Netflix And Chill: Frankenstein (2025)

Everyone knows that writer-director Guillermo del Toro wanted to make Frankenstein for many years. It was already such a thematic through-line in so many of his movies (the perceived monsters overshadowed by actual monstrous humans) that maybe it was assumed that he'd managed to get it out of his system, but no. So it's good for us that people gave him over $100M to finally deliver his vision of the classic text. Maybe we will yet get his version of At The Mountains Of Madness.

Bookmarked by scenes set in the Arctic, this gives us Victor's Tale in the first half and then The Creature's Tale in the second, both announced by title cards. Young Victor may be played by Christian Convery, but things really get going when we meet the adult Victor (Oscar Isaac), a man consumed by the idea of conquering death, much to the dismay of many, including his own brother, William (Felix Kammerer). William and Victor aren't exactly close, but William is still excited to have his brother meet his fiancée, Lady Elizabeth Harlander (Mia Goth). This proves to be quite the fateful encounter, almost as fateful as Victor's encounter with Elizabeth's uncle, Henrich Harlander (Christoph Waltz), a wealthy man who wants to fund Victor's experiments. Then it's all body parts and lightning storms until you can cry out "it's alive, it's alive" and we get the creation of a creature (Jacob Elordi). Victor isn't actually prepared for his role as "new father" though, which makes things very difficult, to say the least.

With lovely cinematography from Dan Laustsen, a fine score from Alexandre Desplat, and great use of some well-dressed locations (it's always nice to see even a heavily-disguised Edinburgh onscreen), it's no surprise that Frankenstein is a feast for viewers. It may be a slightly overdone feast, considering the hefty 150-minute runtime and the moments that have a bit too much CGI in the mix, but it's a feast nonetheless. The biggest problem would seem to be that Del Toro is too close to the whole thing, and has been allowed to indulge himself with every decision, for better or worse. This is most obvious during the many times he seems to be pointing at a massive hand-painted sign that says "It's Victor who is the real monster, get it?", as if we haven't been reminding ourselves, and others, of this for many many years now.

Isaac is decent in the role of Victor, enjoyably single-minded and callous, and I am sure the film was helped to find some extra viewers by the moments that have him working feverishly on his creation without any care for the state of his clothing. Goth is a wonderful Elizabeth, and it was canny casting to also have her playing another pivotal role in the earlier scenes of the film. Elordi is the highlight though, giving an interpretation of the creature that shows the full range of his life, from the new-born confusion to his education, from his vulnerability to his rage. Helped by an interesting, if not altogether successful, make up job, Elordi feels as if he's giving his all to portray a definitive take on the creature that manages to feel both very traditional and quite modern. Waltz is used well, Kammerer less so, and there are good scenes for the likes of Lars Mikkelsen, David Bradley, and Charles Dance in supporting roles.

People seem to want to give us the "definitive" Frankenstein every few decades, but it hasn't really happened yet. This is certainly close though. Some scenes use too much digital trickery (let's not mention the imperfect wolves in one key sequence), and Del Toro has a strange way of turning the creature into something like a superhero at times (he's very Incredible Hulk throughout, which I'm sure we've all seen as a modern blend of Frankenstein/Jekyll & Hyde over the years anyway), but the overall feeling is one of care and quality. You know that you're in the hands of someone who really wants this to deliver on all of his promises, even if he unsubtly hammers home one or two of the key messages of the tale. Although, for all of Del Toro's good intentions, ending his own adaptation of Mary Shelley's touchstone text with a quote from Lord Byron is a major mis-step that may leave viewers slightly soured as the end credits roll.

This is very good. And there are some pleasantly surprising bursts of gore and real horror too. It's not great though, perhaps due to the fact that Del Toro put himself under pressure to cram in everything he'd ever envisioned for the project. He has, somewhat ironically, given birth to something that he explored and experimented on for many years. It's not a monstrosity, but I don't think it will ever be as beloved as some of his other "children". 

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Shudder Saturday: Dario Argento: Panico (2023)

Although I like to watch them, I am never eager to review documentaries. It's rare to have much to say about them, especially when they often use very similar ways to convey information to viewers. Summarising a documentary is often just summarising the subject itself, but sometimes that subject is worth making others aware of. I'm not sure that can be said of Dario Argento.

