Spring Wrap-up Part One

Nuns on the Run (1990)
I watched this movie with my brother on a whim. Nuns on the Run stars a post-Monty Python Eric Idle and a pre-Hagrid Robbie Coltrane. Idle and Coltrane play criminals trying to get out of a life of crime but in the process have to hide out in a convent while disguised as nuns. As you could've guessed, wacky hijinks ensue!
Nuns on the Run was written and directed by Jonathan Lynn. While Lynn is not a household name, he has directed several well known movies such as Clue, My Cousin Vinny, and The Whole Nine Yards. I actually haven't seen any of those yet but will eventually!
There are some funny ideas here but it doesn't work overall. The pacing isn't great and there are a bunch of filler scenes. It probably would've worked better as a few independent sketches (such as the when Idle and Coltrane are in a packed parking lot trying to decide which car to steal) than a feature length film.
This counts as a nunsploitation movie, right?!
4/10

What About Bob? (1991)
I've talked about a few Bill Murray movies on this blog in the past so here is another one. Although I had heard good things about this film I hadn't seen it until now. Murray is great as usual but the real star here is Richard Dreyfuss as his reactions to "Bob" make Murray even funnier.
I realized later on that The Cable Guy is similar in that the main character's both have an off-beat obsessive "stalker" who just wants to hang out with them all the time. The relationship between Bob and his therapist is also kinda like that of Dennis the Menace and Mr. Wilson. Except that Dennis would be an adult in this version!
What About Bob? was directed by Frank Oz. Yes, *that* Frank Oz of Sesame Street, Muppets, and Yoda fame. This is the third movie I've seen that Oz has directed. The other two are Death at a Funeral (2007) and The Muppets take Manhattan, both of which I have written about earlier on this blog.
7/10

Man on the Moon (1999)
I'm not a fan of Jim Carrey though I don't dislike him either. I just generally don't go out of my way to see his movies. However, I'm glad I saw this one as it features a great performance by Jim Carrey as actor and comedian Andy Kaufman. He even won a Golden Globe for this role, although could not get an Oscar nomination. The film received no Oscar nominations which is a bit surprising since it does feel like an Oscar bait type movie.
A biographical film seems tough to make as you must condense a person's life into a mere two hours. It was an even more difficult task in this case as what Andy Kaufman was most famous for (his role as Latka Gravas) was probably the least interesting thing about the man.
I felt that the movie focused too much on Andy Kaufman's cancer and death. Kaufman was diagnosed in late November 1983 and died in May 1984. Obviously this is important, but he wasn't sick that long and died pretty quick. On a similar note we we could've had more about Kaufman's life before he was discovered as a comedian.
There are a few anachronisms such as the movie's depiction of Kaufman's Carnegie Hall show being performed after he was diagnosed with cancer, but it fits in with Kaufman's life as a showman who would blend reality and fantasy together. The opening scene of the movie even features Carrey in character as Kaufman stating that parts of "his" life have been changed!
As a biopic about an off-beat personality I couldn't help but be reminded of Tim Burton's Ed Wood. Although Ed Wood and Andy Kaufman were different in several ways, both were true artists who managed accomplish their visions despite of the obstacles of mainstream TV and film-making.
Many actors and other famous people who knew the real Kaufman such as wrestler Jerry Lawlor, Saturday Night Live producer Lorne Michaels, late night talk show host David Letterman, and the cast of Kaufman's TV show Taxi are in the movie as themselves. Danny DeVito (a cast member of Taxi) plays a large role as George Shapiro, Kaufman's manager, but doesn't play himself. There could've been a fun meta moment along the lines of the "color blind" scene in Ed Wood but I guess they didn't want to confuse the audience too much.

