Hotel Transylvania (2012) Review

Director: Genndy Tartakovsky
Stars: Adam Sandler, Selena Gomez, Kevin James
Genre: Computer animated family comedy/horror

With Tartakovsky directing, a name that has worked on great series such as Dexter Laboratory, Samurai Jack, among many others. With a resume like that it wouldn't be wrong to expect a great film from him. So does it live up to the hype? Short answer: no.

Count Dracula is voiced by Adam Sandler, who, surprisingly enough, probably does the best job out of the whole cast. When I first heard he would be voicing Dracula I couldn't help but cringe. But in the end he did a decent enough job. Kevin James voices Frankenstein's monster...so just imagine Doug Heffernan as a monster. Selena Gomez voiced Dracula's daughter, Mavis, and she delivered a pretty solid performance. The werewolf and the mummy were pretty awful. I found David Spade as the Invisible Man to be pleasantly charming.

If you're a big horror fan, particularly of Universal Monsters, you may either want to see this right away or avoid it completely. On one hand it may be cool seeing all these famous monsters on the screen together. On the other hand it may be like watching your favorite characters being spat on by "family comedy."

The Mummy is fat...yes, fat, and he has a black guy's voice. The Wolf Man never transforms. They call Frankenstein's monster Frankenstein, which as we all know is incorrect; the scientist's name was Frankenstein, not the monster. The Bride of Frankenstein, though voiced by the lovable Fran Drescher (The Nanny), was a huge disappointment. Though the Bride of Frankenstein hardly saw any screen time in the original Frankenstein films, she was still a very memorable and awesome looking character, but in Hotel Transylvania instead of giving a beloved but rarely seen character more screen time, they changed her appearance completely, made her a complete bitch, and only threw her a few lines.

So if you hold your Universal Monsters dear, this film may pain you to watch. 

The plot is your standard father-daughter story, and though it can be charming at times, it's just boring, predictable, and unoriginal. You know the deal as far as animated comedy plots go.

Speaking of animation, if you couldn't already tell this is CGI, as are most films of the category today. It's not bad, I'd actually call it good. Problem is the overall visual design and art direction of the film. They had the opportunity to create an amazing theme. Look at all the monster movies this film gets its characters from. Remember that eerie gothic laboratory in Frankenstein? Remember the spooky interior of Dracula's castle? The chilling woods in The Wolf Man? The stormy nights of the Invisible Man? All creating great themes and atmospheres with appealing visual sets...well Hotel Transylvania capitalizes on NONE of those possibilities. 

Dracula's castle's interior is kind of cool. It's not spooky or eerie or mood setting, but it has some merit, though not much. The exterior is horrible; it just looks ugly. They couldn't even add good architecture to this film, something early horror flicks did so well.

This film isn't a nod or a love letter to the films it borrows from. No, it is a cash-in. The only real references I can recall were Frankenstein's monster saying "Fire bad," and the Fly constantly throwing up. Besides that it is essentially just a typical children's animated film with horror characters. (I understand this is a children's film but there is not even anything mildly scary or creepy).

Not to mention this entire film is a shameless rip-off of Mad Monster Party from 1967. Seriously, watch both films and the similarities will be shocking. From the zombie waiters, the chef character, the ENTIRE IDEA OF THE FILM IS STOLEN FROM MAD MONSTER PARTY.

Don't even get me started on the music bits of this film. In the beginning there was a fairly decent punk-esque song reminiscent of the Misfits. That was cool, and it fit being that the Misfits were a horror-punk band. Then at the end, there is the most stereotypical finale song/dance scene, with Dracula rapping and just more general vandalizing of great characters. There are also mentions of Dave Matthews Band and Slipknot. What is this, the early 00s?

There's a joke making fun of Twilight in here also. It was a cheap, inept joke that was obviously added just for pseudo-cred. I despise Twilight as much as the next guy, but adding modern pop culture references that will be meaningless in a few years is not how you make a timeless classic. At least Twilight didn't shame the Dracula name like this film.

The humor in general is very tasteless. You have the fart jokes and whatnot, nothing at all clever. The bit with the skeleton and his wife I found amusing but that hardly warrants watching this.

I'd avoid this at all costs. If you have kids, there are plenty of family films with horror themes that are way better. I'd much sooner give recently released ParaNorman a view, or look out for the upcoming Frankenweeinie. Hell, show your kids the original Universal Monster films, they'll thank you when they're older.