Don't get me wrong. Argento remains a big name in the horror genre, a man responsible for some past glories that stand up as outright classics, but even some of his more generous fans would have to admit that it's been at least two decades since he showed anything like the kind of directorial talent and flair that made his reputation. Some argue that Dark Glasses showed some promise, a minor return to form, but I strongly disagree.

That's what puzzles me about this documentary. Who will get the most out of it, and why now? Argento isn't on some major upswing, which takes the documentary itself to an inevitably downbeat and depressing final act, and the fact that he keeps trying (the tenacity is admirable, to be fair) means that there's no definitive end point that can be used to bookend his film career. He may yet make another movie, or he may not, but nothing is known at this time, which gives the documentary a hugely anti-climactic feeling.

Director Simone Scafidi obviously thinks that this story is worth telling, and there's plenty of time dedicated to the complex relationship that Argento has with women (both offscreen and on), including some of the frank and raw speech you would expect from his daughter, Asia, but it doesn't get close enough to the bottom of a very murky pool. And then, after touching on topics that you know are interesting enough to require some more exploration, Scafidi and co. pull back, returning to the relative safety of Gaspar Noé, Nicolas Winding Refn, and Guillermo del Toro offering up their praise to someone they revere.

Although it may not seem like it from my words here, I am a huge fan of Argento, up to a certain point. He deserves a LOT of love and respect for the contributions he has made to giallo, and to the horror genre overall. At least two of his films are gold-plated classics. Which is why I was all the more frustrated by this documentary. I don't think it worked as intended, with the unimaginative construction and soundbites coalescing into something that rarely reminds you of the greatness of Argento's talent. You could make one feature alone by simply juxtaposing moments from Suspiria with many films and scenes it has influenced, but even that atmospheric classic feels as if it is given relatively short shrift here.

There is potential for a great documentary to be made about the life and works of Argento. This doesn't come close. Those present keep serving as a reminder of the many people not included, the film clips are assembled with very little thought or care (in my eyes anyway), and the end result is a huge wasted opportunity.

3/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Nightmare Alley (2021)

When I finally got around to watching the 1947 film version of Nightmare Alley, it became a firm favourite. It's not a film easily forgotten by those who have seen it, a noir that skirts very close to horror as we watch a man on a journey that eventually takes him to . . . well, that would be telling.

I am not automatically averse to remakes, and Nightmare Alley has a story that you can see being attractive to others. It's also very much of a time and a place though, and it's already good enough that you have to wonder what others think they can do to improve upon, or just equal, it. At least you can start to feel optimistic when one of the people involved is director Guillermo del Toro. If there's one thing that Del Toro can do it's craft an onscreen love with style, beauty, and a wonderful attention to detail. He can also assemble a great cast.

Bradley Cooper is Stanton Carlisle, a shady character who ends up joining a travelling carnival. Once there, he starts to learn some of the tricks of the trade. He is especially interested in the feats of mentalism performed by Pete (David Strathairn), a fragile man cared for by Zeena (Toni Collette). Learning enough to believe he can make a name for himself, Stanton heads off with Molly (Rooney Mara) and performs for bigger and bigger crowds. This eventually leads to him crossing paths with Dr. Lilith Ritter (Cate Blanchett), and Dr. Ritter might be able to provide information that could lead to a huge payday.

If you like the selection of names just mentioned then you may be pleased to hear that this film also features roles for Willem Dafoe, Richard Jenkins, Ron Perlman, Mary Steenburgen, Holt McCallany, and Tim Blake Nelson. Don't get too excited though, a number of the cast members are either miscast or disappointingly underused. Cooper, likeable leading man that he is, doesn't feel right for the central role. Blanchett feels like the most wasted in her supporting role, and wasting Blanchett in your film should be a crime. It's the smaller roles that provide more of the treats, with highlights being Dafoe, Jenkins, and any scenes involving Strathairn and/or Collette.

Adapting the same source material as the original movie, a novel by William Lindsay Gresham, the screenplay by Del Toro and Kim Morgan seems to lose sight of what made the story so mesmerising and powerful. You still have a good story here, and it's supported by a smattering of very good performances, but the power is diluted by a) too many moments dwelling on the pretty visuals, and b) an ending that I feel lacks the full bittersweet resonance of the 1947 adaptation.