Even though I think of Courtney Love as a musician and not an actress, she did a nice job playing Kaufman's girlfriend. If I didn't know who she was I would've assumed she was an actress not famous for anything else.
R.E.M. performed most of the songs for the Man on the Moon soundtrack and did a great job as usual. Their title track was actually not made for the movie as it was originally released in 1992. R.E.M. are apparently big Andy Kaufman fans. The band did write the song "The Great Beyond" specifically for the film.
The final scene is interesting as tackles the urban legend that Andy Kaufman faked his death and is actually still alive, while also reminding us of the influence Andy Kaufman has had on comedy and pop culture.
I was familiar with Kaufman but honestly didn't know much about him before seeing this movie. After watching Man on the Moon I wanted to know a lot more about him and do research on his life, which is something any good biopic should do for its subjects. Luckily there are plenty of videos of him on YouTube, including the infamous Fridays fight incident.
Man on the Moon was directed by Milos Forman, a two-time Oscar winner. I had only seen one of his movies before, One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest, which I love. Somehow I haven't seen Amadeus yet, so I need to watch more of his films.
An interesting piece of trivia about this film is that Forman could not decide between Jim Carrey or Ed Norton for the role of Andy Kaufman. Forman let the studio decide and they chose Carrey because they felt he was a more bankable star at the time.
Man on the Moon received mostly positive reviews from movie critics but lost money at box office. It's too bad that the film was a financial failure as its probably part of the reason Forman hasn't done much since.
8/10

Home Alone and Home Alone 2: Lost in New York

Although I like John Hughes (he wrote the screenplays for both these movies while Chris Columbus directed them) I had avoided this series for a very long time. While these were meant to be family movies to appeal to children, even as a kid I thought they looked stupid. I these watched these movies around Christmas simply because they were Christmas movies I hadn't seen before as well as being huge box office hits that are still referenced in pop culture.

Home Alone (1990)
Coming into this movie I thought it would be an hour and a half of Malculay Culkin yelling while violently attacking intruders in insanely elaborate ways. While these things do happen, it's not anywhere near what I was expecting. Most of the movie is about Kevin being on his own, home alone, and not fighting the robbers. There are some scenes setting up the "Wet Bandits" Harry (Joe Pesci) and Marv but we only have a few short scenes of them with Kevin until the ending. And when Kevin sets his traps they weren't as violent as I had expected and therefore could actually be funny. For example, Kevin putting the pet tarantula on Marv was hilarious and features one of my favorite screams in all of cinema.
This movie does have a heart thanks to the scenes between Kevin and his older neighbor. Kevin is initially afraid of this old man who lives alone and is rumored to be a serial killer. The scenes where they interact are quite touching with a nice payoff at the end. I just wish the movie could have focused more on this part. The score by John Williams is well done as usual and fits the movie well.
I liked the scenes where Kevin played parts of the fictional movie Angels with Filthy Souls (which must be a parody of the 1938 James Cagney movie Angels with Dirty Faces) to mess with them. Despite the scene being unrealistic it was still funny and creative. Kevin would've had a blast with internet soundboards but I don't want to give them any ideas for Home Alone 5!
John Candy has a fun cameo as a band member giving Kevin's mother a ride to her house so she can check on Kevin. It was pretty funny how she arrives home at the same time as the rest of the family due to crazy Christmas travel delays despite leaving before them.
I'm not one to harp on a movie being unrealistic, but the movies goes out of its way to try to make this story seem plausible. The whole set-up for it is so complicated that its silly, which I guess is the point but if that's the case why not take the ball and run with it and have the family not even realize they forgot Kevin at all? You could say that would make them seem like bad parents but they already accomplished that.
Although I expected to not like it, I was pleasantly surprised. That said, I don't think I liked it quite as much as the general public. 
6/10

Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992)
Let's get this out of the way: Home Alone 2 is a cheap cash-in made to capitalize on the huge financial success of the first film which was the top grossing movie of 1990 ($286 million in the US alone) as well as the stardom of Macaulay Culkin. Plot-wise a sequel for Home Alone makes as much sense as a sequel to Donnie Darko. Oh wait, that movie got a sequel too... Anyway, Culkin was huge and this was just another attempt to make money off him (gotta sell those Tiger Electronics Talkboys!) before he hit puberty. I even remember he had an animated Saturday morning kids show called Wish Kid! But hey, at least they brought all of the main cast back for the sequel.
If you thought the premise of the first Home Alone was silly it's even more ridiculous this time around. I won't get into the details but yes, Kevin gets away from the watchful eye of his large family yet again thanks to a crazy set of circumstances that for some reason still try to keep a sense of realism. Oh, and the same robbers from the first movie not only managed to escape from jail in Illinois to come to New York at the same time as Kevin, but actually bump into him several times in a city of eight million people!
There are several re-hashes from the first movie. My favorite is that instead of watching Angels with Filthy Souls, this time Kevin watches the sequel, Angels with Even Filthier Souls! The old man from the first movie is essentially replaced with an old homeless lady for Kevin to befriend. They really didn't try to change the formula except for being set in New York instead of his house in Chicago.
Despite all these issues, I couldn't really hate the movie. I don't like it and its clearly inferior to the original but there is some fun to be had here. All the scenes in the hotel were actually pretty funny. Tim Curry steals the show as a hotel clerk. Curry is great as usual and its too bad he couldn't have been the main villain.

