FRANKENSTEIN (2025)

 

Written & Directed by Guillermo del Toro

Based on the novel “FRANKENSTEIN OR THE MODERN PROMETHEUS” ByMary Shelly 

Cinematography: Dan Laustsen 

Editor: Evan Schiff 

Cast: Oscar Isaac, Jacob Elordi, Mia Goth, Christoph Waltz, Charles Dance, David Bradley, Ralph Ineson, Lars Mikkelsen, Nikolaj Lie Kaas, Lauren Collins, Sofia Galasso 

Dr. Victor Frankenstein, a brilliant but egotistical scientist, brings a creature to life in a monstrous experiment that ultimately leads to the undoing of both the creator and his tragic creation.

————————————————————————

Guillermo del Toro’s adaptation of Frankenstein arrives with the kind of anticipation usually reserved for cinematic pilgrimages. It’s a long-gestating passion project by a filmmaker whose devotion to monsters borders on religious. And yes, it’s gorgeous. Ravishing. Sculpted with the kind of gothic precision that makes you want to pause the frame and hang it in a museum (which, ironically, is part of the problem).

Because for all its visual majesty, the film feels less like a living, beating story and more like a beautifully lit museum chamber piece sacred, admired, but curiously still. Almost like a Wes Anderson film

Watching Frankenstein at home, even on the biggest TV you can justify without shame, is like trying to view a cathedral through your peephole. You get the idea, but not the impact. As The film Is A Gorgeous Experience That Never Quite Comes Alive

Del Toro stages the movie like a theatrical spectacle; wide, grand, operatic. It demands an audience seated in the dark, collectively hopefully

holding their breath. On a smaller screen the whole thing compresses, and so does its emotional force. It becomes one more thing you’re “watching while also texting,” its larger-than-life gestures suddenly feeling muted. Which might be why this film doesn’t reach me. As much as it would in a theater more secluded and direct. 

It’s a reminder of an uncomfortable truth: not every film needs the big screen, but this one absolutely does. Shrink it, and the soul shrinks with it.

A friend once described last year’s NOSFERSTU remake as “a museum piece”—impeccable, reverent, exquisitely lit, styled, designed and emotionally distant. It comes off more as a presentation than a movie. Del Toro’s Frankenstein often slips into that same territory.

The sets are Immaculate. The creature design is inventive. The mood? Pretentiously Overwhelming in the best way.

And yet… it rarely moves you. The emotions are presented but not felt. They are laid before the viewer with academic seriousness, like annotations on a text everyone already knows by heart. Maybe that’s the curse of remaking a story we’ve collectively known since childhood: the beats land, but they don’t surprise.

It becomes less a story and more an opportunity to witness someone else’s interpretation of a myth you’ve heard too many times.

Del Toro is too talented to ever make something bad, but here he feels like a director in his Tim-Burton-phase: Instead of breaking new ground, he’s lovingly recreating  the things that inspired him growing up. Unlike Burton, del Toro doesn’t defang his monsters or turn them into punchlines. He actually adores them too much for that, but the result is still a filmmaker circling familiar territory rather than charting new routes. 

And yes, the del Toro signature remains: a gothic romance at the center, a creature yearning for connection, a broken heart inside a larger-than-life body. It’s easy to see what drew him to the material. It’s also easy to wish he’d returned to an original idea instead.

Christoph Waltz—shockingly—goes big. He’s operatic, but also the kind of actor who benefits from stern directorial supervision. Left unchecked, he can become his own genre. Here, he hovers just on the edge of self-parody, charismatic but distracting. 

The rest of the cast plays it with earnestness and restraint, letting del Toro’s production design do most of the heavy emotional lifting. Sometimes too much.

So… Is It Good? Absolutely. Is it essential?

Not quite. As Frankenstein is an achievement, a vision, a painterly triumph. But it’s also one more retelling of a story that has been told so many times it now arrives pre-interpreted. Beautiful, yes undeniably. But also strangely hollow, like an echo of itself.

It’s a noteworthy film, worth admiring, worth seeing on the biggest screen you can find.

But it’s not a new favorite. More a reminder of what del Toro can do… and what we wish he’d dare to do next.

Grade: B 

THE FIRST OMEN (2024)

Directed By: Arkasha Stevenson 

Written By: Arkasha Stevenson, Tim Smith and Keith Thomas

Story By: Ben Jacoby

Based On Characters Created By: David Seltzer

Cinematography: Aaron Morton 

Editor: Amy E. Duddleston and Bob Murawski 

Cast: Nell Tiger Free, Sonia Braga, Ralph Ineson, Tawheek Barhom, Maria Caballero, Bill Nighy, Charles Dance, Nicole Sorace, Ishtar Currie-Wilson, Andrea Arcangeli 

A young American woman is sent to Rome to begin a life of service to the church but encounters darkness that causes her to question her faith and uncovers a terrifying conspiracy that hopes to bring about the birth of evil incarnate.


