Rhys Reviews: Filmic Analysis

Welcome to my portfolio of film reviews and analytical discussion around cinema and television. Below are my pieces in order

  • Universal Monsters: The First Cinematic Universe

    In the modern landscape of cinematic franchises, the cinematic universe is the new fad that has took Hollywood by storm. From comic book franchises belonging to the worlds of Marvel and DC, the battling titans featured throughout the shared Godzilla and King Kong universe or the haunting worlds featured in the Conjuring Cinematic Universe, cinematic universes are the newest evolution of franchise cinema. When once a franchise would just be made up of connected sequels or prequels, cinematic universes dwell in an area between, featuring various sub-franchises that connect through superficial connections but are still largely disconnected enough to have sequels and prequels of their own. Though seemingly coming to prominence because of the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, one connected universe predates the fad by almost 80 years, and that universe is the Universal Monsters.

    It is up to debate how many movies can be classed as part of the Universal Monsters universe, ranging to up to 60 titles, and ranging from the years 1929 to 1960. Most of those 60 titles are standalone horror, mystery and science-fiction films that are mainly brought together by being under the Universal Pictures brand. Where the cinematic universe mainly comes together is through its core franchises, which will be the focus here. Dracula, The Wolf-Man, Frankenstein, The Invisible Man, The Mummy and The Creature from the Black Lagoon are where the shared universe comes to ahead, serving each as their own horror franchises, but also as a connected universe in an era where that was uncommon. Through the House of Frankenstein, House of Dracula and Abbott and Costello meet movies, these separated horror franchises come together in ambitious crossovers that predate some of the most celebrated crossover films that are common today. Here is a brief look at these franchises, and the crossovers that eventually come:

    Dracula

    Bela Lugosi in Dracula

    Years: 1931-1943

    Featured Films: Dracula (1931), Drȧcula (1931), Dracula’s Daughter (1936), Son of Dracula (1943)

    Originally published in 1897, Bram Stoker’s classic horror novel was sought after for an adaptation for years before Universal got their hands on it, from F.W.Murnau’s unofficial adaptation, Nosferatu, to a broadway show. Following the events of the famous novel near-faithfully, the film follows Count Dracula, played by Bela Lugosi, an immortal vampire who travels between his home in Transylvania to England, looking to feast upon new victims and drink their blood. The film owes most of its success to the original novel it is based upon, but clearly draws upon clear influence through Nosferatu. An original scene that was only featured in Murnau’s adaptation of the novel is featured here as well, where the visiting Harker pricks himself and draws blood, Dracula skirting into shot as he attempts to remove his temptation. That’s not the only thing that Dracula, and the overall Universal Monsters juggernaut, owes to Nosferatu however, as its clear to see that the visual style, and the overall visual style of the German Expressionist movement, influenced the universe’s visual style heavily. Originally confined to Germany in WW1, the German Expressionist movement sought to reject reality in favour of the artist’s creative vision, favouring to use heightened performances and visual distortions. The gothic backdrops of the Universal Monsters are a clear highlight of this influence, through the use of fog and darkness as distortions, structured sets that blend the realism of gothic architecture and the horrific unknown like Castle Dracula in Transylvania, and expressive performances, like the ones featured here, with various shots focusing on Lugosi’s eyes. He is shot commonly in shadow, with only his eyes highlighted by any light, drawing attention to that fierce glare. This attention drawn to the look of the character highlights the iconicity that comes with this version of character, the first adaptation to keep the human-look of the character from the novel, and would become a clear influence on all future adaptations.

    Even though Bela Lugosi became synonymous as the look of the character, the actor would not return for either of the sequels, only returning once across the future of the franchise, returning for 1948’s Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. The same year the actor originally played this character however, a Spanish adaptation was also in the works, using the exact same sets and the same story, only allowed to go into production for night shoots after the more commercial version was finished for the day. An actual sequel came 5 years later, after the popularity of the re-releases of Frankenstein and Dracula brought Universal new confidence in their horror titans, with the release of Dracula’s Daughter in 1936. Following up on the death of its title character, this sequel’s only connective tissue was through the return of Van Helsing, now renamed Von Helsing, but retaining the same actor. The film retains some of the thematic elements of Murnau’s Nosferatu, now mixing the gothic locations with a narrative involving a troubled and saddened villain. Nosferatu is an evil protagonist in the original film, but is looking for love, even if it comes from a terrible place. Dracula’s Daughter, portrayed by Gloria Holden, is looking to remove the influence her father and the vampirism has over her, even if it means dying.

