documents is far from the end of the film, any observant viewer understands after a quick glance at the clock. Stories of lingering loneliness and extreme isolation, whether in space, underground or in the snow, benefit from a slow narrative. There is a real lack of a narrative structure where loneliness and despair creep up on the pair and the viewers. The journey through the Arctic not frequently feels rushed.
When the truly desolate hopelessness does get space, there appears to be enough energy in the film. There is then enough left behind to the seasoned veteran and the enthusiastic youngster to be able to relate in the silent lunar landscape. The first half of “Against the Ice”, in which all sorts of things were supposed to happen and all sorts of things were hoped for, turned out to be nothing more than a stretched out introduction.
It is worth watching, but with that it’s not as eventful as you might expect. It’s an okay film, with strong performances and beautiful visuals, but it’s not a movie that will stay with you for long.

Rating: 3/ 5 

Movie Review - The King's Man

Director: Matthew Vaughn
Genre: Action/ Adventure
Runtime: 130 minutes
Year: 2021
Starring: Ralph Fiennes, Gemma Arterton, Rhys Ifans, Djimon Hounsou, Charles Dance, Matthew Goode, Daniel Brühl, Tom Hollander
 
Description: In the early years of the 20^th century, the Kingsman agency is formed to stand against a cabal plotting a war to wipe out millions.

Review: “The King’s Man” is a continuation of “Kingsman: The Secret Service” and “Kingsman: The Gold Circle” and is set before these films. Director Matthew Vaughn did the same with “X-Men: First Class”, where he made the series interesting again by bringing the subject matter back to its starting point. It doesn’t quite works as well with this franchise though.
The Kingsman agency’s origins is traced back to World War I. This results not so much in an interesting setting, but in a rather clumsy attempt to go through the entire war as fast as possible. Only not the war we know from the history books, but a hugely fictionalized version of it.
Vaughn rewrites World War I into a conflict completely orchestrated by a shadowy organization. As such, the war depicted has almost more in common with the Clone Wars from “Star Wars” then with the actual conflict that claimed forty million lives. It is quite daring, but the result is in the end rather stale because Vaughn is a little too eager to tick off all the familiar chapter.
For example, Russia withdraws from the war after a few years, only because of the Communists taking power, but simply as yet another move in a huge chess game. Or in other words: less interesting than real history. But then again, for a history-telling, you’re in the wrong place with “The King’s Man”. This is the type of film in which one look at a scary man with a big beard is enough to know that Hollywood has once again brought out its favorite Russian villain Rasputin.
The central figure in the story is the British aristocrat Orlando Oxford, who has the necessary experience with violence and therefore tries with all his might to keep his son safe. A fine premise and Ralph Fiennes is really good in his role (is he hardly ever not good?). It is quite refreshing to see him in a role as action hero, which he can truly embrace in the finale of the film. Which is also the highlight. It’s just a pity that the road leading up to it is rather long and muddled. Vaughn does manage to simplify the war enormously, but doesn’t get it right with the overarching plot.
That doesn’t take away from the fact that there is some creativity here and there in the messy narrative. For example, there is the very fun idea of presenting the German emperor, the Russian tsar and the British king as three quarreling nephews who, in their conceit, tear Europe apart. Only in doing so, World War I is reduced to a conflict between tree powers, conveniently leaving out France entirely.
The first movie in this series really pleasantly surprised me and I liked it way more then I expected too. And it’s a movie I would rewatch many time. “The King’s Man” is not bad, but not very good either. It’s entertaining, but aside from the wonderful finale the movie doesn’t have much to remember.

Rating: 2,5/ 5

00s Movie Review - Swimming Pool

Director: François Ozon
Genre: Drama/ Thriller/ Crime
Runtime: 102 minutes
Year: 2003
Starring: Charlotte Rampling, Charles Dance, Ludivine Sagnier, Jean-Marie Lamour, Marc Fayolle

Description: A British mystery author (Charlotte Rampling) visits her publisher’s (Charles Dance) home in the South fo France, where her interaction with his unusual daughter (Ludivine Sagnier) sets off some touch dynamics.

