Oliver Twist (1948)

 

So I thought I knew the Dickensian tale of Oliver Twist and his misadventures in London, turns out I didn't. I guess I should have read the book instead of relying on one film.

The one film I refer to is of course the British 1968 Carol Reed directed 'Oliver Twist'. I grew up with this classic 68 version and I always thought the film's plot was accurate. So I was quite surprised to discover that, low and behold, that film's plot does actually remove some important parts, mostly an entire character named 'Monks'.

The character of Monks was Twist's half-brother, and with Fagin's help, he wanted to get rid of the boy so he could get his hands on Mr Brownlow's (his father) entire inheritance. In this classic 1948 David Lean directed version, Brownlow is Twist's grandfather (for some reason) which makes things a bit more complicated. I also found it somewhat odd how Monks is able to find Twist after his birth, seeing as I'm guessing Twist's mother ran away to the workhouse (?). How did he know where she went? And when Twist ran away to London, how did Monks find him? Was Monks always in cahoots with Fagin prior to all this? The book may fill these blanks in but in this 48 film these things aren't explained.

The introduction of Monks definitely got me reaching for good old Wiki that's for sure. As for the rest of the plot, it's pretty much as you would expect or know of. There are the odd inclusions that you don't get in the classic 68 stage adaptation such as Twist's mother reaching the workhouse and giving birth. Brownlow and Mr. Grimwig debating whether or not Twist will return from the bookshop. The arrest of Fagin and the murder of Nancy etc...

It is actually quite amusing how the well-regarded Reed version plays out almost identically to this earlier Lean version, comparing the two side by side (seeing as I know the 68 version very well). On the visual side of things the 48 film is, as you would expect, top dollar. Whilst many of the locations are quite obviously sets with large painted backdrops, very nice sets they are indeed. The attention to detail is astonishing from the brickwork right down to all the muck and grime. Although it is a little amusing watching the characters march up and down the same street in front of St. Paul's multiple times (they got their money's worth outta that!). Everything is beautifully atmospheric and really pops off the screen with the depth and contrast that only black and white film can offer. The dark foreboding alleys of London look creepier. The dirt looks grittier. The skies look angrier. Overall everything has a greater sense of importance and weight that really engages you, you feel the dark cold lashing rain as Twist's mother staggers towards the workhouse though thick mud.

Naturally the acting and casting are fantastic despite the fact I barely know any of the stars. Obviously I know and love Robert Newton and I can literally not think of another person that could play Sikes better, other than Oliver Reed of course ( that guy was darn intimidating!). Hearing Newton speak instantly reminded me of his role in 'Treasure Island', yes his dialect and tone are amusingly similar. The rest of the cast is superb even if slightly more lowkey than the 68 version. I didn't really get much sense of urgency or danger with this version's casting (typical of older movies). Even Newton was relatively calm as Sikes. It's all the background players that impress. Everyone looks and sounds so authentic, any lines are clear, and the old fat rich blokes look just that. Call out to Peter Bull and his enormous head and facial features. Also, another shout out to Anthony Newley as Dodger, a costar alongside Peter Bull in the 1967 'Doctor Dolittle'.

I have to admit I didn't really like the visual representation of Fagin (Alec Guinness almost unrecognisable) here. Doing some research I can see they actually made Fagin out to look almost exactly the same as the character does in an old 1889 drawing. Alas, this representation is somewhat of an offensive caricature of an elderly Jewish man on one hand. On the other hand the makeup effects used on Guinness are really quite nasty and ugly, his lips looked all wrong to me. I don't think this was deliberately trying to make the caricature worse, I just think it was bad makeup, they tried too hard and went over the top. Whilst Guinness does the job very well, the character almost comes across like a monster, a troll or goblin, whereas Ron Moody's portrayal was more of a lighthearted goofy peasant, jester, or trickster. I'm sure the 48 version is more accurate but I personally enjoyed the 68 portrayal.

Take a drink every time I mention the 68 version. Yeah it's hard not to compare these two excellent films, especially seeing as both are virtually identical. The grand finale is also exceedingly similar right down to the quite bizarre way half of London seems to join in on the hunt for Sikes. I always found that somewhat ridiculous. There's a murder, everyone hears about it and apparently knows Fagin, they all follow Bullseye, and suddenly there's a massive lynch mob stomping down the narrow cobbled streets baying for justice (or blood). The haunting end for Sikes is much darker if you ask me, you don't actually see anything, but you hear it, more is less.