    She only becomes the villain, in the climax, after falling further under the power of the vampirism, finding love in the film, even alluded to be lesbian-in-nature, but only for it to be tragic for her. Son of Dracula, its 1943 follow-up, nixes this thematic consistency and any narrative connective tissue, in order for a straightforward remake-like sequel following Lon Chaney Jr as somehow revived Count Dracula, looking to drink blood once again. This begins a long-running inconcinnity between franchises and their sequels, dealing with themselves as more like standalone entries than a connected franchise. The biggest consistency between them all is forever their visual style, because even Son of Dracula, though retaining no narrative ties, still features the visual flair of the mist, this time coming from the swamp.

    Universal’s Dracula would go on to influence the character for decades to come, through Hammer horror’s own Dracula series and other big screen adaptations, like Francis Ford Coppolas version. Universal themselves would attempt twice, in the modern era, to bring back their big-screen vampire, through rebooted 2014’s Dracula Untold and semi-related spiritual sequel, 2023’s Renfield.

    Frankenstein

    Boris Karloff as The Monster in Frankenstein

    Years: 1931-1942

    Featured Films: Frankenstein (1931), Bride of Frankenstein (1935), Son of Frankenstein (1939), The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942)

    Just like the former Dracula franchise, 1931’s Frankenstein and its following sequels, would become synonymous with the character in the coming years, being the first major adaptation of Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel of the same name. The film shares the similar narrative plot breakdown of the original novel, following Henry Frankenstein (known as Victor in the novel), portrayed by Colin Clive, a brilliant scientist who attempts to recreate life by digging up dead bodies and grafting them together into a new being. Once brought to life, the monster, played by Boris Karloff, starts a reign of terror across the village, with a mob forming to take him down. The film only serves as a loose adaptation of the novel its based on, essentially being only a adaptation of the first half, with a lot of the removed moments being instead adapted into the follow-up, 1935’s The Bride of Frankenstein. This film seemingly is based on a subplot of the novel, with Frankenstein’s Monster demanding Victor to create him a wife or he will kill his wife, and in this version, Henry Frankenstein actually commits to the idea and creates the bride, portrayed by Elsa Lanchester. The reason for this difference between versions is through the depiction of the Monster. In the original novel, the Monster begins to develop intelligence after being homed by a friendly blind-man, and slowly begins to understand the evil of humanity through his experiences, eventually becoming a cold-blooded murderer after Victor refuses to create his bride. The Monster of the Universal film instead is dumb and brutish, easily able to fall under influence and more acting out of fear than anything. The reason the town hates him is because he misunderstands a game with a young child, accidentally killing her and causing himself to be villainised by the frightened mob. One version of the monster acts out of his own directives, while the other is manipulated and misunderstood.

    The following sequels to these two initial films do not adapt anything from the original novel however, instead having connective tissue to the franchise through the use of the monster himself, the family of Frankenstein and the terrified mob. Both 1939’s Son of Frankenstein and 1942’s Ghost of Frankenstein reveal separate sons of the late Henry Frankenstein, Baron Wolf von Frankenstein and Ludwig Frankenstein. The films’ deal with the supposed curse of the Frankenstein family, and the overall paranoia of the town after the initial assault by the monster. When returning home and coming into ownership of the Frankenstein estate, Baron is warned by the people of the town to not revive the Monster, brought to the court as they show their fear. In the very next film, Frankenstein’s Monster, now played by Lon Chaney Jr after Karloff portrayed the character for the final time in Son of Frankenstein, and new ally Ygor, portrayed by Bela Lugosi, are ran out of the town as they make their way to a new home. Once arriving to their new home, they soon run into the same problem again as their monstrous appearances make them public enemies to the local townsfolk and are formed into a mob against them. Though not based on any existing material, these subsequent films still tie themselves thematically to the themes of the novel, with Ygor essentially being the replacement of both a villainous Monster and a more scientific variation of a Frankenstein. He is essentially the monster’s master in these films, and the final film ends with Ygor placing his brain in the body of Frankenstein’s monster. However, his brain is not a match for this body, rendering him blind. This massive change is never mentioned again after this film, with Frankenstein’s monster returning to his regular state by his next appearance in Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man.

    Universal has never made their own remake of their version of Frankenstein, though this rendition of the character has become the blueprint for all future filmic appearances of the character.

    The Mummy

    Boris Karloff as Imhotep in The Mummy

    Years: 1932-1944

    Featured Films: The Mummy (1932), The Mummy’s Hand (1940), The Mummy’s Tomb (1942), The Mummy’s Ghost (1944), The Mummy’s Curse (1944)

    The first Universal Monsters franchise not to be based on pre-existing material, The Mummy takes the horror away from gothic locations and instead to the tombs of Ancient Egypt. The initial film of the franchise follows Imhotep, played by Boris Karloff, an undead mummy who comes back to life after being found by a team of archaeologists. Once revived, the undead mummy attempts to find his long-lost love, who he believes has also been reincarnated. The franchise straddles the line between the worlds of German Expressionist horror that the Universal Monsters are commonly situated in and the worlds of historical-adventure films with tombs, explorers and traps. The initial film is fairly standalone in comparison to the overall narrative of the sequels, the sequels instead centring around the revised corpse of Kharis, played by Tom Tyler in 1940’s The Mummy’s Hand, and Lon Chaney Jr in 1942’s The Mummy’s Tomb, 1944’s The Mummy’s Ghost and 1944’s The Mummy’s Curse.