Review: The story begins in England. Author Sarah Morton visits her publisher John. She is his main source of income, and she behaves accordingly. Sarah is in a bit of a slump and is not enjoying her fame. John offers her a stay at his country house in France, an inspiring environment to start working on a new book. This seems to be working out quite well, until suddenly Julie arrives, the French daughter of John from a previous marriage.
Julie’s way of life is rather different fro that of the rather grumpy, reserved Sarah. Julie prefers to walk around naked, enjoys the pool and brings home a different man every night. Sarah is initially annoyed, but eventually becomes inspired by Julie.
A sultry intrigue blossoms, and Sarah keeps on writing. And at the end, the story takes on a totally different light. The story is initially about the elusiveness of the human mind, the blurred line between dream and reality and the role of the muse in the creative process.
Charlotte Rampling is the star of the film and she is wonderful as Sarah. She makes this film better than it would normally be. Because overall, the film is a bit dull at times. The term thriller doesn’t really fit. It’s by no means a bad movie, but not a lot happens, that’s all.

Rating: 3/ 5

Movie Review - Mank

Director: David Fincher
Genre: Drama
Runtime: 131 minutes
Year: 2020
Starring: Gary Oldman, Amanda Seyfried, Lily Collins, Charles Dance, Tuppence Middleton, Leven Rambin, Tom Burke, Tom Pelphrey, Arliss Howard, Toby Leonard Moore, Joseph Cross, Jamie McShane, Elvy, Sam Throughton, Natalie Denise Sperl, Ferdinand Kingsley, Adam Shapiro

Description: 1930s Hollywood is reeveluated through the eyes of scathing social critic and alcoholic screenwriter herman J, Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) as he races to finish the screenplay of Citizen Kane.

Review: Screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz, Mank for short, is approached by Orson Welles to work on a film script. Through flashbacks his route to the making of this script will be explained.
I know director David Fincher mainly from his darker work, like “Se7en”, “Zodiac”, “Gone Girl” and his profound series “Mindhunter”. So when I saw his name connected to this film, I was intrigued. And yes, with Gary Oldman in the lead, it quickly got my attention. “Mank” is an ode to film from the late 30s, early 40s. With “Citizen Kane” as the legendary battleship of his catgory. This is a film that cinephiles with a penchant for old Hollywood will enjoy.
“Mank” was shot in that style: completely black and white, with methods of lighting and sound that make you feel like you’re in classic Hollywood. Fincher makes the choice here to e very stylistic, which I didn’t expect him to be. And he did this very well. Gary Oldman plays the charismatic Mank, intellectual chatterbox and professional drunk, and he does this sublime. Amanda Seyfried, who I have never been a big fan of, plays her best role so far. And Charles Dance is always great in whatever he does. But it’s Oldman’s movie and nobody will be able to drink enough to come across as credibly drunk as Oldman does here soberly. And at the same time eh finds the balance between pedanticism and sympathy.  
The script is well put together, but doesn’t have much to do. “Mank” is a bit too long to my taste. The many flashbacks add to how Mank wrote the script for “Citizen Kane”, because that’s what this is all about, and why he made certain script choices. The film certainly isn’t boring, but it won’t appeal to everyone. The cinephiles among us will love it. For the rest: this is a stylistic biographical film you may or may not like. It suits me just fine!

Rating: 3,5 / 5

Movie Reviews - Godzilla: King of the Monsters

Director: Michael Dougherty
Genre: Action/ Adventure/ Fantasy
Runtime: 132 minutes
Year: 2019
Starring: Vera Farmiga, Kyle Chandler, Millie Bobby Brown, Charles Dance, Ken Watanabe, Sally Hawkins, Thomas Middleditch, Aisha Hinds, David Strathairn, O’Shea Jackson Jr.

Description: The crypto-zoological agency Monarch faces off against a battery of god-sized monsters, including the mighty Godzilla, who collides with Mothra, Rodan, and his ultimate nemesis, the three-headed King Ghidorah.