I give this some credit it’s better than it should be as it seemed at first like it was going to be a rebooted sequel that’s a prequel cash-in on the original. 

By the end, it’s a well-put-together thought-out horror film that makes sense and takes its time to tell its tale. Though I wonder if that is why people give it so much credit as they weren’t expecting much and came out with an actual good movie

This film came out at the same time as the Sweeney film IMMACULATE, which to me kind of looks the same except that you had a more recognizable actor in the forum, Sydney Sweeney, but watching the trailers, one would often get what was supposed to happen to confused what came to actually watch the films. as it seemed kind of like the phenomenon that would happen years ago, where two studios that have competing films with the same theme, think ARMAGEDDON and DEEP IMPACT. Or VOLCANO and DANTE’S PEAK.

this film is longer than the original film. The OMEN and there are some recognizable actors. Most of the cast is character actors. it seems like every horror or fantasy film must have a cameo from Charles Dance these days as a requirement. Not to mention even though Bill Nighy has a bigger role. He seems to be barely in it really I can only recall three scenes.

The film takes its time again as it builds slowly but once it gets rolling, it really gets interesting as there is a central mystery and we’re getting clues left and right, things are getting put together and we realize what is happening so that the film puts itself together quite nicely

Even if from the beginning, the nuns always seem a bit suspect and mean. 

there is a scene where it seems like they try to homage Isabelle Adjani’s infamous scene from POSESSION. only here it happens after a car crash and certain details are revealed that the main character has their own scene of revelation, and her reaction is similar as far as you can go in a more mainstream film.

What’s interesting is that this film though it is a prequel leaves room for a sequel that could be done as a side story that is kind of intersex with the original film or maybe even THE Omen Two or could be a direct sequel to them if they choose to jump that many years 

The film is never quite scary, but it does have a sense of unease. That will keep you guessing and offers the required terrifying images without quite reviewing all so while it shows it also sets your imagination to something that is probably worse to fill in the picture which movies try and fail but actually works here.

Director Arkasha Stevenson definitely has the talent. Hopefully, he continues to make memorable and noteworthy films. Look what he accomplished with an almost-forgotten franchise 

Grade: B- 

THE WITCH (2016)

Written & Directed By: Robert Eggers 
Cinematography By: Jarin Blaschke 
Editor: Louise Ford 
Production Design: Craig Lathrop 
Art Direction: Andrea Kristof 

Cast: Anya Taylor-Joy, Kate Dickie, Ralph Ineson, Harvey Scrimshaw, Julian Richings, Viv Moore, Sarah Stephens


*Please note that some trivia and facts have been republished from imdb among other sources In this
review


New England, 1630: William and Katherine lead a devout Christian life, homesteading on the edge of an impassible wilderness, with five children. When their newborn son mysteriously vanishes and their crops fail, the family begins to turn on one another. ‘The Witch’ is a chilling portrait of a family unraveling within their own fears and anxieties, leaving them prey for an inescapable evil.

The premise is based on America’s first witch hysteria in colonial New England, set 62 years before the infamous “Salem Witch Trials” which occurred in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

This is one of those films that is more rewarding the less you know about it. So you are free to discover instead of coming in with perceived notions. Stephen King has stated that he was terrified by this film.

This is a film that takes you by surprise. As it is more atmospheric filmmaking. That feels more accomplished than half the horror films that are offered today. 

The film focuses more on community and character. So that it stays intimate the whole time.

The film builds itself up. So that you have to pay attention to exactly know and understand what is going on.

The film sets itself up and its own limits. It takes its time, as this is not a film of jump scares and theatrics. It is trying to tell a story so it won’t offer answers immediately that we know and they have to figure out. When it makes a move it is playing for keeps. As the film is more haunting than scary. As it gives you a sense of unease the whole time.

It continuously goes where you don’t expect it. Especially when you believe you have things figured out and it seems it will go that way. If it does get too familiar the film seems to then go to the more physical actions of the characters as they begin to uncontrollably tremble and weep in their weakness that is never clearly defined.

The film is a period piece and as well as sets and costumes even the dialogue is more said in olden speak than natural dialogue. Which only helps the actors as they are so dedicated to their performances. They are so strong you believe them, their situations, and their reactions to them. Even the child actors’ performances are great and feel natural.

Most of the film’s dialogue and story were based on writings from the time. It feels like a film of its time period. This film seems dipped in tradition and truth as it scarily reveals itself and its nature. It isn’t so much thrilling. It is more full of ideas and imagination. The work of a skilled hand filmmaker. That seems more rooted in the type of films of the ’70s that could be ambiguous and make us question more. Then set out to give the audience visceral thrills. The film was mostly filmed in natural and available light which helps give a natural Spookiness to it

This is a film that uses nature more to reinforce the atmosphere and to provide the horrors of the film. That produces a calm whiny film that never settles again after s certain point in the film.