As good as a director as he can be, and as fired up about his chance to helm this remake, Del Toro feels as miscast in his role as Cooper. He aims for some style and grace that actively pulls the material away from that "down 'n' dirty" feel that the material has running through it. These characters are allowed to create wings and fly close to the sun, but it would be more appropriate to see them simply being allowed to bathe in warm water in between constant trips back to the sewer.

Undeniably enjoyable in places, and a visual treat throughout, it's a real shame that there's such a disconnect between the content and the form. It's a divide that I couldn't easily overlook, despite the many positives (such as the cinematography by Dan Laustsen or the wonderfully old-fashioned music from Nathan Johnson). I know a lot of people enjoyed it a lot more than I did. See it for yourself and let me know if you agree or disagree with me.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

The Witches (2020)

I was not won over when I saw the trailer for The Witches, a remake of the 1990 Nicolas Roeg film, one of the most legendarily-terrifying movies aimed at kids, adapted from the book by Roald Dahl. It looked as if it had been completely sanitised, and the choice of Anne Hathaway as the main villain seemed like a bit of miscasting.

Well, while it's worth bearing in mind that it has been many years since I last saw the original movie, this ended up being a decent remake/re-adaptation. The biggest problem it has is that it feels quite redundant. I don't recall anyone crying out for another version of the tale, and the film itself, while very competent, and enjoyable, just never gives you anything to make it more worthy of your time than the previous incarnation, which is now 30 years old.

Witches are everywhere. And they hate children. When our young hero (Jahzir Bruno), actually named Hero Boy, and his grandma (Octavia Spencer) head away for a break at a lovely hotel, they don't realise that their timing could not be worse. The hotel is also hosting a meeting for a number of witches, led by the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway). They have a plan for children, and that plan involves turning them into mice. All of them. Our young hero gets caught overhearing this plan, so is immediately mouse-ified, alongside a young man named Bruno Jenkins (Codie-Lei Eastick). Accompanied by a surprise ally, the mice must reach grandma, tell her what is going on, and find out if there's a way to reverse the effects of the potion.

Directed by Robert Zemeckis, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Kenya Barris and Guillermo del Toro, The Witches gets a number of important things right. It keeps things quite scary, especially for younger viewers (parents may want to either check this over beforehand or be prepared for extra-tight cuddles while watching). It transfers the action to 1960s America without losing anything vital to the overall tone or atmosphere. The cast are also a bonus. Bruno does well with his screentime, Spencer is a wonderful grandma, Stanley Tucci is excellent as the hotel manager, and Hathaway is clearly having a lot of fun in her role, complete with an undetermined accent and inability to comprehend people around her who don't give her immediate agreement and compliance. You also get an enjoyable voiceover from Chris Rock.

It's a shame that the main thing it gets wrong is something many can probably guess before even seeing one second of the film. Yes, with Robert Zemeckis at the helm you get an over-reliance on CGI, some of it nicely done and some of it that will make you yearn for some practical effects. I like the depiction of the witches when shown in their natural form (bald, with claws, no toes on their feet, and wide mouths with sharp teeth), but even that serves as a reminder of how great the practical effects were in the 1990 movie. And as for the CGI mice, let's not dwell on those. There's a pretty decent black cat that I was impressed by, and numerous enjoyable little touches here and there, but it's definitely a case of Mr. Zemeckis once again playing with some of his favourite new toys while some old dependables could have worked equally well.

So, unless my memory is blanking out one, we have had three movies in the past decade or so made from Roald Dahl books that had been filmed before. One was quite bad, one was quite good, and now this one sits almost squarely in the middle. I enjoyed it while it was on, but I won't rush to rewatch it, and am now more eager than ever to revisit the version that terrified me when I was young (and I wasn't even that young, being about 15-16 when it was released).

6/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Mubi Monday: Pan's Labyrinth (2006)

A fairytale framed by dramatic elements, and punctuated by moments of vicious violence, Pan's Labyrinth remains the very best thing from writer-director Guillermo del Toro, despite stiff competition from the likes of Cronos, The Devil's Backbone, and The Shape Of Water.

