Dracula (2025)

Leave it to a Frenchman to make perfume a key ingredient in the old vampire’s story. That’s just one refinement that director Luc Besson brings to this retelling of Stoker’s tale. Normally I’m a stickler for story fidelity when it comes to adapting a book into a movie, but in this case some of the changes work quite well. You can forgive Besson for shifting a large part of the story’s setting from London to Paris—it is, after all, his home turf, and not exactly a place that’s not cinematic. The difference brings a certain freshness to the non-Romanian parts of the narrative, especially given the fin-de-siècle nature of the place and time. Meanwhile, other aspects of the story are preserved to a strong degree, making the overall film a blend of both faithful adaptation and creative extension and development. There are plenty of gothic elements and eye-catching visuals here; this outing clearly owes some debt to Coppola's now-thirty-years-old version, though it lacks most of that works gleeful ghoulishness. The principal actors are quite good in their roles, and it’s always welcome to see the ever-entertaining Christoph Waltz bringing his inimitable presence in the Van Helsing role. The only real misstep comes at the climax, when the ultimate battle turns into an actual battle, one that plays more as an over-the-top exercise in moviemaking rather than as an appropriate resolution to a conflict that is ultimately more psychological and spiritual than physical. Otherwise, we're on solid ground (consecrated or otherwise) here. You’d think, at this point, that this story has been told so many times that there could be little left to find exciting in any new adaptation, but here is a proof that creative individuals can bring something new to even the oldest—maybe even worn out tales. Contrary to the story’s core premise—and perhaps expectations—this movie definitely does not suck. 

Frankenstein (2025)

Director Guillermo del Toro takes a crack at telling a story everybody already knows—or do they? I daresay this exceptionally faithful adaptation of Shelley’s book (as near as I can remember it, having read it many years ago) will have more than a few surprises for those who only know the tale from James Whale’s film, and decades of Halloween decorations and other bastardized versions. More interesting than story setting (mostly, the Arctic) and details (he speaks) for those with broader knowledge are this work’s fascinating philosophical nuances. I’m not sure there’s been an adaption of the book that more clearly represents Victor’s work as not merely madness and hubris but actual outright villainy. That’s an important part of the story and makes it a primary analogy for any number of situations that involve the dangers of arrogance and overreach. From a cinematic standpoint, the most striking feature of this feature is its visual style; the scenes are all feasts for the eyes, especially the picture-perfect examples of gothic-romantic set design. (These sets really give vaulted ceilings a workout.) The script and acting are very good, too. Oscar Isaac does a fine job of being villainous without failing to convey that his character—the bad doctor—doesn’t believe himself to be the problem. Meanwhile, Jacob Elordi plays the creature from grunts to eloquence believably, while mixing in just the right amount of menace when the situation calls for it. This really is a strong candidate for best adaptation of this tale ever. Yeah, acts of creation often go awry, but sometimes they work out just fine. 

No Time to Die

A fitting swan song for Daniel Craig’s run as James Bond, even if it does get a little too mushy here and there. There are some minor pacing problems, but when the action comes it does so in sequences that rival any in the series. As with any Bond film, the eye candy must be first rate; here Lea Seydoux and Ana de Armas admirably fill that need here. Other cast members do good to excellent jobs in support. Mostly, though, this is about Craig, stating his case as (maybe) the best Bond ever. It may be hard to lift him above Connery--who after all defined the role, and had the advantage of better context (Cold War) and, frankly, better productions (storylines, writing, and that certain, mid-century spy movie joie de vivre) on his side--but the modern man probably sits at at least No.. 2. That's hardly something to be ashamed of. This last trip through the MI6 underworld reminds us how lucky we’ve been to have had the franchise resurrected from its seeming expiration back in the Dalton/Brosnan days, when the joy largely went out and camp was practically king. Our man--or, at least, the original king's man--will return, per the post-credits teaser--but it’s hard to imagine the new guy doing any better than Craig's body of work. (That is, assuming the new Bond is a guy, and that the producers don’t go really far off the reservation with their choice). This Bond may not have gone out with the biggest bang, but he left a big, shining legacy for film history to remember and enjoy.