Pros:

+A bunch of famous monsters acting like idiots

Cons:

-A bunch of famous monsters acting like idiots

-Bad plot

-Missed potential

Purchase Hotel Transylvania on Amazon: Blu-Ray - DVD

Curse of the Fly (1965) Review

Director: Don Sharp
Stars: Brian Donlevy, Carole Gray, Burt Kwouk
Genre: Horror, Science-fiction

The final entry in the original Fly trilogy somehow manages to both return to its roots and simultaneously destroy them. Allow me to explain.

The first film in the trilogy (which is also the best. Review here) relied heavily on mystery. I consider the first film to be a Science Fiction Mystery with some horror elements. The second film in the trilogy is more of a Science Fiction Horror story. This film, the third one, is kind of a variation of the first one, I'd call it a Horror Mystery with Science Fiction elements.

It's better than Return of the Fly in many aspects, slightly worse in some, and nowhere nearly as good as the original. It does a pretty good job with pacing and mystery. The film starts out with a woman running through the woods in her underwear after just escaping from a mental hospital. That's the first mystery. Then she meets and marries the grandson of the original Fly from the first one. We are shown that something is wrong with this grandson, and he appears to be ill. Second mystery. Then, at the grandson's house, nothing seems to be quite normal. Everything seems a little odd. We eventually find that there are rooms with locked doors outside the house, what is in there we do not immediately know. The third mystery.

It's all built up well enough but in the end none of it really comes together for a satisfying conclusion. Shame really. You never really feel as if any of those mysteries were truly solved, leaving you a bit disappointed.

Oddly enough, there is no monster fly in this one. I don't think there's even a regular fly in here. The only monsters are a few experiments gone wrong, which aren't as cool as the fly monster. You'd hardly be able to tell it was part of the Fly trilogy if, let's say, it came on television late one night and you missed the title.

I also have to compliment the great make-up effects.

There are plot holes, and some things seem a bit stupid. It's a decent enough film though, but quite honestly I really don't feel like talking about it much more. This film also got some of the continuity of the trilogy messed up. Ah, I can only recommend this to those who absolutely loved the first one. If you didn't like the first one, or even just thought it was decent, I'd stay far, far away from its two sequels.

Pros:

+Good pacing and mystery elements

Cons:

-Disappointing in just about every aspect overall

Just stick to the original, or even the 80s remake.

Preceded by: The Fly (1958), Return of the Fly (1959)
Remakes: The Fly (1986), The Fly II

Purchase Curse of the Fly on Amazon: DVD

Return of the Fly (1959) Review

Director: Edward Bernds
Stars: Vincent Price, Brett Halsey
Genre: Horror, Science fiction

A follow up to the previous year's film, The Fly, and this was an obvious cash in to try and make a buck. You can read my review of the awesome original, where I discuss what makes it just so great. It will maybe give you a better idea of why this one is such a disappointment.

The film starts off at a funeral, where we learn that the mother from the last film has killed herself because she couldn't live with what she knew. This is what happens in the short story that the series is based on, but I suspect they just couldn't get the actress to come back and do the film.

We follow Philippe, the kid from the first one, who wants to reinvent his father's machine thingy, even though he knows the risks. Vincent Price, returning from the first, warns him not to but he fails to heed his warnings. Glad to see Price back, though his performance wasn't nearly as superb as it was in the first one.

The one scene I thought was kind of cool was when the Fly attacked that fat guy. It was even a little scary.

This film plays out much more like a typical mindless horror flick. They changed the Fly's mask from the last time, making it much more bigger and cheesy looking. Not sure why they did that, the original looked great. I suspect it may have been done in an attempt to make the character more memorable and recognizable. It worked out decently because it added to the camp value and that's about the only value you'll find in this.

The film is kind of noir-ish, which is cool. At certain times it really did feel like film noir. Unfortunately the plot is really uninteresting, I've forgotten most of it already, and there are way too many characters to keep track of. Plus it doesn't help that none of the characters are even vaguely interesting or developed.

Then we get a shitty ending. And that's about it.

Pros:

+Camp value

Cons:

-Confusing and boring plot

-Too many characters

-Bad character development

-Bad ending

As I've said, check out my review of the first one, and stay tuned for reviews of the sequel, Curse of the Fly, and the 1986 remake along with the remake's sequel.