The main character is a young girl named Ofelia (played by Ivana Baquero), who is taken along by her mother (Ariadna Gil) as they start a new life with the ruthless Captain Vidal (Sergi López). Vidal is under orders to deal with republican rebels in the local area, a job he does with no small amount of rigour and zeal, even fatally punishing people who were guilty of nothing more than hunting rabbits in the wrong area. Ofelia does not like her new stepfather, but she does like Mercedes (Maribel Verdú), a housekeeper who is helping the rebels in their efforts. She also takes a liking to escaping into some flights of fantasy, encountering a Faun (Doug Jones) that sets her a number of challenges, explaining that completing them will prove that she is the spirit of an immortal princess from the underworld.

Intelligent, tense, and beautiful throughout, Pan's Labyrinth is a moving and rewarding experience for horror movie fans. I was worried about revisiting it this time around, having not seen it for about a decade, and I could remember the basic plot elements but not exactly how they all played out, but it took me mere moments to settle into the rich and detailed onscreen world, onside with young Ofelia from her first moments.  I encourage anyone else to revisit this, especially if you have left it as long as I did.

As a cinematic world-builder, I cannot think of anyone who does that better than Del Toro, especially when it comes to his horror work. He's helped in no small measure here by Jones, who plays both the Faun and a character named the Pale Man, and some gorgeous CGI creations (insects and fairy figures), but there's not one element I can think of that feels like anything less than top-notch work.

Baquero gives a wonderful performance in the central role, at ease with the magical sights around her as she retreats further and further away from a reality that is growing bleaker and bleaker. Both Gil and Verdú work well with her, and on their own. The former is playing a character who, due to her heavily pregnant state, spends a lot of her time resting and unable to see the worst of the events unfolding around her, either unintentionally or deliberately seeming oblivious to things. The latter is a strong fighter who has to work even harder in the third act to help save the lives of those she cares for. López portrays one of the great villains of modern cinema, whether he's horrifically bashing in someone's head with a wine bottle, torturing prisoners, or trying to self-repair his own wounds. He's easy to hate, and viewers are clued into how we should feel about him from Ofelia's point of view, but also avoids being a pantomime figure. You could argue that Del Toro sometimes has more time for his villains than his heroes, but he gets the balance right here, and every character, even a local doctor (played by Álex Angulo) becomes someone you're invested in. I've already mentioned Jones. I don't want to harp on and on about him, but his performances are absolutely worth mentioning again, and he has the pleasure of being involved in the most memorable imagery tied to the film.

The script and direction are almost perfect. The only criticism, a very minor one, is that you can too easily tell one or two characters that may be dealing with Captain Vidal while also betraying him by helping the rebels. A couple of nervous movements and glances feel very obvious and unsubtle, especially compared to everything else in the film. But that is the only thing I can think of that stops this from being a perfect modern classic of cinema, and it's still not enough to actually stop it from feeling, overall, like a flawless gem.

For teenagers who have the patience, and for all adult viewers, this is a powerful enchantment. Del Toro himself is the insect/fairy who takes our hand and takes us slowly and surely into an underworld as beautiful as it is dark, reassuring us at every step that we have nothing to fear, as long as we remember everything he is telling us. It's a tale of familial love, a tale of grief, a tale of war, and a tale of tales, how we use them to process horrifying thoughts and to escape reality, even if that escape is only temporary. Even if it is our mind deceiving us while our body endures some harsh mistreatment.

10/10

You can buy the movie here.
Americans can get a great disc here.

The Shape Of Water (2017)

Guillermo del Toro has made a career out of trying to convince everyone to view monsters and ghosts the same way that he does. They're just the same as us, but different. In fact, sometimes the very things that make them monstrous or scary are the things that make them a little bit better than your average Joe. The Shape Of Water may very well be his most overt guide to loving monsters yet, taking it quite literally.

Sally Hawkins plays Elisa, a mute woman who works as a janitor at a secret research facility. She spends her workdays alongside her friend Zelda (Octavia Spencer) and when at home she sometimes enjoys the company of Giles (Richard Jenkins), an elderly, lonely gay man. There's excitement in the workplace when a bipedal amphibious humanoid specimen (Doug Jones) is brought in, under the watchful eyes of Colonel Richard Strickland (Michael Shannon), and Elisa finds herself forming a strong connection with the creature. Some people might be happy to see that development, Strickland isn't one of them.