We also have an early 90s SNL era Rob Schneider who is better than you would expect, especially given his recent movies. The buddy scenes between Harry and Marv are actually better than those in the original as the two are funnier than before. Daniel Stern (Marv) is a underrated comedic talent as he also stood out in another kid's movie, Rookie of the Year, as a crazy pitching coach.
The last part of the movie with Kevin defending himself in his Uncle's house is shockingly violent. Not to mention the fact that the Wet Bandits actually try to kill Kevin before all this. In the first movie I only remember a couple of traps that could be seriously dangerous but pretty much everything Kevin does this time would kill the two burglars. Throwing bricks at people heads from a tall building just isn't funny to me. I don't know why the traps are more sadistic this time around, I guess because they were going for the live action cartoon thing. For example, there is a scene of Marv getting electrocuted and we see his skeleton which is something right out of Looney Tunes. But it doesn't really work here when we also have a heavy dose of seriousness and realism with the big toy shop donating its money to sick children and a homeless lady alone on Christmas.
Hey, at least its still better than Macaulay Culkin's Richie Rich movie...
5/10

I'm not going to bother with the sequels (Home Alone 3 and 4) as I didn't exactly love these two, the sequels don't seem to have much (if anything) to do with these, and are both said to suck. And yes, Home Alone 5 is happening... I just wish it would be like this!


My next three posts will be about movies with just one sequel each.

Weekly Wrap-Up (11/20)

This week I saw four films. Two of them were fantastic and two were bad. I'm a firm believer that one cannot truly appreciate great cinema without watching terrible movies as well!

Pulp Fiction (1994)
Pulp Fiction is the second Quentin Tarantino movie I've seen. I had watched Reservoir Dogs before and really liked it, so I was looking forward to this film and luckily it did not disappoint. Although Pulp Fiction has been heavily ingrained in popular culture to the extent that I was already familiar with some lines and and scenes, I was completely engrossed and found this to be an amazing film.
The weakest part of the film are the scenes featuring Bruce Willis' character talking to his wife as the movie's pace slows down to a near halt. I understand that the scenes in the hotel room were necessary and the pay-off was certainly worth the slow set-up. Although Tarantino managed to pull off a dialogue heavy movie where even conversations about a five dollar milkshake were fascinating, the chemistry between Butch and Fabienne just wasn't there.
It is hard for me to pick a favorite moment as I loved the entire movie but Christopher Walken's cameo and the scenes with Harvey Kitel were pure gold. Now I need to see more Tarantino movies!
9/10

Adaptation. (2002)
I usually don't give a movie a perfect score upon my first viewing but had to make an exception here. Adaptation is proof that films can be incredibly entertaining as well as great works of art with something to say at the same time.
Nicolas Cage was amazing in a dual role as the Kaufman twins, Charlie and Donald. I have only seen a few of his movies but Cage seems to be an actor who is only as good as his director and script. To be fair this is the case for most actors (with guys like Bela Lugosi and Vincent Price being exceptions) but Cage played down to the material in The Wicker Man (2006) so much that I could barely believe this is the same actor. Although I had never heard of Chris Cooper before, he won a well-deserved Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his role as John Laroche.
I though it was pretty clever how Being John Malkovich, made by the same director (Spike Jonze) and writer (Charlie Kaufman), was incorporated into this movie. The reason for this was because Charlie Kaufman not only wrote the script, but is also main character in Adaptation. Spike Jonze has only directed three feature films thus far so once I see Where the Wild Things Are I'll have seen all his movies. Hopefully he will make some more! While Kaufman has written more movies than Jonze, Being John Malkovich and Adaptation the only films he has done that I have seen so far.
While all aspects of this movie were great I was most impressed by the writing. The title itself, "adaptation," has a double meaning as it refers to adapting material to another medium as well as how people adapt to life. In the film, Kaufman is trying to write a screenplay adaption of the book The Orchid Thief and then writes himself into the script. The book is a real book and Kaufman wrote Adaptation under similar circumstances! The movie is incredibly meta and even deconstructs how screenplays are written. Kaufman use of himself as a character in his own movie reminded me of how Philip K. Dick did the same in his VALIS novels, which isn't surprising since Kaufman is a PKD fan.
It is worth noting that although Adaptation is credited as being written by Charlie and Donald Kaufman, in real life Charlie does not have a twin and Donald does not exist. That didn't stop Donald from also being nominated with Charlie for an Oscar for best adapted screenplay!
10/10