Review: In 2014 Mark and Emma’s son was killed in the disastrous fight between Godzilla and two MUTO’s. in flashbacks we see how their daughter Madison did survive and how Mark left the family to try and cope with the death of his son. Emma on the other hand, works for the Monarch, a zoological agency that shows high interest in Titans. A groups a creatures that Godzilla is a part of. When she is in the middle of awakening Mothra, eco-terrorist Jonah Allen enters the room.
“Godzilla: King of the Monsters” is one giant spectacle. There is hardly any room to breathe, because it’s constant action. And it all looks amazing. It’s a visual treat.
Even though this film is mostly about the monsters, there is a moral to the story: restoring the natural balance. And although Emma and Jonah are portrayed to be the ‘bad guys’ of some sort, I really think they have a point. Emma’s drive and motivation for what she is doing makes sense strangely enough.
The audience’s biggest complaint about “Godzilla: King of the Monsters”, is the characters. They have no depth and are disposable. Well people, they are not what’s important in this film. The focus is supposed to be on Godzilla and the monsters. Off course the people should be somewhat interesting as well. And I find Emma and Jonah both a very interesting characters. The rest is indeed not that special. But if you’re a Godzilla fan, you don’t care about the characters and you get exactly what you want: Godzilla!!!
The cast is very talented. Vera Farmiga, Kyle Chandler, Millie Bobby Brown, Ken Watanabe and Charles Dance. All very solid. Nothing really noteworthy.
“Godzilla: King of the Monsters” is a good sequel to 2014s “Godzilla”.

Rating: 3,5/ 5

100 Movie Challenge 2017 - # 109: Starter For 10

Director: Tom Vaughan
Genre: Comedy/ Romance/ Drama
Runtime: 92 minutes
Year: 2006
Starring: James McAvoy, Alice Eve, Rebecca Hall, Dominic Cooper, Benedict Cumberbatch, James Corden, Charles Dance

Description: Set in 1985, working-class student Brian Jackson (McAvoy) navigates his first year at Bristol University.

Review: “Starter For 10” is based on a novel by David Nichols, one of my favorite authors. The film is set in the 80s, but it really looks like it was actually made in that era. Everything breaths 80s.
No special effects, no fancy camera positions, no tricks. This film’s strengths are in the nostalgic atmosphere, talented and strong actors and a well-directed script. Okay, sometimes it’s a bit cheesy and predictable. But it’s such a fun film.
I really love James Mcavoy in this coming-of-age story. As am 80s baby and hopeless romantic, “Starter For 10” is a win!

Rating: 3,5/ 5

100 Movie Challenge 2017 - # 108: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

Director: Burr Steers
Genre: Action/ Horror/ Romance
Runtime: 108 minutes
Year: 2016
Starring: Lily James, Sam Riley, Lena Heady, Charles Dance, Matt Smith, Bella Heathcote, Suki Waterhouse

Description: Five sisters in 19th century England must cope with the pressures to marry while protecting themselves from a growing population of zombies.

Review: “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” is exactly what the title wants you to believe it is. Jane Austen’s good old tale “Pride and Prejudice”, but then with added zombies. 19th century women fighting off zombies.
A mash-up film like this can be extraordinary fun because of the contrasts between the two genres. And those moments, where the film mixes the genres and becomes half a parody and half something completely new, is where “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” is the strongest. Where the film tries to stick with the original romance novel, the film loses its power. Because we already know it and seen it.
For a film of this genre, it focuses too much on the original story, instead of the elements that make this story so special. We simply needed to have more of the zombies. Off course it’s also fun to see the moments from the original Austen novel, but we have other movies for that. It gets fun when the Bennet sister pull out weapons from their dresses and fight the undead.
Overall it’s a strange mix, although very entertaining. When the zombie element of the story had an overhand, “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” would have been much better. Still not a bad movie, but there was such potential.

Rating: 3/ 5

100 Movie Challenge 2017 - # 43: Me Before You

Director: Thea Sharrock
Genre: Drama/ Romance
Runtime: 110 minutes
Year: 2016
Starring: Emilia Clarke, Sam Claflin, Matthew Lewis, Stephen Peacocke, Charles Dance, Jenna Coleman, Brendan Coyle

Description: A girl (Emilia Clarke) in a small town forms an unlikely bond with a recently-paralyzed man (Sam Claflin) she's taking care of.