    Here, the franchise comes together with a central narrative, with Kharis being a very different monster compared to Imhotep. Kharis still follows the basic same narrative that Imhotep involved himself with, a revived monster that is after his own reincarnated love, but he lacks the control over that narrative that Imhotep had. He is mostly a mindless monster in his four filmic appearances, instead being controlled by the actual villains of the film, enchanted to do their bidding. Imhotep also looks more human, while Kharis resembles the more typical depiction of a Mummy in popular cinema, wrapped in bandages and fossilised. The later movies of the franchise also move into a direction of moving the action to the regular gothic locations of the Universal Monsters and abandon the Indiana Jones-style adventure side of the franchise. This leaves this franchise as being inherently two-sided, an opening film which sets the standard and the narrative beats that the franchise uses as a blueprint, and a closing two-final films that largely abandons these to follow the formula that made up films like Dracula and Frankenstein.

    The franchise would return to its action-adventure roots with the Brendan Fraser-starring reboot in 1999, followed by two sequels, 2001’s The Mummy Returns and 2008’s The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor. It would soon also be rebooted again with 2017’s The Mummy, staring Tom Cruise.

    The Invisible Man

    Claude Rains in The Invisible Man

    Years: 1933-1944

    Featured Films: The Invisible Man (1933), The Invisible Man Returns (1940), The Invisible Woman (1940), Invisible Agent (1942), The Invisible Man’s Revenge (1944)

    Loosely based on H.G.Wells’ 1897 novel of the same name, the Invisible Man franchise sits as an extreme outlier in the Universal Monsters, adding in another genre to the mix, science-fiction. Each subsequent film moves further and further away from the horror genre, with 1940’s The Invisible Woman being able to be described as both a women’s film and a comedy, while 1942’s Invisible Agent sits perfectly in the spy-espionage genre. The original film blends the worlds of horror and science-fiction the most comfortably, following Jack Griffin, played by Claude Rains, a scientist who has managed to turn himself invisible by a strange experiment. Hiding out in a village house, covered in bandages, the experiment slowly starts to take over his mind, transforming him from harmless scientist to a monster. In the process, his fiancée comes to find him, hoping to remove this new found superiority that has plagued Griffin’s mind. In the build up to the eventual complete takeover of his mind, the film does include elements of slapstick, that seems to connect to the eventual comedy take on the subject matter. His invisible antics begin as harmless pranks, with his furthest level of violence being knocking one of the home-owners down the stairs. Scenes including one where Griffin dances around in just his pyjama pants, show both the sense of humour of the central villain and the comedic lens the franchise can run with using the impressive special effects. Soon, he recruits a former comrade to help him commit various murders, and leads to him having one of the highest body counts of any of the Universal Monsters, derailing a train, leading to the death of over 100 people.

    Claude Rains, and Jack Griffin, would not return for any of the Invisible Man sequels, perishing at the end of the initial film. This marked the beginning of the most fragmented franchise that made up the Universal Monsters, with future films struggling to find connections as easily as just reviving Frankenstein’s Monster or Dracula, as the others could easily do. Both 1940’s Invisible Man Returns and 1944’s Invisible Man’s Revenge’s titles seem ludicrous when seeing that they are not the same invisible killer. Returns has the connection through the invisibility serum being from the family of Griffin, but Revenge, a movie that seems to try to return the franchise back to form after comedy and spy entries, has no connection. Even the spy entry, a film where the invisible formula is used to take on villains featured as the Nazis, features a connection through the lead character, Frank Griffin, being revealed to be a relative of the original Griffin. The lack of consistency through the narrative leaves this franchise feeling disconnected, and each film feeling less like a sequel and more like a reboot, re-treading similar narrative beats, from the slapstick beginnings to the serum’s mind-altering end. The Invisible Woman only serves to confuse things further, feeling like a spin-off, removing the melodramatic elements that made up the prior films in favour of being a screwball comedy where a woman gets payback on her ruthless boss. When a franchise has so many mixing genres at play, it comes across less like a connected franchise, and more like a skeleton of what could be.

    The Invisible Man would soon be rebooted in 2020, directed by Leigh Whannell, nixing the science-fiction formulas for a high-tech invisibility suit, and revolving its plot around domestic abuse.