Cyborg (1989)
Cyborg was directed by Albert Pyun, who has made tons of low-budget B-movies and direct-to-video films. Pyun is the guy who directed the 1990 Captain America movie as well as Alien from L.A., which was featured on MST3K.
Cyborg stars Jean-Claude Van Damme in one of his earliest film roles. Van Damme's character, Gibson Rickenbacker, must help a cyborg get to a group of scientists in Atlanta as she is carrying the cure for a deadly virus which has ravaged mankind. However, an evil gang leader kidnaps the cyborg to use the cure for themselves. As you could probably guess, this movie rips off Escape from New York and The Road Warrior on its way to being a generic post-apocalyptic film. The only real difference is that Rickenbacker is a martial artist. But if I wanted to see that I would just watch Bloodsport again. Although this is a bad movie it is still watchable. The fights and special effects (such as explosions and the robotics on the cyborg) were actually pretty good. I was able to see this in High Definition and was amazed with how good it looked, especially considering it was a low-budget movie made over 20 years ago. The outside scenes looked like they could have been filmed today!
What really made this movie bad was the acting and writing. While there isn't too much dialogue the acting is over the top, even for a movie like this. The basic story makes sense but I still don't understand how Rickenbacker and the girl caught up to (and actually got ahead of) the gang. The gang traveled to Atlanta on a boat while Rickenbacker followed them by foot! Rickenbacker's back-story was interesting although derivative, but had jerky editing that made the flashbacks confusing at first.
If you like bad cinema, post-apocalyptic movies, or are a hardcore Jean-Claude Van Damme fan, you will enjoy this. Otherwise just watch Escape from New York and the Mad Max movies instead.
3/10

Abraxas, Guardian of the Universe (1990)
Jesse "The Body" Ventura is an interesting person. The man was a Navy SEAL, pro wrestler, actor (I enjoyed his role as Blain in Predator), governor of Minnesota, television host, and author. During Ventura's film career he made the mistake of "starring" in this truly terrible film.
Pretty much everything that can go wrong in a movie went wrong in Abraxas. The acting is awful and the dialogue is repetitive and silly. The film's story is incomprehensible, but I'll try to explain it.
An alien cop named Secundus (who has Arnold Schwarzenegger's accent) comes to Earth and rapes a woman with his hand who then gives birth to the child five minutes later. Another alien cop (these cops are called "Finders" although I don't know why) named Abraxas (Jesse Ventura) sends Secundus to space jail. These space cops can live for thousands of years but it is never explained how this is possible (are they androids?) and has no relevance to the plot. Five years later, Secundus somehow escapes to Earth so that the child (called a "comater" though again, never explained why) can give him the "anti-life Equation," a concept stolen from Jack Kirby's comics. Abraxas must stop Secundus with help from his "VD box," a rip-off of Ziggy from Quantum Leap, that is attached to his arm. Confused? Join the club.
The "VD box" is just unfortunately named. You would think that somebody would have realized that when most people hear "VD" they think "venereal disease." In this movie VD is supposed to stand for "vibrational detection," which is almost as bad now that I think about it! At least lines such as "My box has VD, trust me" and "Members of our force were taught to avoid VD" are unintentionally hilarious.
Abraxas features random music that never fits the scene and always feels out of place. The head-scratching camera work, editing, and directing make you wonder if the crew rushed the production or simply showed up on set drunk everyday. This movie is incredibly dark, and I mean that literally. Lighting is almost non-existent except for some outdoor scenes. Usually it is so dark that it is hard to see anything! James Belushi has a cameo as a school principal which he did as a favor for his wife at the time who was in Abraxas as Sonia. Despite Belushi being in this movie there is no intentional humor in this movie at all and the tone is always serious. Many B-movies realize how ridiculous they are and try to have some fun with it but Abraxas takes itself way too seriously. Oh, and while I'm at it, Abraxas liberally rips off The Terminator and shamelessly uses the word "terminate" many times. This movie failed in every way possible.
Luckily I watched the RiffTrax version which features a hilarious commentary by Mike Nelson, Bill Corbett, and Tom Servo of MST3K fame. RiffTrax usually makes fun of recent good movies so its nice to see the RiffTrax crew go back to some classic MST3K material. Although this movie is terrible, I do recommend the RiffTrax for some great laughs. Check out the RiffTrax sample for Abraxas here.
Abraxas is not a well-known bad movie like Plan Nine from Outer Space, Manos: The Hands of Fate, Troll 2, or The Room but it should be up there (or more appropriately "down there") as a craptastic classic of truly awful cinema.
1/10