Review: In “Me Before You”, Emilia Clarke plays Louisa Clark, Lou for short. She is a 26 year old with a love for a colorful wardrobe and no ambitions. She still lives with her parents and gets silly job to support them. When she gets fired from the café she works at, she needs to find a new job. Lou gets a job as caregiver of the paralyzed Will Traynor, a young man that is the complete opposite of Lou. Before the injury, he was a successful banker and lived life to the fullest. When he gets hit by a motorcycle and ends up in wheelchair for life, the ambitious man changes into a bitter and unhappy man. Lou is supposed to makes his life a bit more bearable. At first, they don’t really get along, but the two eventually form an unbreakable bond.
“Me Before You” deals with some really heavy themes, but the screenplay keeps it light. The focus is on the connection between Lou and Will. Emilia Clarke and Sam Claflin have perfect chemistry.
Although this movie doesn’t get the best reviews, I’m for once not going to be influenced by that. I loved “Me Before You”, I loved Clarke and Claflin. And one tip: keep the tissues near.

Rating: 5/ 5

100 Movie Challenge 2016 - # 100: Ghostbusters

Director: Paul Feig
Genre: Comedy/ Action/ Science Fiction
Runtime: 116 minutes
Year: 2016
Starring: Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones, Chris Hemsworth, Ed Begley Jr., Bill Murray, Andy Garcia, Cecily Strong, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Sigourney Weaver, Steve Higgins, Zach Woods, Charles Dance

Description: Following a ghost invasion of Manhattan, paranormal enthusiasts Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) and Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy), nuclear engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon), and subway worker Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones) band together to stop the otherworldly threat.

Review: The movie got a lot of negative critique, even before the movie was released. A new “Ghostbusters” movie with an all-female cast. Director Paul Feig never intended to do a remake or to copy the eighties version of the film. This movie breathes new life into the concept. In 2016 Venkman, Stanz, Spengler and Zeddmore never existed. Bill Murray even has a small cameo as a scientist that doesn’t believe in ghosts. The Ghostbusters from the 1984 and 1989 movies are not a part of Feig’s universe.
Physicist Erin Gilbert is trying to make a career at a prestigious university, but is reminded of the book she once wrote with her friend Abby Yates. A book about ghosts. Abby is still seriously investigating the paranormal, with her engineer friend Jillian Holtzmann. When there is a ghost sighting in the city, the three check it out and realize that they were right all along. When also Patty Tolan joins them, who knows a lot about the city, the four women get an office, hire the very dumb secretary Kevin and try to catch ghosts for a living.
The plot is not that different from the original film. The story is a bit bland. But the film is supposed to be a comedy. And it is a really funny film, all thanks to the great women. Melissa McCarthy is really on a roll with both physical and verbal humor. Kristen Wiig is really strong, Leslie Jones is hilarious and Kate McKinnon is crazy. I also loved Chris Hemsworth, as the dumb (yet hot) secretary Kevin. But there is also the problem. It’s definitely a women’s film, because every male character is either a douchebag or very stupid.
There are many nods to the original film and I really liked that. “Ghostbusters” got a lot of crap and not all deserved. Is it better than the original? No. It does look better, but that’s logical because of today’s techniques. I really enjoyed the film and I thought it was very funny. Sceptic at first, a little surprised and very entertained.

Rating: 3,5/ 5

100 Movie Challenge 2015 - # 8: The Imitation Game

Director: Morten Tyldum

Genre: Drama/ Thriller

Runtime: 113 minutes

Year: 2014

Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Keira Knightley, Matthew Goode, Rory Kinnear, Allen Leech, Matthew Beard, Charles Dance, Mark Strong

Description: During World War II, mathematician Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch) tries to crack the enigma code with help from fellow mathematicians.

Review: During World War II, it looks like the Nazis take the upper hand, with their so called Enigma decoding machine. Mathematician Alan Turing is given the task to break that code and intercept messages. His genius is overshadowed by his social handicap. This makes it hard for his co-workers. The pressure to perform is growing and Alan’s secret is also not making it any easier.

Who has seen “A Beautiful Mind”, with Russell Crowe as John Nash, will certainly see some parallels. Both center a genius man who suffer social disabilities. In “The Imitation Game” we see three different time periods: 1927, during WO II and the fifties. This makes the buildup of the story interesting and you really get to know Alan Turing.

Benedict Cumberbatch is hard to ignore these days and in “The Imitation Game” he shows us why. He is excellent as the British pioneer and almost just as brilliant in his role as the man himself. Keira Knightley, one of my personal favorites, shows us again that she can overshadow her co-stars. Not Cumberbatch, but all the other male performers don’t stand a chance.

The décor, the great performances by Cumberbatch and Knightley and the wonderful story, make “The Imitation Game” worth your time.

Rating: 4/ 5