    The Wolf Man

    Lon Chaney Jr in The Wolf Man

    Years: 1941-1943

    Featured Films: The Wolf Man (1941), Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man (1943)

    The shortest franchise of the core Universal Monsters, The Wolf Man only features in two films revolved around his own name, and the second is the first crossover of the cinematic universe. The initial film follows Lawrence Talbot, played by Lon Chaney Jr, as he returns home to bury his brother and hopefully resolve the fractured relationship with his father. In the process, he meets a new romantic interest and after being attacked by a wolf, slowly becomes the monstrous Wolf-Man. The werewolf can be seen as an implied metaphor for various factors across the runtime of the film, but mainly as a metaphorical look at man’s attempt to control. Talbot is very full-on when trying to pursue his romantic interest, a woman who turns him down completely, and only initially goes on the date with him because she brings a friend with her. Here, on the date, she also tells Talbot that she is engaged, but that does not make him stop the pursuit at all. He’s a man who seems to not take no as an answer, a man who seems to enjoy to have control in his life, and that is thrown all away the minute he cannot control his own body when transformed.

    He becomes this way because he comes into contact with an attacking werewolf, an unpredictable part of nature that only becomes worse because he attempts to take control. A friendly gypsy gifts him a protective charm that will help him not transform, but unwilling to believe in the power of nature, he dooms himself by giving it away, refusing to place his role in the natural world. He soon learns, in 1943’s Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man, that he cannot die through regular means, and the only way out seems to be the unnatural world of Victor Frankenstein. Through attempting to come in contact with the scientist, he reawakens Frankenstein’s monster, removed from its control by Ygor, and they battle. Once again, in trying to control his own fate and attempting to control nature, nature has fought back by bringing him face to face with another unnatural being. Frankenstein’s Monster, a being made up of the lives and bodies of multiple different people, comes as the perfect mirror to Talbot, another being that has come from attempting to play God with nature. It is only natural that the two seem to perish in the film’s cliff-hanger ending, where the town mob destroys the dam over the Frankenstein estate, flushing the two away.

    Lon Chaney Jr is the only Universal Monsters actor to play his character in every appearance, portraying the character in all 5 movies Talbot appears in. The film’s depiction of the werewolf would become the blueprint for future appearances in film and television, and Universal would attempt twice-more to return the character to the big screen. A direct reboot would come in Joe Johnston’s The Wolfman in 2010, and then a different take on the material in Leigh Whannell’s Wolf Man in 2025.

    Creature from the Black Lagoon

    Stunt Casting by Ben Chapman in Creature from the Black Lagoon

    Years: 1954-1956

    Featured Films: Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954), Revenge of the Creature (1955), The Creature Walks Among Us (1956)

    The final core franchise of the Universal Monsters, Creature from the Black Lagoon started as a franchise well-after all the other pop culture juggernauts of the Universal Monsters were already done and has finished meeting on-screen. The Creature Walks Among Us, 1956’s final movie of the three Creature from the Black Lagoon movies, is also seen commonly as the final film of the Universal Monsters. The initial 1954 film follows a group of scientists who encounter a merman when travelling to the Amazon, they attempt to capture this monster to study it, while the merman becomes interested in Kay, a female scientist in the group. This attempt to study the merman becomes its unifying theme with The Wolf-Man and the rest of the Universal Monsters. Though released years after the end of the films collaborating, the film’s exploration into the attempt to control and study nature unifies it. Though the sequels, 1955’s Revenge of the Creature and 1956’s The Creature Walks Among Us, faired less fairly with critics and essentially serve as redoes of the initial film’s plot, they further the scientific exploration into the merman. He is transferred to an aquarium and used as an attraction in Revenge, and then surgically experimented on until he can survive on land and blend into society in Walks Among Us, and these former versions position the creature as more of a victim than coldblooded monster. There are still sympathetic protagonists outside of the monster, but through the film’s underwater photography, a lot of the world is seen under the lens of the creature. This makes this franchise stand largely apart from many of the central Universal Monster franchises, the creature is opposed to the world of man, from our governments and power structure through its own unpredictable nature, and the films aligns themselves with so.

    Unlike many of the other Universal Monster franchises, there has been no reboots of the Creature from the Black Lagoon series, no matter how many attempts there has been, with a current James Wan directed reboot announced this year.

