Young Frankenstein review

Number 279 on the top 1000 films of all time is Mel Brooks' parody of the horror genre ‘Young Frankenstein.’

Frederick Frankenstein (Gene Wilder) is the grandson of the legendary Victor Frankenstein. But he wants nothing to do with his grandfather, so much so, that he goes by “Fronkensteen.” However, upon returning to Transylvannia, he soon returns to his grandfather’s experiments aided by his deformed servant I-gor (Marty Feldman) and his love interest and assistant Inga. (Terri Garr)

Mel Brooks is well-known for his parodies from Blazing Saddles to the fantastic Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. Although primarily a loving pastiche of the Frankenstein films of the thirties, it also pastiches the horror genre of a whole. Mel Brooks utilised a number of transitions, such as the screenwipes that you would never see today.

He also made the unusual choice of rendering the film in black and white. Yet this stylistic decision coupled with the background scenery of houses painted at abstract angles, made for a delightful call-back to the German expressionist films of the thirties. Brooks’ scenery, music and camerawork wouldn’t have been out of place in a Fritz Lang film.

Wilder and Feldman were also brilliant. Wilder gave it his all, as the maniacal Frankenstein. He was delightfully over-the-top, just how you would expect in one of the horror films of old. Marty Feldman provided most of the laughs as the hapless assistant I-gor. Some of this came from his brilliant improvisational talents. I-gor has a hump which Feldman kept secretly moving from side to side. When Frankenstein questions him about this, I-gor replies “what hump?”

Lastly, I have to give some credit to Terri Garr who played Inga. She very much encapsulated the standard damsel-in-distress prone to standing around and looking pretty/scared. It’s a role you would commonly expect from the old horror films. And it’s a role that she did well.

Yet despite all this, the film felt lacking. Sure it was funny, but I wasn’t crying tears of laughter. I’m glad I saw it the once, but I don’t need to see it again. 

Crimes and Misdemeanours review

 Number 278 on the top 1000 films of all time is Woody Allen's 1989 comedy-drama Crimes and Misdemeanours.

Crimes and Misdemeanours follows two characters. The first is the ophthalmologist Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau) whose marriage is threatened when his mistress Dolores (Angelica Huston) threatens to tell his wife about their affair. The second character is the married TV producer Clifford Stern (Woody Allen) who falls in love with his fellow producer Halley Reed (Mia Farrow),

If it bends, it’s funny.

If it breaks, it is not.”

 

This film must have been broken, because I didn’t find it funny in the slightest. I can’t think of one occasion where I even cracked a smile. It wasn’t like there were jokes that fell flat, there was barely any jokes at all. Just annoying characters and faux-philosophy.

I’ve never hidden the fact that I don’t like Woody Allen, as a writer, director or actor. He always plays the same character of the middle-aged Jewish, neurotic writer going through a midlife crisis. That would be fine if his characters were likeable, but they’re not. They’re whiny and irritating. Clifford was no exception.

He was absolutely insufferable, as the pathetic film writer trying to rationalise having an affair on his affair. Note how I said pathetic, not pititful – he deserved no pity whatsoever.

He was a bland, unengaging character. I felt no reason to care or root for his romance with Halley Reed at all. I can say the same for Judah. He was similarly pathetic in his desperate attempts to keep his mistress away from his wife. If anything, he was worse than Clifford, because at least the latter had some gumption. Judah was very much ready to roll over and die.

Clifford spends a lot of his time taking his niece to see classic Hollywood films in the cinema – we would often see these films play on the screen too. I found this a peculiar choice. It was like I was watching more of these films than I was Crimes and Misdemeanours. And those films were highly more interesting.

Would it be going too far to say that even making this film was a crime and misdemeanour? Perhaps. But it was a tiresome film with two of the most annoying protagonists ever.