My final thoughts? What happened to Fagin and his boys?? Obviously one can find out in the actual book but in this film we don't find out. Fagin is arrested, as is Monks (thanks to Nancy), and both are presumably sent to jail; but all of Fagin's boys just disappear, presumably to carry on in their thieving ways. It's nice to see what happened to Bumble and his other half in this version. All that aside I really enjoyed this somewhat grim and dismal, yet lighthearted approach to Dicken's classic. Apparently this version essentially influenced everything else that followed and you can definitely see that. Is this the best version though? Well that's a tough question. This film is certainly more faithful to the original source material but it does lack some dramatic oof at times. The 68 musical is leaner (eh eh) on accuracy yet much more impactful and emotional at times. Both have their pros and cons but for me the eerie black and white might just pip the musical at the finish line. Photo finish though.

9/10

Mortal Kombat Legends: Cage Match (2023)

 

The fourth instalment of this pretty nifty adult animated series based on the Mortal Kombat franchise, and arguably the least known.

This time around the plot is an origins tale for superstar Johnny Cage, somehow one of the most popular characters in the game franchise. Cage is a Hollywood action star and is trying to make a big splash with his latest action vehicle offering. After his costar Jennifer Grey (yes that Jennifer Grey) goes missing, Cage pops around to her place only to get tangled up in a battle with two mysterious women. This in turn starts to lead Cage down a dark path involving demons, scrolls, Gods, and monsters where it is revealed to him that his life and career has been a set up for some devious Netherrealm plot.

The big notable change for this fourth entry is again the art style. This time we are treated to a vivid, almost cell-shaded type of look with a heavy Miami Vice-esque neon sheen that we've seen utilised in many videogames. If you think of GTA: Vice City and that now overused retro synthwave sunset backdrop that became very popular in recent years (they actually use this in the credits), then you'll know what I'm talking about. There are also more regular animated sections with flashbacks and as the story unfolds things do get darker and less hyper 80's. Overall the visuals are very impressive and enjoyable much like the previous three entries.

Plot wise things start off a bit slow in my opinion. At first I was getting a little bored as things played out. The whole usual schtick of Johnny Cage the superstar with him having a massive ego whilst being goofy wasn't of much interest. I have never really been interested in Cage as a character. In typical 80's action fest fashion Cage gets a nerdy sidekick to add some normalcy and comedic relief to proceedings which is okay...I guess, nothing to shout about. The story is also narrated by Cage throughout in a very Deadpool/Ryan Reynolds-type fashion which feels more like copying more than anything.

Admittedly as the plot thickened I did find myself getting more engaged. Not that it was anything totally original or anything but it did slowly get my attention. I did like the few plot twists as various characters Cage knows turn out to be demons trying to lure him to his bloody fate; and I can't deny the entire finale involving the sacrifice and inevitable grand fisticuffs was good fun.

Speaking of fisticuffs, blood and gore, is there any this time around? Does this entry keep up with the claret spreading? Yes, yes it does, although the majority of it doesn't really kick in until the second half. The first half of this movie feels much more like a homage to your corny 80's action-hero vehicles of yore. You know the stuff, your typical Mel Gibson/Eddie Murphy/Kurt Russell/Dolph Lundgren affairs. But as the movie slowly progresses it starts to become more of what you would expect, a much darker with horror aspects throughout. Indeed, there is also a nice sinister BDSM vibe going on towards the finale which I did enjoy muchly (he says with a cheeky smile across his face). I should point out, the actual final fight between Cage and Shinnok was cheesy as hell, but it was also meant to be like that.

What can I say about this? It's a super turbo homage to everything 80's in the action genre, so much so it's almost vomit-inducing. The mullet Cage sports, his huge earrings, the vehicles, the snappy smart-ass dialogue, the gaudy visuals, right down to the Kenny Loggins-esque end credits soundtrack. All of this was obviously a deliberate choice and whilst it undoubtedly completes what it set out to do 100%, at this point in time the whole 80's homage angle is a tad tired. This particular direction has been well and truly miked. I have enjoyed all of these animated flicks and this last one is probably at the bottom of the list to be honest. Whilst it was solid it just wasn't as engaging as the previous three, at least not until the finale, but before that this just kinda felt like slick videogame cutscenes stitched together. But yeah, 80's overdose dude!