    Crossover Films

    Bud Abbott and Lou Costello Join Lon Chaney Jr, Bela Lugosi and Glenn Strange in Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein

    Years: 1944-1955

    Featured Films: House of Frankenstein (1944), House of Dracula (1945), Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948), Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man (1951), Abbott and Costello Meet Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1953), Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy (1955)

    Sometimes referred to as ‘monster mashes’ Universal Pictures soon come to see the profitability of mixing their classic Universal Monsters together in filmic team-ups. After the success of Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man, Universal released the two-hit release of 1944’s House of Frankenstein and 1945’s House of Dracula. These two films followed up the cliff-hanger ending of Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, showing a rare connectivity between these films. In the days before regular cinematic universes, where audiences assume that all films must connect and align with each other’s continuity, this cinematic universe plays hard and loose with its timeline. This lack of narrative cohesion is even shown in these two films, with House of Frankenstein showing the death of Lawrence Talbot, only for him to be back alive and well in the following film. These films see the return of both The Wolf-Man and Frankenstein’s Monster, with the new addition of Dracula, here played by John Carradine. Dracula serves as essentially a side-storyline in the first House film, perishing in sunlight in the first act, as the action returns to the other two monsters. He serves larger narrative purpose in the sequel, where all three monsters request a gifted doctor to cure them of their ailments. Both films serve as an almost greatest-hits of each cinematic franchise, with Frankenstein’s Monster being ordered around by a scientist and wishing to be unmade, Lawrence Talbot wants to be cured from his werewolf side or die trying, and Dracula wishes to drink blood in scenes which recreate scenes almost identically from his first feature. Through the inclusion of new villains, the Mad Doctor and the Hunchback, the term monster mash becomes even more relevant here, ending this continuity with an all-out monster brawl.

    This monster mash was then followed by 1948’s Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, a film that mixes the world of the Universal Monsters and the comedy formed by the titled duo, becoming a horror-comedy, unique to this shared universe. Featuring the returning monsters of Frankenstein’s Monster, Dracula, The Wolf-Man and the Invisible Man in its closing minutes, the film follows Count Dracula, Bela Lugosi returning to the role, as he works to find a brain to reactivate Frankenstein’s Monster. In his search, he finds Costello’s character, Wilbur Grey, as the best fit for this brain surgery. Continuity continues to be confusing for this series, as the film once again disregards the ending of the previous film, with Talbot once again the Wolfman after he was cured in the previous film. The movie’s mix of comedy and horror works wonders to pair the styles of both the performers and franchises, the screwball comedy nature calling back to some of the strangest genre moments of the Invisible Man franchise. The movie ends with the three main monsters perishing, ending their stories here, in a riveting crossover film which marries their world to the worlds of fantastical comedy. Abbott and Costello would continue to crossover with horror legends in subsequent films, following with a science-fiction mystery in 1951’s Abbott and Costello Meet The Invisible Man. They would then crossover with a new Universal Monster, in 1953’s Abbott and Costello Meet Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, and then conclude this universe’s crossovers with 1955’s Abbott and Costello Meet The Mummy.

  • Aftersun and Memory

    Paul Mescal and Frankie Coro in Aftersun

    Beginning with an adult woman watching home-movie footage of a long-gone holiday, Aftersun chronicles the modern connection between memory and technology. Partly based on first-time director Charlotte Wells’ childhood, the film follows Sophie, a young parent who is viewing her past through home videos. Viewing footage of her final holiday with her father when she was only a child, Sophie finds new meaning in connecting to her troubled father and in a childhood she did not completely understand. Dealing with this narrative and its connection to memory, one of the biggest things the film does not convey to the audience is the fate of Sophie’s father, Calum. It is conveyed that this is the final time that Sophie sees her father, but it is up to the audience by seeing the clues for themselves in Sophie’s documented footage and memories to make their own conclusions for the troubled father’s fate. Memory is an important factor that plays into the narrative, recognising our development as we look back and reconsider the past, finding new connections to memories that cannot be understood until the relevant life experience has occurred. A clear focus as well is memories connection to technology, it reflects the modern times. Memory used to be something only a person could rely upon, thinking back to moments and slowly losing those memories with age, but with home movies and cameras, memories last forever and are now always there to be analysed for new meaning. That is where we find Sophie, stuck to her television screen, revisiting moments from her past for any type of answers for what happened to her father, years removed from the events, as her own baby cries in the other room.

    No matter what a viewer decides upon for the fate of Calum, it can be inferred fairly easily that the man is troubled, and seems to be close to ending his own life, or at least considering it. There are clear signs throughout the film that he has little value for his own safety, from walking in front of a bus as it beeps for him to move, going to swim in the ocean at night by himself or doing handstands on the hotel balcony. A key scene for this point comes when Calum makes Sophie list the reasons why she shouldn’t smoke, forbidding her from taking part in a harmful way of life, but he proceeds to smoke himself on numerous occasions.

