SCREEN-L Archives

November 1994, Week 4


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 25 Nov 1994 15:51:25 CST
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (45 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Well I had quite a weekend. I saw Frankenstein on Sat. (11/12)and Interview
with the Vampire on Sunday (11/13). I thought Frankenstein was far superior
to Interview. It drew me in and made me feel something where Interview did
not. I went into both rather skeptical but Frankenstein distracted me away
from my cynicism.
Someone said Interview was boring. I couldn't agree more. I must say that I
have read all the Vampire Chronicles (even the crappy last one) and enjoyed
at least the first two immensely. This knowledge of what could be in the
film colored my viewing of it. I can't help that. It was all so,
conventional. For the most part I was not impressed with the visual aspects
of the film. I thought that vampire makeup and most of the special effects
were uninteresting and did little to suspend my disbelief. The movie only
became beautiful when they got to Paris.
I smacked my forehead when I first heard Tom Cruise would be Lestat, it's
true, but I found Brad Pitt to be more miscast. Louis is a swooner, a
fainter. He becomes entranced by things after receiving "The Dark Gift".
Louis is morose, not dull and emotionless as Pitt was all too often. Cruise
for brief moments didn't seem like Cruise and did well with his comic lines
but his yelling is always phony and the angry bits were his worst in
Interview as well. The rest of the cast was excellent. I found myself more
interested in the victims than in Pitt or Cruise and that shouldn't happen.
I thought the music was awful and if it were better some scenes might have
been saved.
The music in Frankenstein was one of it's problems. The compositions
themselves I thought were good but, as others have noted, sometimes too
loud. I won't argue with the label of "overwrought" but I don't think it
applies to the acting. If the reactions of the characters seem a bit
extreme, it's only because of the extremity they are reacting to.
I was impressed by the special effects and makeup in Frankenstein and
surprised by the blood and gore in the film. This must be the messiest
Frankenstein ever. I thought the acting was very good as I would expect
from such a cast. Someone thought that Brannagh didn't show enough of the
downside of being a mad inventor and was too tame. I think of all the
leads, he was the one who could have done more with his part. I think
perhaps he should try choosing between acting and directing sometimes.
Who would've thought the day would come when Frankenstein would bring more
romanticism and fear out of me than Vampires?
_________________________               _____________________
Never Get Out of the Boat       |       [log in to unmask]