5.5/10

The Munsters (2022)

The burning question, which do you prefer? The Addams Family or The Munsters? For me it's always been The Addams Family...but that's on the movie side of the franchise. I always found The Munsters to be a much better franchise on TV. The original 60's show just seemed more polished to me. But I have a soft spot for anything in that vein.

Of course over the years we've had a multitude of remakes and reboots for both franchises and in general they always tended to be a bit rubbish and not a patch on the original shows. So up steps cult horror director Rob Zombie to helm this new Munster movie. Yes that Rob Zombie, not quite sure how he managed to get this gig but there we go.

Plot wise this is actually an origins tale for the Munsters and (for some reason) combines many subplots, some pointless. Firstly we see how a (random?) crazy scientist (Richard Brake) creates Herman (Jeff Daniel Phillips) and gives him his unique name. We see how Lily (Sheri Moon Zombie) meets Herman. We see how the duo find their pet Spot. Herman briefly becomes a rock star. We see the original Transylvanian home of the Count (Daniel Roebuck) and Lily and learn that the Count's ex is trying to get revenge by taking his castle using his werewolf son Lester who owes her money. Lester eventually tricks newlywed Herman into signing over the castle to the Count's ex and she kicks them out. This leads to the Munsters moving to America (and because Herman wants to try and become a star). We also see them find and buy 1313 Mockingbird Heights and Herman get his job at the funeral parlor. 

What year is this set? No clue. In America everything seems pretty modern but Transylvania is clearly dated and populated with all sorts of ancient monsters (they even have their own restaurants). Why is the mad scientist wanting to create life? Unsure, he just is, but this also questions what year the story is supposed to be set in. Lily falls in love with Herman simply through seeing him on TV. Once the Count discovers this he immediately takes a dislike towards Herman for no real reason. The problem here is this take never gets resolved. Why does the Count (a vampire) have a werewolf for a son? I know this is a nod to the original series...but why?? And the fact they are all able to just somehow up roots and go live in America makes no sense, especially with them being monsters and all. 

Apparently Zombie wanted to film this feature in black and white, which would have been awesome, but alas the higher-ups said no. This led to the quite bizarre decision to light the movie like Joel Schumacher's Batman and Robin flicks. A hippy trippy-esque hyper colourful black light type of scope that totally shocks you and takes you out of the movie before it's even begun. I get the notion of originality and trying something new but this just felt totally wrong. Add to that the really weird and cheap looking filming technique that literally looks like someone did it on a smartphone on the fly. The entire thing was also clearly filmed in an Eastern European country which often tends to come across as visually cheap (for some reason).

So whilst it wasn't Zombie's fault that he had to film in colour, his choice to amplify the colours unfortunately leaves everything looking woefully tacky in the light of day. Unfortunately this affected everything because the charming spooky look of the original show was gone. Of course colour doesn't always render things worse visually, but in this case black and white would have easily boosted the atmosphere just like it did with the original show. The makeup for instance was actually pretty good here if you ask me. Lester the werewolf, Count Orlock, Grandpa (the Count) Munster, and various other ghouls all looked really good, but in black and white they would have looked even better.

Cast wise is a mess with Zombie casting his friends and wife as usual. Both Sheri Moon Zombie and Jeff Daniel Phillips seem to have no real clue how to play their iconic characters. Yes you could say it's their spin on the characters but eh. Neither of them do this project justice and simply come across as people cast because they are a friend and wife of the director. I mean seriously, could Zombie not actually be bothered to even look for anyone else? Many of the cast have multiple roles here too, like sheesh! Zombie actually cast actors from his ultra adult horror flicks to be in this family friendly sitcom adaptation, dude! And where on earth did they dig up Sylvester McCoy from??

I dunno, I just don't, did I like this? I kinda appreciate the fresh start with an origins tale, new ideas, and the added lore from Zombie isn't actually that bad (I liked his take on Igor and how he ends up as a bat). On the other hand much of it seems wasted, unresolved, and ultimately overstuffed. The movie is quite long yet there was still not enough time to cram everything in or focus on what needs to be focused on. There are quite a lot of nods and winks to the original series but many are pointless and unexplained such as Tin Can Man. There are also a few iconic character actors that pop up here and there as you would expect. And towards the end we do see 1313 in all its glory looking superb if I do say so myself (even in colour). Although I still don't get the choice of having the Transylvania portion of the movie in shocking neon-esque colour and then the America portion in regular colour.