    Young Sophie points out later in the film that he does not have the money to be making such luxurious purchases, after buying a expensive rug and a polaroid of both of them from a salesman, seemingly aware even at her young age that there is something amiss. These expensive purchases seem to connect to his lack of value for life, almost like he knows he will not be here soon and therefore does not need the money. These purchases instead become memories for Sophie, forming another connection the movie makes to memory, physical evidence also draws upon memories of youth. When showcasing adult Sophie in the long shot in her room, she appears sitting on a couch, with the rug her father purchased underneath. Sophie does not understand what happened to her father it seems, and that obsession to make sense of that trauma comes out in still latching onto the items that those memories are steeped upon.

    When receiving the polaroid, the camera holds slowly as it descends towards it placed on the table, the image appearing slowly onto the frame. In the slow appearance of this image, it marks a movement for Calum, as he becomes part of Sophie’s memory, forever contained in the image. In this image, smiling to the camera, Calum remains as happy and youthful as he seemed to be for young Sophie in that moment of time. Though this happiness is not the full picture. Young Sophie describes her mood after an eventful night-out in the middle portion of the film, describing the feeling of coming home exhausted and sad, even though you have a wonderful day, you are still however consumed with a feeling of weakness and ache that its all over, the emptiness all-consuming. She essentially describes depression in its simplest terms, describing a feeling that Calum seems to feel often based on his reaction in the scene. The camera trails on the father in a medium shot, as he looks into the mirror, his face conveying the anger that he feels for himself, Paul Mescal delivering a solemn glare to camera as his daughter describes what he feels without being aware she is. The film very much tracks this anger coming from Calum, as he almost seems to make his decision across the film, whether he must go or he must stay.

    When on a boat trip, Calum relays to Sophie that he hopes she will always be able to speak to him in the future, about drugs, boys, parties and more. He is giving a false promise that seems to not come true, begging the question whether he means this promise, or is he trying to convince himself that he should be around longer. It seems to be that he hopes she will speak to him even after he is gone, representing that memory keeps a person alive as long as you still connect with their memory. There are more instances where he seems to be thinking over his decision, various scenes being dispersed with footage of him looking over the footage that Sophie has gathered across the film. He’s watching footage shown previously, almost looking over the last footage he will see of his daughter before he makes his decision.

    Memory becomes the reason for Callum’s choice, it becomes the one thing that can keep him with his daughter or can strip him away from the life he has made with her. The final act of the film however seems to culminate with him making his choice, as he cries with his back to the camera. The scene transitions from Sophie gathering a group of tourists to sing her father happy birthday, the diegetic audio transitioning from the happy sound of a happy birthday to his guttural cry, as his shirtless body rises and falls with each cry. This seems to lead to the assumption that he has made his decision, and the subtle change from happiness to sadness leads to the final sequences.

    The film continuingly cuts to footage of Calum in what seems to be a nightclub throughout its runtime, contained completely in strobe lightning. These sequences feel very disconnected with the overall narrative until Calum and Sophie come to the last night of their holiday. Arriving back to the hotel after a night out at restaurant, Calum pulls Sophie onto the dance floor even though she is tired. She mixes between dancing and refusing to dance with him across the sequence, as the camera watches Calum dance without a care in the world and with a smile on his face in a point of view shot. The scene is matched with adult Sophie appearing in this strobe lighting-filled room, as she pushes through the crowd of people and comes face to face with her father, desperately trying to talk to him and hold him for any longer. The scene is paired with the diegetic music playing at the hotel, ‘Under Pressure’ by Queen. As she attempts to get closer to him, the music blares louder as her words are drown out by the tempo of the song. The words of the song convey a very clear meaning to the narrative, ‘this is our last dance’ conveys the final nail in the coffin that this is the last time these two family members will be together. The more powerful lyric however is when the film cuts between young Sophie and adult Sophie hugging Calum, as the film blasts, ‘why can’t we give love one more chance?’ Adult Sophie is gripping onto Calum as hard as she can, willing him to come out of her memory, wishing she would have danced with him more that last night but Calum falls back and the night ends. The next day comes and the two have arrived back in the UK, as the last camera footage shot of the holiday shows Calum filming Sophie walking away from him, turning around and waving multiple times. The return to natural footage comes as Calum puts away the camera, sighs and walks into the door behind me, the last thing seen being the flashing lights of the nightclub, as the door slams behind him. Calum exits the film to become part of Sophie’s memory, existing as a fragile memory that she will never completely understand, lost in an endless disco of other memories.

    This is the tragic theme of Aftersun, it conveys memory as connected to technology, memory as collective and traumatic, memories’ connection to items but its true narrative is around the tragic uncertainty of memory. Once it becomes a memory, it will never be understood properly again, Sophie will never understand what happened to her father truly because she does not have all the answers, just like the audience does not.