Alita: Battle Angel

The ham-handed metaphor of people living in the sky vs. people on the ground/earth--a staple since "Jack and the Beanstalk"--has really been getting a workout in recent years. So it continues here. Lack of originality is one problem that manifests in this film; a certain muddiness to the plot is another issue. It's hard to tell who's really the villain here and who's just a side project. That's the bad news. The good news is, Rosa Salazar gives a very impressive performance as Alita, so much so given the fact that it's wrapped entirely in CGI. Another plus is the steady presence of Christoph Waltz. Those two principals are very likeable and drive the viewer's interest throughout these proceedings. The denouement is either provocatively left open-ended, or was meant to set up a sequel that box office receipts seem to indicate will never happen. Who knows? Alita the character is pulled off a scrap heap to become a movie's heroine--maybe her story will see a similar resurrection thanks to after-market sales.

Downsizing

A little bit of hucksterism goes a long way. Such seems to be the premise of this flick. It's a notion well worth pointing out, and that might be enough to build a movie upon--especially early on, when flaws in the characters' thinking and the sales pitch abound, and the viewer is just sort of grinning at how much smarter he is than the protagonists. But writer-director Alexander Payne has more on his mind. Soon the film turns mostly about the thought experiment--that is, getting the viewer to ask what would I do? And what would you do if you make that choice? On that level, I think this movie succeeds; as the story drills down into something more personal, it shifts tone and focus yet remains affecting. Most noteworthy is an amazing performance by Hong Chau as Matt Damon's eventual guiding light. She has to cover a wide range in her role while staying within a limited vocabulary, both verbal, physical and in characterization. This will not be a film that's everyone's cup of tea, but I think it's rewarding for viewers who are open to a thoughtful experience.

The Legend of Tarzan

Maybe this story just can't work in today's world. The original appeal of Burroughs' tale revolved around the clash of civilization vs the wild. Today, we're not so awed by the jungle anymore, especially as we know it's disappearing. Despite these hurdles, the folks here gamely give it a go, and they come close to pulling off a good adventure movie. The principals are fine in their roles: Alexander Sarsgaard is sufficiently ripped; Sam Jackson is his usual self; Margot Robbie does what she does, which is be good in any role; but Christoph Waltz is largely wasted playing a character wbo is too static--he needed more to do to make a greater impact. Beyond the human elements, things look good, but a series of visually spectacular set pieces does not a movie make. Overall, it's OK--the film holds the interest, and it looks good--but this movie comes with a nagging feeling that this is about as good as this story can get now, and that's not quite enough.

Spectre

Oh, yeah, it’s great and all that, probably among the best Bond movies of all, but...one can’t help but feel like this is more of an ending than a beginning. No wonder there was all that talk about this being the last in the series for Daniel Craig. It would be an odd point of departure; they’ve only just finally put the band together, and now they’re going to break up after one album, so to speak? Leaving such speculations aside, what can be firmly stated based upon this movie is this: Sam Mendes really knows how to direct a movie. He brings a visual flair to just about everything, and it’s a filmmaking sensibility that heightens everything in the picture, including the action set pieces, almost (but not quite) to a level of high art. The other thing is how perfectly Christoph Waltz captures the arch villain's fundamental enigma: a guy who’s smart enough to run the world is also stupid enough to let Bond get away, again...and again....and again. It’s all entertaining as hell--I just wish there wasn’t the constant threat that it’s all going to go away so soon.

Django Unchained

Is it wildly entertaining? Yes. Does it have all the layers you’d typically expect from a Tarantino movie? Sure. Will you think about it for quite some time after you’ve watched it? Of course. Is it a great movie? Well...Perhaps we’re grading on too steep a curve; maybe Q is the victim of overly lofty expectations. Hard to say, but while I did like this film, I wouldn’t say it’s quite up to snuff for such an audacious and ambitious director. There’s lots to like--the performances by Waltz and Jackson are marvels--but you can’t help but think that, in practical terms, most of the second half of the film doesn’t make much sense. Certainly you should see it; just don’t elevate it into the pantheon.