While it's certainly a very derivative film in many ways (from the obvious "gillman" movies to the tone and visual palate of Jean-Pierre Jeunet), The Shape Of Water takes the familiar and mixes it into something that feels quite unique. I would say that those looking to hammer the film for the range of influences on display aren't considering how well Del Toro has placed everything. Never one to skimp on the detailing of the worlds he wants to let viewers into, the director, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Vanessa Taylor from his own story, somehow manages to fill every scene with little touches and thematic strands without having it all feel too busy and overdone.

Dan Laustsen, the Director of Photography, deserves a special mention, because there are a number of scenes here that stand out as some of the most beautiful from last year (and I know I am terrible for not often singling out the DPs in my reviews), and Alexandre Desplat has come up with an appropriately beautiful score to accompany those visuals, with everything coming together to make a film that feels very much like a Del Toro film in content and theme, while moving away from his standard visual palette.

Hawkins gives a wonderful central performance, as does the prosthetically-covered Doug Jones. The two manage to say so much without actually speaking. Spencer and Jenkins both give great supporting turns, and chatter away to Hawkins throughout the film, and Shannon is the villain of the piece that the film requires (allowing him to have a lot of fun with some over the top moments). Michael Stuhlbarg is another good presence, but it's easy to forget the other people involved during the moments that show Hawkins and Jones wordlessly connecting with one another.

The biggest problem with The Shape Of Water stems from the biggest plus point. This feels very much like a film Del Toro has had in his mind for years, something he was just waiting to finally be allowed to do. Now, having been given permission, he loads it up with no small amount of self-indulgence. That is fine when it comes to the detailing and style of the film, but it also means that the runtime feels just a bit too long, there are one or two extra plot points that didn't really need to be in there, and some of the quirkier moments don't work.

Those minor mis-steps, however, are nowhere near irritating enough to detract from the gorgeous and uplifting experience that the film provides. It's not up there with the very best films we've already had from Guillermo del Toro, but it's leagues ahead of many other films that you'll see this year.

8/10

There's a lovely book available here.
Americans can order the film here.

The Hobbit: The Battle Of The Five Armies (2014)

Just to get up to speed, here is my review of the first and second movies in The Hobbit trilogy.

I was hesitant about this, the final, instalment of The Hobbit trilogy. It was, after all, stretching out the finale into something that I never really wanted to see onscreen. The big battle sequences in both The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings books were always the dullest passages for me, and the movies have so far proven to be almost equally dull when depicting those scenes. Oh, they have the spectacle and grandiosity that makes them entertaining, but it all becomes hard to care about when you're just watching one army swarming around another.

Carrying on from where the previous movie left off, this cinematic adventure focuses on the trouble caused by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) when he gets to take his rightful place in the heart of the mountain that was previously home to a fierce dragon named Smaug (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch). It's not long until Thorin is afflicted with a sickness that lets greed and paranoia overrule his good nature, in turn losing him the loyalty of Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) and his fellow dwarves, who could be named Prancer, Dancer, Blitzen, etc. for all the time they get on screen. All of this leads, inevitably, to the battle that makes up the main title. And that's about it.

There are many little moments to enjoy here. The attention to detail is wonderful, as it has been in every Tolkien-related movie that director Peter Jackson has had a hand in (first The Lord Of The Rings trilogy and now this lot). But details don't always add up to great cinema. Neither does spectacle and scale. They can stave off boredom, but aren't really anything without a decent script and characters that you care about. This is where the final Hobbit movie gets things sorely wrong.

It's easy to like Bilbo Baggins, and a relationship sketched out between elf Thauriel (Evangeline Lilly) and dwarf Kili (Aidan Turner) is quite sweet, but nobody else stands out. Thorin is busy being warped by greed, Bard (Luke Evans) is heroic enough but a bit bland, Thranduil (Lee Pace) is as cold as ever in his singular mission to keep his people safe, and Gandalf (Ian McKellen) has been bordering on self-parody for years. Billy Connolly adds some life to proceedings when he appears, as a dwarf named Dain, but it's too little too late at that point.