Preceded by: The Fly (1958)
Sequel: Curse of the Fly (1965)
Remake: The Fly (1986), The Fly II

Purchase Return of the Fly on Amazon: DVD - Stream - VHS
MMG9FBZPNDJ2

The Invisible Man (1933) Review

Director: James Whale
Stars: Claude Rains, Una O'Connor
Genre: Horror, Science fiction

Having read the novel by H.G. Wells I was quite impressed at how good of an adaption this is. Of course it's much faster paced than the source material, as to be expected. But it still manages to capture the feel of the original, and many scenes are just how I had imagined they would be. Of course there are a couple of differences but nothing major.

This is probably director James Whale's third most well-known film, behind Frankenstein (1931) and Bride of Frankenstein (1935). Whale is my favorite director when it comes to 30s Universal Horror, and though I found the his two Frankenstein films to be a bit better, The Invisible Man is a very important member of the Universal Monsters cast and one of my favorites. (Heh, what Universal Monster isn't one of my favorites?)

Though it is not usually classified as a "trick film" like many earlier films are, most notably Buster Keaton's Sherlock, Jr., it really does a great job of displaying movie magic. We get to see some really awesome effects, still to this day looking superb. From the Invisible Man unwrapping his bandages revealing a seemingly headless body, to books and objects which seem to be floating across the room on their own, and even the man being spun in circles by his feet by the Invisible Man, all never seizing to amaze. And the best part is you can pretty much guess and figure out how all these tricks are done, though I'm sure you couldn't at the time, but it's great to visualize how they tied strings to things and whatnot. If I could pick one film to display early Hollywood movie magic, The Invisible Man would be it.

The plot is good, as should be expected from an H.G. Wells adaptation. In here they kind of make the Invisible Man more evil and ruthless, killing and terrorizing more people than I remember him doing in the book. I do wish they dealt with his psychology a bit more, and allowed you to understand and sympathize with him more. In the novel it was great because you realized he was mad and dangerous but you still understood him which caused sympathy. Don't get me wrong, there is some glimpses into the character in the film, just not as much as the novel. But enough about the novel.

The first half of the film is basically all a build-up to the second half which is just a big, intense game of cat-and-mouse between the Invisible Man and the everyone else. It's pretty funny and thrilling all at once. Add that with a decent dose of science-fiction and horror and you got yourself a tale.

This was Claude Rains film debut, who later went on to star in many well-known and well-acclaimed films. And for a guy who's invisible the entire time he does a damn good acting job. A couldn't think of a better fit for the part, I'm glad, though a little surprised, that they didn't use one of the Universal regulars in this. I of course love Lugosi and Karloff as much as the next guy, I'm just glad this film had a new face...or lack of face rather. However I have read that there were many considerations for the part before settling on Rains, including Karloff. In the end though James Whale wanted an "intellectual voice" that Rains did well in providing.

I should also note that this is one of the most humorous Universal horror films I've seen. There were quite a few scenes that made me laugh. This is partly due to the great writing, partly due to Claude Rains' great performance, and partly due to the mere absurdity of an invisible man running about. The scene where the Invisible Man was skipping down the road in nothing but a pair of pants while singing nursery rhymes and chasing and old woman had me cracking up.

Not very much more to be said about this. A classic and a must see for anyone.

Pros:

+Great plot adaptation

+Stunning effects

+Humorous, but not cheesy

Cons:

-Deals less with character psychology and focuses mostly on his evil side

Purchase The Invisible Man on Amazon: DVD - Stream - VHS

The Fly (1958) Review

Director: Kurt Neumann
Stars: David Hedison, Vincent Price
Genre: Mystery, Science fiction, Horror

Awwwwwwwwwwwww... Worst ending ever. I won't spoil anything just yet (and when I do you'll be forewarned) but this really is a great film for the most part, near perfect I'd say. Let's review, shall we?

First off I'd like to note that this was actually based off of a short story by George Langelaan, which was originally published, oddly enough, in a 1957 issue of Playboy. Yes, that's right, this story has its origins in a pornographic magazine, and actually won the magazine's award for best fiction that year. I haven't read the short story being that I couldn't find the actual text or anywhere to purchase it, but there is a Wikipedia page that has a summary of it. Most of it checks out with the film, a few differences though, most notably in the short story it says he was combined with both a cat and a fly; also in the short story the wife kills herself. But for the most part it's pretty consistent, though it seems like the short story is a bit superior (when isn't it).