  • Lilo and Stitch- Review

    Voice of Chris Sanders in Lilo and Stitch

    When being released in 2002, Lilo and Stitch used the compelling marketing gimmick of placing the film’s lead into classic Disney movie posters, conveying the outlandish nature of the picture and how it stands out amongst the crowded world of Disney princesses. Now, 23 years later, Disney have attempted the same marketing gimmick, making this live action film attempt to standout from the endless live action remakes that the studio has been putting out. Unlike the original however, which felt like a challenging new family-friendly film from the studio, this new live-action attempt feels just like more of the same.

    Following on from the success of Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland remake, one of Disney’s most profitable new endeavours has been live-action adaptations of their beloved animated classics. Between the years of 2018 and 2025, there have been fourteen animated remakes released, highlights including Jon Favreau’s The Lion King, Guy Ritchie’s Aladdin and the recent release of Marc Webb’s Snow White. A clear decline has been conveyed in the popularity of these remakes, going from billion-dollar grosses to Snow White barely being able to break-even.

    Voice actor Chris Sanders and Maia Kealoha in Lilo and Stitch

    These remakes are marked commonly by being almost shot-for-shot remakes of the original, with very little changed made at all. Some, like Disney+ streaming original Mulan, make sweeping changes that fundamentally change the narrative from the beloved original.

    Lilo and Stitch sits somewhere in the middle, following the same narrative as the original, following escaped experiment Stitch, as he finds himself on earth hiding from his creator. He attempts to hideout with a struggling sister-turned surrogate mother, and a troubled child, who may soon become his new family.

    The film really nails the dynamic in the family bond between Nani and Lilo, played by Sydney Elizebeth Agudong and newcomer Maia Kealoha respectively. Kealoha works well in bringing alive the chaotic energy that Lilo had in the original feature, some of her violent tendencies seem to be lessened for a live-action world, but the heart of the character is there. Agudong brings alive the struggle of being forced into the role of a surrogate parent, forced to work to provide while wanting to pursue her own dreams.

    Director Dean Fleischer Camp’s breakout feature Marcel the Shell With Shoes On conveyed a charming family adventure with cutesy characters and a promising exploration into adult themes of loneliness and grief. The cutesy characters are still present in his follow-up feature, the marketable nature of Stitch is still present, sure to sell hundreds more collectables in his new live-action form.

    Voice of Zach Galifianakis and Billy Magnussen in Lilo and Stitch

    However, the mature storytelling seems surprisingly absent from this slightly watered-down version of the narrative. The animated original was very mature in its exploration into family trauma and the grief of a young child, but the alterations made here seem to lessen that message or altogether remove it. Events happen the same as the original, but with crucial alterations to dialogue, removing a crucial line about Lilo mentioning her family’s accident, or making Nani unaware of the adoption of Stitch, where it was her idea in the original to give Lilo a friend.

    Standing out was the key to the success of the animated original, but removing crucial character beats only serves to water down this iteration, and removes any of the adult edge the marketing wants to make the audience believe. Originally conceived as an original to their streaming service, Disney+, the movie portrays itself as a family-friendly film through and through.

    The Disney+ release can be seen even more frequently through the use of human stand-ins for original film characters Jumbo and Pleakley, played by Zach Galifianakis and Billy Magnussen here respectively. In their effects-created forms, the characters are accurate but come-close to the uncanny valley. Presumably because of a lower-streaming budget, the characters are instead commonly shown in human forms, giving the film a comedic slapstick energy, even if some questionable character decisions will leave fans of these characters confused in their new narrative directions.

    It is hard to state that Disney’s new Lilo and Stitch is anywhere near a bad film, when its DNA is so instinctively tied to such a satisfying 2000’s Disney classic, but what it suffers from is a lack of creativity in its own vision or changes that only serve to undermine the original. Both lead performances are strong, and a stronger focus on the sisterly bond leads to more charming family moments, but the emotional and complex adult themes are lost in the edit. Stitch is always marketable however, brought to life in such glee.

    Maia Kealoha and Sydney Elizebeth Agudong in Lilo and Stitch
  • Mission Impossible- The Final Reckoning Review

    Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible-The Final Reckoning

    The mission seems to be over for Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise), as Mission Impossible- The Final Reckoning arrives in theatres, advertised as the final outing for this long-running franchise. Following on from 2023’s Dead Reckoning, The Final Reckoning sees the rogue AI known as the Entity rising to a higher form of power as it takes over each Earth superpower one by one, and the only one who can be trusted to save the day is Ethan Hunt and his IMF allies. Released in 1996 and based on a television series of the same name from 1966, the original Mission Impossible created a unique brand for itself in the spy genre, and became a juggernaut of the genre, crossing over 4.5 billion at the global box office across its 8 films. Bringing this franchise to an ambitious end comes with a couple of clear pitfalls, but The Final Reckoning comes out as a strong end to the long-running spy franchise.