Weekly Wrap-Up (10/23)

Halloween (1978)

I am a Big John Carpenter fan but had somehow never seen this film before. Halloween is one of the most influential movies in the last 30 to 40 years as it is usually credited for the rise of the slasher genre. While this film has contains many elements that would eventually become cliches today, it is still am amazing film that holds up well. The great camerawork by Dean Cundey and Carpenter's directing allow the movie to rise above its low budget. That said, the low budget doesn't show much anyway since Halloween does a great job setting up the suspense and doesn't need to rely on blood and gore to be scary. Carpenter knows that what you don't see is scarier than what you do see, and uses that to full effect in this film. At its core, Halloween is about the struggle between good and evil. Although good will triumph over evil, evil always returns in some form.
Jamie Lee Curtis puts in a nice performance in what was her film debut and the role she will probably always be best known for. Donald Pleasence is awesome as usual as the doctor tracking Michael Myers. 
Although Halloween is probably Carpenter's best known movie, my favorite Carpenter film is still The Thing. Of course that is just personal preference as I love both along with all the other Carpenter films I have seen so far... except Ghosts of Mars.
9/10

Ghostbusters (1984)
I had seen this movie awhile ago but was due for a re-watch.
Bill Murray IS Peter Venkman. Although I can't imagine anybody else in this role, John Belushi was originally intended to play Venkman. Ghostbusters went through a long process of re-writes before it got made so I have a feeling that if Belushi lived and was in the movie it would be quite different. Murray and the cast made a lot of ad-libs which was a lot of fun and helped make this one of the most memorable and quotable comedies ever.
The special effects hold up well, as practical effects usually do!
One thing that surprised me was how good the writing was. Ghostbusters is not the most tightly written comedy, but its up there. Each set-up had a pay-off: Don't cross the streams, Stay Puft marshmallow man, Zuul, relationship between Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) and Louis Tully (Rick Moranis), etc. A friend recommended watching the sequel saying it was underrated, so I'll give that movie a shot when I get the chance.
8/10

Ghost Dad (1990)
I love Bill Cosby. His stand-up and television work are both great. However he just couldn't make the jump to movies. I'm not counting Bill Cosby: Himself (1983) since that is just a filmed version of his stand-up routine at the time.
I was shocked to discover that the great actor Sidney Poitier directed this movie. He has directed a few other films but this one appears to have killed his directing career as it is the last movie he has made. Ghost Dad had a decent budget ($18 million) although I'm guessing most of that went to Cosby's salary. The special effects were actually decent, but most of them were camera tricks. Although its hard to believe, Ghost Dad made over $24 million at the box office so it actually turned a profit.
While Ghost Dad is watchable, there are far better family comedies out there. For a movie called Ghost Dad starring Bill Cosby its actually not as wacky as one would expect, although there are still some ridiculous moments. Hey, at least its not Leonard Part 6!
3/10

Roger Corman Blogathon: Frankenstein Unbound (1990)

I originally wrote this article (now with pictures!) for Nathanael Hood's Roger Corman blogathon June 17-19 2011. Now that I have my own blog I wanted to post it here. Nate will be hosting another blogathon in late July/early August about 50s monster movies. For that blogathon I will be reviewing one of my favorite films, Forbidden Planet! Thanks again Nate for originally hosting this article and for all your advice and encouragement. Without it this blog would never have been possible! Also thanks to all who came here from Nate's blog, I appreciate the support!
Tomorrow I will be posting brief reviews of the first half of movies I have seen so far this summer. On Saturday I will post my first weekly film topic which will be my thoughts on remakes. This Sunday short reviews on the other half of films I have watched this summer will be posted. Then next week I'll jump into one film at a time as I see them. Next Sunday will be my first weekly round-up of the movies I have seen and reviewed in the past week. Without further ado, here is my article on Frankenstein Unbound!