But aside from the all the ham and cheese, the charm and schtick, The Munsters was about family and being yourself. The core of the original show was that the Munsters were an odd looking family that believed they looked normal, like everyone else. The comedic spin was seeing how regular looking folk reacted to the family and how the Munsters just didn't get it. Yet despite this, the family always stuck together. They loved and accepted each other and treated everyone else likewise. You get none of that in this movie. In fact right at the end you get a scene which flips the script and shows how disgusted and shocked the Munsters are of their regular looking neighbourhood whilst the neighbourhood seems to be unoffended by them. Clever twist or horrendous miss? Same question for the entire movie really, eh...it wasn't too bad. 

5/10

Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (2022)

 

Somehow the first movie did well and now we have the inevitable and imaginatively titled Sonic the Hedgehog 2, although keeping in line with the videogames makes sense I guess. Nevertheless, the first movie in my opinion was utter garbage, visually poor garbage at that. Is this any better? No, no it is not.

Dr. Robotnik (Jim Carrey) is still trapped on the Mushroom planet it seems, frankly a WAY more interesting location for a movie, but I digress. I get this is just a movie for kids but you just know things aren't looking good when Robotnik manages to escape said Mushroom planet with the most ridiculously over-the-top plan that conveniently relies on random characters being in the exact right spot or doing the exact right thing at the exact right time. 

From this point on Robotnik meets Knuckles and the pair go back to Earth so they can both get Sonic. Robotnik wants revenge and to rule the world or whatever, Knuckles also wants revenge because he thinks Sonic screwed over his ancestors or something. This involves getting some mcguffins that will grant the user the power to basically do anything they want, or something like that. Hey look, this stuff works in videogames sure, but even in a dumbs kid's movie this is shallow stuff.

Meanwhile back on Earth Sonic is living with his politically correct mixed race family and getting into all kinds of generic teenager hijinks, because teenagers. What comes next is essentially the most cookie-cutter guff you could possibly imagine. You don't even need to watch the movie because if you've ever seen any other kid's adventure type flick you can guess. Robotnik gets back to Earth and with Knuckles help and super strength they both go after Sonic with his apparent infinite amount of robot drone things. These drones look highly technical and expensive but Robotnik has gazillions apparently and it doesn't matter how many get destroyed.

So cue lots of bad CGI battles with CGI drones, lots of destruction, and some Sonic and Knuckles fanbase fodder. Seemingly out of nowhere and for no other reason than just because, Tails turns up and teams up with Sonic because videogame! Sonic learns about mcguffin from Tails and off they go on some cheesy-ass adventures in Russia, some snowy mountains, and then deep underground in an undiscovered ancient temple. All said locations essentially recreate levels from Sonic games or any other generic platform videogame. In the end Robotnik betrays Knuckles so he teams up with Sonic and Tails and everyone battles Robotnik in his huge stupid looking mech that he creates using the mcguffin power.

These movies have to be some of the most overrated in years. On one hand it's tricky to review something like this because it's mainly for kids and I'm definitely not a kid anymore. Yet on the other hand I am a retro gamer and this is or should be somewhat directed at someone like myself as part of the old original fanbase from back in the day. Alas it seems they have (somewhat understandably) gone down the kid's route and simply made something insanely dumb. The entire thing is as generic as it gets but in this day and age originality is hard to come by so I get it. 

The casting and acting are quite frankly abysmal and I can't understand why they made the choices they made. The voice casting of Edris Elba for Knuckles was completely 100% wrong in my opinion. His voice was way too deep, it just didn't sound right to me. Carrey merely tries to recapture his 90's lunacy and fails, much like he did in the first movie. His time is mostly spent with weak jokes and quips surrounding his moustache. Everything involving James Marsden, Tika Sumpter, and Natasha Rothwell was painfully bad. The entire wedding sequence just seemed like a reason to give Rothwell and Shemar Moore more screen time for comedy which was a huge mistake. 

I mean, what can I say? I really didn't like this and it probably doesn't help that I really didn't like the first movie either. The whole franchise so far is overly simplistic and juvenile (I know I know) with bad acting and so-so visuals. It just feels like they're relying on Jim Carrey to carry the whole thing and unfortunately he isn't, or can't. Yeah sure Sonic and his old pixel friends look like their videogame counterparts and there are some nice touches dotted here and there, but the bulk is just puerile and cringe.

3/10