All of the performers do well enough with what they're given. They're just not given much, thanks to the weak script by Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyen and Guillermo del Toro. The emphasis is clearly on action for this war-filled final chapter, but that is no excuse when the previous movies have always managed (or almost managed) to surround big action set-pieces with humour, warmth and characters that you don't mind hanging around with for so long. This feels like the longest movie in the series yet, despite being the shortest (until the inevitable wealth of deleted scenes are added back in, at any rate).

I'm not saying that this is a waste of your time. It's the end of an era, in some ways, and worth a trip to the cinema if, like me, you've seen all of the others on the big screen. I'm not saying that there aren't some great one-on-one fights that show some of the individual lives at stake. The final 30-40 minutes is full of solid action and great moments. It just comes along after 100 minutes of material that constantly verges on being mind-numbingly boring.

5/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Ani-MAY-tion Month: Puss In Boots (2011)

Here it is. The spin-off movie for a character first introduced to viewers in the Shrek sequels. Puss In Boots is a character that I, and many others, enjoyed when he joined in with the other established characters and helped to mix things up a bit. He never, however, seemed like someone who needed his own movie. And Puss In Boots proves me right.

Part adventure romp, part "origin story", Puss In Boots puts Puss (Antonio Banderas) in the middle of an adventure with his former friend, Humpty Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis), and a talented, attractive thief named Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek). Will the adventure have a good outcome, allowing Humpty to finally forgive Puss for letting him take a great fall some years ago, or will old wounds be reopened as the trio attempt to get hold of the magic beans that will let them grow a giant beanstalk and grab themselves a golden goose?

Some movies just grab you and some don't. Puss In Boots fell into the latter category for me. So much of the movie has been done before, and done better, and it feels like a trip back to a drying well (although, good grief, there's a sequel planned at the time of writing, so I may be in the minority).

Banderas and Hayek both have rich, warm voices, suitable for their kitty cat characters, and there are no problems with the line delivery. Galifianakis isn't as enjoyable, but he does what's asked of him. The main problem seems to be that the script, mainly written by Tom Wheeler, just isn't good enough. None of the dialogue stands out, and most of the set-pieces suffer from a sense of overfamiliarity (e.g. another dance off, but, y'know, with cats instead of people).

Director Chris Miller doesn't do much to help, but I guess he doesn't have to. There's enough here to make the film passable entertainment, it's not as if I will say that it's a poor film, thanks to the decent animation, movie references, and the fun that comes from heroics being accomplished by such cute cats.

Basically, this is a movie that will probably keep the kids entertained even if it doesn't try to be half as good as it could be. Considering the amount of great family entertainment that has appeared in recent years, that's a great pity, and puts this low on any list of prioritised viewings.

5/10

http://www.amazon.com/Boots-Triple-Blu-ray-Digital-Region/dp/B005A5YYZ2/ref=sr_1_5?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1399902918&sr=1-5&keywords=puss+in+boots

The Orphanage (2007)

Sometimes I look back at myself as a child and I am astounded by how dumb I was. Sometimes I don't even have to look THAT far back. Only a few years ago I was still making some stupid decisions, damaging my body and spirit and not focusing on sorting my life out. Perhaps that's why I didn't like The Orphanage the first time I saw it. Perhaps I'd killed off a few too many brain cells back then. Whatever the reason, I was wrong. As many people already know, The Orphanage is a wonderful horror movie, full of real heart while also delivering the requisite scares.

The story concerns Laura (Belen Rueda) and her loved ones (her husband Carlos, played by Fernando Cayo, and her adopted son Simon, played by Roger Princep) as they settle into their new home. Well, it's not really a new home for Laura as she used to stay there as a young girl, back when it was an orphanage. Hence, the title. All is well for a little while until Simon starts to become more troublesome and more caught up in activities with his imaginary friends. Perhaps there's more at work than just the imagination of a small boy. Things get spookier and Laura finds herself considering a number of different possibilities when Simon goes missing. Maybe those "imaginary" children can help her find him.

Directed by Juan Antonio Bayona, and written by Sergio G. Sanchez, The Orphanage really slots all of its pieces into place beautifully. The supernatural is mixed with everyday worries, in a way that's not entirely dissimilar to the style of producer Guillermo Del Toro, and both aspects of the movie provide equal amounts of interest and tension.