          

Although Frankenstein Unbound was the final film directed by Roger Corman, it just so happened to be the first Corman movie I had ever seen. The first time I had seen it was two summers ago and I had no expectations. I saw that a time travel movie involving Frankenstein and starring John Hurt and Raul Julia was coming on cable soon and with that information alone I knew that I had to watch it! I had heard of Roger Corman before, but at the time I did not really know how influential he was to the film industry, just that he made some B-movies. 



Unlike other many other Corman movies, this one did not launch any careers. John Hurt had already been nominated for two Oscars and Raul Julia was known for his performances in Kiss of the Spider Woman (1985) and Romero (1989). That said, this is an early film of Bridget Fonda, although she will most likely always be best known not such much for her acting career, but simply for being the daughter of Henry Fonda and niece of Jane Fonda. 



The aforementioned John Hurt plays Dr. Joe Buchanan. Dr. Buchanan is a scientist of the near future whose experiments have pushed past the limits of nature with unintended but dangerous consequences. While performing experiments to create a powerful weapon with the intention to end war while also not harming the environment, Buchanan and his team of researchers discover that the weapon also has the side effect of creating random rifts in the space time continuum. At first Buchanan is confident that he can find a way around this. One day while driving home from work he encounters some children burying a bike that has “died” because its owner has bought a newer more advanced bicycle. As Dr. Buchanan is musing (“Progresss!”) over this bizarre scene, an unusual storm is brewing. Buchanan is able to get the children to safety even though a warrior on a horse emerges from the storm and almost hits him with a spear! Unfortunately, Buchanan is sucked into the storm and sent across time and space. Eventually he figures out that he is in 1816 Switzerland. Buchanan meets up with some historical figures: the poet Percy and his wife, author Mary Shelley (Bridget Fonda) while he tries to find a way to reverse the time slip and return home. However, Buchanan discovers that a certain Victor Frankenstein (Raul Julia) is living in the nearby Swiss village. Like us, Buchanan always thought that Frankenstein was a work of fiction, but it turns out Mary Shelley’s novel was actually based on true events! As a fellow scientist who has had to deal with his own experiments going horribly wrong despite having the best of intentions, Buchanan tries to help Frankenstein. However, he fails to get Frankenstein to admit that his monster (which is legitimately creepy with a good make-up job) killed a child which leads to the nanny being accused of the murder and later being executed. Buchanan tries to stop Frankenstein and his monster from ending up like the novel, while also attempting to get home and stop the time slips. Despite the title Frankenstein Unbound, the story is always about Buchanan and his struggle to deal with his metaphorical monster (the time slips) which make Frankenstein’s monster powerless in comparison, but an intriguing parallel.



                               The monster:

Buchanan’s interactions with the Swiss in 1816 as a man from 2031 are not only amusing but also interesting as he can do whatever he wants. Unlike the main characters in most other time travel movies, Buchanan does not really need to worry about keeping the timeline intact since the randomness of the time slips has already done significant damage. Therefore the story can follow the character more freely as he explores 1816 while stranded in the past.