The movie is beautifully filmed on a smaller scale. Though making the simple and expected scary and haunted. While offering many misdirections, but feels immersed In Something sinister. As when all is revealed it feels worse than anything they could have shown us or that we could imagine and not with pyrotechnics or make-up but with hints that seem more plausible and homegrown. Whose reality is easily imagined and can be felt which makes it all the more devastating. This is a film unafraid to go to the places most mainstream cinema wouldn’t or would shy away from.

The Satanic Temple has endorsed this movie and hosted several screenings of the film. Their spokesperson, Jex Blackmore, addressed the film as “an impressive presentation of Satanic insight that will inform contemporary discussion of religious experience.”

The film manages to give a fresh meaning of horror that feels like a festering Underneath its surface.

It also takes a while to get there but once we do, we get the whole scope of events and what they mean.

The film, unfortunately, was a minor hit at first through strong word of mouth, but audiences expected a more traditional horror film and weren’t prepared for this film which takes it times with its horror and fully takes advantage and explores the ideas it spills forth

Grade: B

GUNPOWDER MILKSHAKE (2021)

Directed By: Navot Papushado 
Written By: Navot Papushado & Ehud Lavski
Cinematography: Michael Seresin
Editor: Nicolas De Toth

Cast: Karen Gillian, Lena Headey, Paul Giamatti, Angela Bassett, Michelle Yeoh, Carla Gugino, Chloe Coleman, Ralph Ineson, Michael Smiley, Adam Negaitis 

Three generations of women fight back against those who could take everything from them.


The film Plays like pop art to please the masses full Of neon coloring. As it takes a bunch of action film narratives and tries to splice them All together with some nods to film noir.

It strangely comes off kind of dull but very colorful. As we watch, trying to figure out what movie caused this scene’s inspiration. 

The action sequences are inspired and what the film depends on. As well as its Tarantino-inspired dialogue and quirkiness.

The film also like JOHN WICK tries to world build, unfortunately, it barely gives us a chance to know the characters or what is going on before a heavy emphasis on this. Which can lead to confusion early on.

Even if it more feels like HOTEL ARTEMIS with Its Rogue galleries of criminals, organizations, killers, doctors, clinics, and dealers. Though again John wick-ish with this network of criminals and yet also POINT BLANK with its organization that rules most of the underworld business. 

Just as the DRIVE inspired jacket she wears throughout 

While giving a more female-oriented point of view of the action in these types of films with a recognizable cast. Visually the film has all that it takes and is truly a style over substance but with an increasing degree when it comes to Netflix films it seems rather contained than open. Even as it works well with what it has. 

As the story is far from simple for this type of film as the action seems to follow and seems to only. Be confusing because it needs a reason to have an action sequence. 

The problem is that with all of this it still comes off limp and surprisingly a little dull. It’s like a meal that has food coloring nice to look at but ultimately something you have had before and are used to. 

As even the score tries to use Sergio Leone-inspired music or random pop hits more to fit the action sequences than anything.  Not necessarily adding anything to the emotional more like the director just thought it would be nice if this song played during this sequence. No real new meaning except for some irony.

Just as Karen Gillian is fine in the lead but is left with nothing to make her stand out. She comes off as having the skills but is pretty bland and one-note. She, unfortunately, stand out the least amongst the cast.

The only spark of originality other than color scheme comes for. The library and librarians were played by Michelle Yeoh, Angela Bassett, and Carla Gugino. They are a nice breath of fresh air. Where the most impressive action sequence takes place. Also, the clinic is A cute sequence as well as the diner. 

Also the organization’s three henchmen they send to take her out up a challenge but seem pretty bad to be exclusive assassins. They come across as more muscle or thugs that would be back up or the type assassins have to do clean up Or dirty work for or Vice versa. Like a wrecking crew destroying and making a mess.  so that there is no evidence 

The villains offer no personality, only a stereotypical look of either Eastern European stereotypes or well-suited goons and backup men.  

It’s also a film that feels like it’s trying too hard. It wants to stand out from the rest which is understandable, but by trying too hard to be like the others or those that came before it Lacks its own individual personality and feels like a loser, and ultimately Proves to be about nothing 

It’s obviously a movie for a more mainstream audience looking. For an action escape and it works on that level but doesn’t offer anything new or original mist some nice dressing. As it definitely is more commercial and slick but offers nothing of depth. Like a best seller with no actual good writing just a story to work off of And try to live up to fill in the blanks 

Grade: C-