    Clocking in at nearly 3 hours in length, the film’s first hour comes as its weakest. The film’s opening act comes with many of the same problems that plagued the opening of its predecessor, an overreliance on exposition. Opening with a staple of the franchise, a video being relied to our franchise lead, as the President (Angela Bassett), conveys the mission for the film, but this one is even more expositional. The opening serves as the film’s chance to convey the entire plot of the previous film in case the audience member missed its events, and also the entire narrative events for the franchise. As stated previously, this is a common aspect of this franchise, but it over-compensates heavily through its visual exposition.

    Tom Cruise, Simon Pegg and Hayley Atwell in Mission Impossible- The Final Reckoning

    Each time the film relays information from a prior film, the film also conveys this information visually by flashing the character, moment or item on screen through archival footage. This is clearly done to keep people up to date with the information outside of this sole film, but the editing choice comes to worrying heights when it done so frequently, flashing the same footage more than once, and once editing in a flashback to footage from this very film to remind the audience what happened mere moments ago. This editing choice leaves the film once it enters its second act, only returning once again for a sentimental call-back to the franchise.

    Once the film hits into its second act, the fast-paced action and engaging character-work the franchise is known for comes to ahead, and that’s where the stunts the franchise is known for becomes involved. The submarine escape sequence and the plane battle with antagonist Gabriel (Esai Morales) are two thrilling sequences that can stand toe-to-toe with some of the most thrilling moments from the franchise’s past. They convey the commitment Tom Cruise has to this franchise, delivering some of the most jaw-dropping cinematic moments and all on a practical level.

    Hayley Atwell, Simon Pegg, Pom Klementieff and Greg Tarzan Davis in Mission Impossible- The Final Reckoning

    Tension is key to a film contained in the spy genre, and the ticking time-clock element of the film, with the entity slowly taking over each countries’ nuclear arsenal is a compelling tension-builder. The stakes have always been high in this franchise, but this is end of the world stakes, and director Christopher McQuarrie knows how to mine the most drama out of these stakes. The movie is unlike the typical summer blockbuster, its sombre and dramatic, with the tone being more reminiscent to Cold War era war films than anything else released this year.

    Larger stakes comes with a massive improvement in scope and cast. Returning franchise mainstays like Benji (Simon Pegg), Grace (Hayley Atwell) and Luther (Ving Rhames) are given enough to do in this entry, spending most of their screentime together as a team in a secondary plot, given most of the heavy-lifting comedy-wise.

    The new characters introduced here are where the bigger cast becomes more of a mixed bag, Hunt spends most of the middle act travelling between locations, meeting new characters for a short sequence. Hannah Waddingham is an example of this, appearing in one scene where she doesn’t leave much of a splash, but then Severance star Tramell Tillman steals every sequence he is in. Various new characters also make up the new team surrounding Hunt, namely Paris (Pom Klementieff) and Theo (Greg Tarzan Davis), who have very little to do in the hustle and bustle surrounding the narrative.

    Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible- The Final Reckoning

    The film wins its sentimental conclusion, coming out with an overpowering final action sequence, paired with tension-filled character beats, marking a strong end to a winning franchise. Through various twists and turns, the movie connects itself to the very beginning of the franchise, creating a complete package out of this once-episodic franchise.

  • David Lynch: The Director Who Dreamed

    Speaking in the novel Lynch on Lynch, director David Lynch explains his approach to explaining his films, ‘I think people know what Mulholland Drive is to them, but they don’t trust it. They want to have someone else tell him. I love people analysing it, but they don’t need me to help them out.’ The famous director, who died this year at 78, is renounced for crafting complex and unexplained media, films and television that are meant to be conveyed more as a waking dream than a straightforward narrative. Where the director finds meaning is through characterisation and a genuine sense of humanity is his pictures, coming from a background in painting and the arts, Lynch’s film showcases a lot of visuals that are not beholden by a meaning he handholds the viewer through. Starting his career with short films known as Six Men Getting Sick (1967) and The Alphabet (1968), the Alphabet is synonymous with his future work.

    The short film follows a girl who chants the alphabet to a collection of images of horses before eventually dying in her bed, dream-like logic perpetuates over the film, as the alphabet appears on the screen in text as the girl overlays audio with her distorted cries. Describing the idea that formulated the short film in Lynch on Lynch, Lynch states, ‘Peggy’s niece was having a bad dream one night and was saying the alphabet in her sleep in a tormented way.’ Lynch had always been interested in the concept of dreams, tackling the concept across his 10 feature films, ranging from his first feature Eraserhead (1977) to his final feature Inland Empire (2006), and continuing its use in his famous television series Twin Peaks (1990-1991), and its’ follow-up Twin Peaks: The Return (2017).