If the time slips depicted in this movie were real perhaps Roger Corman would have cast Vincent Price as Dr. Buchanan since, intentionally or not, Hurt seems to be channeling Price in his role. Hurt hams it up, but the end result is pure fun. The best examples of this are the priceless scenes between Dr. Buchanan and his talking car. The car has a sexy female voice and although there is no human avatar for the car, its personality is fully developed with witty dialogue, showing that technology may one day come back to haunt us with snide remarks! When Buchanan is still trying to figure out where and when the time slip has taken him, he exclaims “Jesus H. Christ, where am I?!” to which the car responds “No record of a middle initial for a Jesus Christ, Dr. Buchanan” which Hurt’s character does not find very amusing. The car’s lines such as “Something tells me we are not in New Los Angeles anymore” and “Scientifically speaking, we are out in the sticks” could have been classic Spock phrases on Star Trek. Buchanan humorously treats the car like a real person. When he must leave it to go back to the Swiss village he has been staying at, Buchanan hides the car and tells her to “be a good girl” to which the car responds, “My options are limited!” While one might simply write off the car as comic relief in the vein of C-3PO and R2-D2, or in this case more appropriately KITT from Knight Rider, I argue that its role may be a bit deeper. The car itself is like Frankenstein’s monster as it blurs the line between human and inhuman. The car appears to be sentient but is it alive? Likewise, is the monster simply animate or truly alive?



           

While Roger Corman co-wrote the screenplay for Frankenstein Unbound, it is important to keep in mind that this movie is actually based on a book by British science fiction author Brian Aldiss. Aldiss is a prolific writer, but for better or worse will be best known for writing the short story “Super-Toys Last All Summer Long” which was the basis for the 2001 film A.I. Artificial Intelligence. A.I. was originally developed by Stanley Kubrick and finally directed after his death by Steven Spielberg. Corman was no stranger to adapting the works of others (most famously Edgar Allan Poe but also others such as H.P. Lovecraft). While I have not actually read Aldiss’ novel, from what I have read about the novel it appears that Corman has stuck to the original story much closer than his previous adaptations of other works.

There are two fun cameos in this movie that you will want to keep an eye out for. The now deceased Michael Hutchence, lead singer of INXS (“New Sensation,” “What you Need”) puts in a fine cameo as the famous Romantic poet Percy Bysshe Shelley! Also look out for Catherine Corman, Roger Corman’s daughter, who played Justine Moritz, a woman tried and condemned as a witch.

                        Michael Hutchence:
                        Catherine Corman:

Although Frankenstein Unbound has generally been considered to be mediocre at best, I contend that this is a fine B-movie with better acting and cinematography (filming on location in Italy certainly helped) than most of its ilk. The plot is pretty unique, and the only movie I can think of which comes close is the wonderful Nicolas Meyer directed film Time After Time (1979). In this film, Jack the Ripper (David Warner) uses H.G. Wells’ time machine to escape to the future. H.G. Wells (Malcolm McDowell) must stop him from murdering women in 1979 San Francisco! Time After Time is the better of the two movies, but if you liked one I imagine you would also enjoy the other. 



                                      

While I will always have a special place in my heart for Frankenstein Unbound, it is by no means a perfect movie. For example, Buchanan can magically understand everyone in the Swiss village, not just the English-speaking Percy and Mary Shelley. This is not uncommon in science fiction but at least Star Trek mentions the use of universal translators. I feel that some sort of explanation should have been given, or maybe the car could have been somehow used to translate for Buchanan! Perhaps the bigger issue is Buchanan’s persistence in following Dr. Frankenstein. His frequent meetings often feel forced and one wonders why he isn’t spending more time getting it on with the beautiful Mary Shelley instead of getting involved with Victor Frankenstein who he has no real stake in. I know that Buchanan sees some parallels between Frankenstein and himself but I’m not sure if that is enough motivation as to why his character is risking his life to stop Victor. Yes, a few people are being killed by the monster but the damage from the time slip makes these deaths seem miniscule in comparison. Plus since Buchanan discovers that Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is actually non-fiction, he knows the murders will end soon with or without his involvement. The movie runs a sleek 82 minutes so perhaps this was answered in the book, an earlier version of the screenplay, or deleted scenes and was cut later. 



Very few, if any, movies are perfect, but it is easy to overlook these flaws since the story is immersive and allows for easy suspension of disbelief. Frankenstein Unbound keeps us entertained as we want to know what Buchanan will do next as well as if Victor Frankenstein and his monster will meet different fates than in the original Frankenstein. It is fitting that Frankenstein Unbound was Corman’s last at the director’s chair. Frankenstein, Buchanan, and Corman all created new things. While Frankenstein’s monster and Buchanan’s time rifts ended poorly, Corman’s monsters continue to entertain and have a lasting positive effect on the film industry.



I gave Frankenstein Unbound a 6/10 on IMDB. I'll explain my scoring system in detail with tomorrow's post. See you then!