The first thirty minutes of the film effectively play out as a mystery. You're thrown right in, knowing nothing, and are forced to slowly figure out what happened as the film progresses. At the start, the very start actually (which is actually the end), we learn that the wife killed her husband. We don't know why though, we don't if he wanted her to, and you may even doubt that she even did it at all. She refuses to answer when questioned and many factors are introduced to make you think. She killed her husband with a hydraulic press machine, but it is said that she didn't know how to operate one, which means someone must have told her how or done it for her. It also lets us know that the machine was pressed down twice. Why would she crush her husband, whom she loved, twice? All these factors, and more, build up to a great mystery.

The use of a buzzing fly in the beginning was also cool, because we obviously know the film has something to do with a fly, see the title of the film. So occasionally you'll here a fly buzzing about or see someone swatting one away. They make it pretty obvious, and it may have benefited from a bit more subtlety, but cool nonetheless. Then we see the wife get hysteric when the maid swats a fly, which only deepens the mystery. This film really is a mystery when it comes down to it.

She eventually agrees to explain what happened to her brother-in-law and a detective. This triggers a flashback and is where the plot starts to come into focus. We finally meet the husband and learn he is a scientist. He invents a teleport machine thing, blah, blah, I think most know the story of The Fly. He eventually tries to teleport himself but a housefly gets caught in the machine and they are fused together.

From here the mystery picks up. We know the husband has changed into something, and we pretty much know it's a fly, but the entire time he wears a bag over his face so you can't see his actually face. This just builds-up to the moment when we do get to see his face. And man the build-up is great, along with some of the best pacing I've ever seen.

We learn that he must find the fly that he got fused with so he can try and reverse the transformation. This leads to some of the most thrilling and intense scenes of someone trying to catch a fly ever. Seriously, you will be thrilled by someone trying to catch a fly. It's amazing. Perhaps the only thing that even comes half close to being as good of a fly catching scene is in AMC's Breaking Bad.

I won't ruin anything but when we finally do get to see his face sure it's nothing amazing but it's surprisingly not cheesy like you may expect. It's not super realistic or anything but it serves its purpose. It actually looks pretty cool. Come to think of it, none of this film is cheesy or so-bad-it's-good, and it has very little camp. Even the laboratory was pretty believable, a rarity at the time. This is a genuinely good film.

Things happens which I won't spoil. All the characters are very easy to sympathize with, a rare thing for films. Seriously, you can sympathize with the wife, the brother-in-law, the husband, the fly, the cat, the kid, even the detective in a way. Something that is hard for films to pull off.

[The following paragraph contains spoilers.] Had the film ended ten minutes earlier it would have been one of my favorites ever. If it ended with the wife going to the mental hospital it would have left it open for debate whether or not her story was true or if she really was insane. After all the only evidence she had to support her story was her words. Even the maid said she didn't see the fly. It would have furthered the mystery and would have really made you wonder whether she was just crazy or telling the truth. She certainly showed signs of insanity. Instead the brother-in-law and detective go out into the garden and see the fly with a human's head (the fly that got fused with the man) and they see it get eaten by a spider. This was the only scene that had mediocre effects and seems to only be here to provide a somewhat happy ending. I really wished it left it open for interpretation.

So, I'll just delude myself and pretend the last ten minutes never happened, because that really is the only bad part. So I wish the film had a better ending, maybe stuck a little closer to the source material, but that's really it. Other than that it really is, in my opinion of course, a perfect film. AH THAT ENDING. WHY!? Sigh.

Overall worth the watch, still one of my favorites. Great pacing, great story, great characters, great everything. If you stop the film ten minutes early, like I'll do next time, then it's great. A highly overlooked film, with most attention for the story going to the 1986 remake, which I will be reviewing soon and then doing a comparison the the original.

I will also soon be doing reviews for this films two sequels: Return of the Fly and Curse of the Fly. And perhaps even the remake's sequel, The Fly II. Stay tuned.

It falls just short of a perfect 5, but I'll be a bit generous and give it a 4.8/5, rounding up to 5.

Pros:

+Mysterious and engaging plot

+Good use of build-up

+Good plot structure

+Great characters and acting

Cons:

-Cheesy ending

Sequels: Return of the Fly (1959), Curse of the Fly (1965)

Remakes: The Fly (1986), The Fly II

Purchase The Fly on Amazon: DVD - VHS