All of the performers do a great job, but the majority of the time it's Belen Rueda carrying the movie and she's more than up to the task, making Laura a sympathetic character who does become unnerved and then frightened, but knows that she will do whatever it takes to find Simon. As for Simon himself, Roger Princep is a very capable young boy and his performance feels completely natural even among the creepier moments.

A wonderful score complements the cinematography and there are also some great audio cues used to add to the atmosphere. Mind you, it's not all dark beauty and polished technical work. Horror fans will be pleased to know that The Orphanage also has one or two fantastic jump scares, all the more effective thanks to their scarcity.

All in all, this is another excellent horror movie that I hope people seek out. I also hope that they don't make the same mistake as I did after a first viewing. Soak up the atmosphere, the performances and the details and I'm sure that won't happen.

8/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Orphanage-Blu-ray/dp/B0019GJ3ZM/ref=sr_1_3?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1357114839&sr=1-3

Cronos (1993)

A smart and stylish take on the vampire mythos from writer/director Guillermo del Toro, Cronos is one of the best modern vampire movies to offer someone who claims that the subgenre is overcrowded and tired. Everything can be given a fresh coat of paint, it just takes someone to come along with the right brush strokes.

The cronos device was created many years ago by an alchemist who hoped to give himself some kind of eternal life. With the help of an unusual insect at the heart of the device and some interesting and complex internal mechanisms it would seem that the alchemist succeeded. But eternal life is only ever guaranteed if you avoid every misfortune possible, which the alchemist doesn't manage to do. The cronos device falls into the hands of Jesus Gris (Federico Luppi), a man who doesn't realise what power it has. He soon starts to put the pieces together, however, when he sees the device in action and when he is visited by someone (Angel de la Guardia, played by Ron Perlman) trying to persuade him to hand it over. Angel doesn't even want it for his own use, he's been tasked to get the device by his uncle (Claudio Brook), but he takes his responsibilities seriously when it has a chance of affecting how good an inheritance he can get. Meanwhile, Jesus starts to realise just how much of a blessing and a curse the cronos device can be.

Cronos is, to me, one of the best vampire movies of the 1990s and certainly an intelligent and interesting take on the material. It's surely no small coincidence that an insect lies at the heart of the proceedings here and that del Toro's first big Hollywood movie was the cockroach-infested Mimic. The man certainly finds bugs interesting and has made good use of them onscreen a number of times. Perhaps it's their design and aesthetics, perhaps it's how alien they seem, perhaps it's just the reaction they often provoke - whatever the reason, Cronos is a great chance for the man to use bugs in horror in a new and unusual way. It's also another movie that shows yet again why the traits of men and insects shouldn't be mixed up. We might be in territory that seems a million miles away from The Fly but the two movies are quite closely related once you start to see the themes being explored and the nature of the horror on display.

The script mixes everything quite wonderfully, balancing genuine moments of warmth and humanity with some over the top outbursts as the cronos device affects the lives of those who know all about it. There's also a great streak of macabre humour that makes the darker moments more palatable, leaving audiences free to think more about the choices being offered to people as opposed to just taking everything as it's shown.

We know now just what a great visionary director Guillermo del Toro is but people who caught Cronos back in the 90s could already see the potential for greatness there. I'm lucky enough to count myself as one of those fans who discovered a real gem (and I'm sure there are many other horror fans who were bowled over at the time) but his writing and direction are really helped by superb performances from everyone involved. Federico Luppi is so good in the lead role that he keeps you on his side from start to finish, despite some horrible and degrading moments that show just how the device is changing him. Perlman is also very good, as much a victim of his uncle as he is an occasional bully to others. Claudio Brook, Tamara Shanath and Margarita Isabel are also fantastic, fleshing out a small cast that you genuinely warm to and grow to care for.

Cronos won't necessarily barge its way to the top of your favourite movie list but it's the kind of quality, thoughtful, unique horror movie that should (I hope) be remembered and appreciated for many years to come. And it's essential viewing for fans of vampire movies.

8/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cronos-Special-Guillermo-del-Toro/dp/B004EMS0YI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339342807&sr=8-1