Blokes from Across the Pond

When Stevee celebrated her blog's third birthday last week, she listed the blogs that she calls favorites. When she mentioned my blog, she said this:

Any movie I wanna know about, she's likely got it covered. Any British actor I wanna know about, she's likely got it covered.

The second sentence got me intrigued. I mean, I'll admit I like actors from the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales) but am I really an expert on them? I highly doubt it. That said, I do have my favorites. So here are my 25 favorite actors from across the pond. (Also throwing in a few actors from Ireland because why not?)

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

The opening moments of Rouben Mamoulin's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are seen through the eyes of Dr. Henry Jekyll (Fredric March). This is probably to establish simply what his world looks like. But as the film slowly wears on, it's not an ideal world for one to be a part of.

He longs to marry Muriel Carew (Rose Hobart) immediately, but her father suggests they wait a while. No one truly appreciates his love of science, so disappointment almost comes naturally to him as a result. But he's too reserved to openly express his true feelings.

His alter ego Mr. Hyde (which was the result of a curious experiment), however, isn't afraid to speak his mind. If something angers him, he says so. He's openly abusive to Ivy Pearson (Miriam Hopkins). And, if not careful, he will venture into darker matters.

March gives a fascinating performance as Jekyll and Hyde. As Jekyll, he's quiet and reserved, a perfect gentleman if you will. (Or an angel as Ivy calls him.) As Hyde, he's a pure beast. (Ivy calls him the devil.) No surprise on how he won that Oscar.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is very good though it feels rushed in some scenes. March and also Hopkins are great in their roles. It's definitely one of the essential 1930s horror films. (And boy, you can tell this was made in the pre-code era.)

My Rating: ****1/2

The Others

If you were to ask me what makes for a great horror film, I would give you a simple list. The essential elements for any good horror film include a creepy score, equally creepy cinematography (ie, lots of shadows, very little natural light), and not knowing what'll happen next. (Oh, and actors who know what they're doing also helps.)

Alejandro Amenabar's The Others has every single one of those elements and boy, are they in full effect beautifully. Most haunted houses films rely on the usual cliches: the creepy sight in the mirror, the writing on the wall, stuff of that nature. Amenabar wisely throws them out the window.

The leading lady of The Others is Nicole Kidman, an ideal choice for this kind of role. Even with the strange happenings within her home, she keeps her composure until the very end. She doesn't get hysterical the minute something strange happens. She keeps her ground, regardless of who or what is threatening her family.

Amusingly, The Others is much like The Innocents, released forty years earlier. The main connection is that both are loose adaptations of Henry James' The Turn of the Screw, but there's also a deeper bond. Both films revolve around women with quiet inner turmoil in their lives and the workings of their minds slowly starting to unravel. Oh, and both lead performances (Kidman in The Others, Deborah Kerr in The Innocents) are some of the finest works from its actresses.

Anyway, The Others is a brilliant film. Along with directing and writing it, Amenabar also provides a very creepy score that's worthy of Hitchcock. And that ending. Oh, that ending. It's brilliant.

My Rating: *****

Bride of Frankenstein

Horror sequels basically never deliver as well as their predecessors. (This is practically a known fact to anyone who's seen enough horror films.) It's when the director of the sequel knows what they're doing results in a solid film.

A prime example is James Whale's Bride of Frankenstein, released four years after the original. It's interesting because if you've seen Frankenstein, you would've thought that was the end of the story. But in fact, that was only the end of the first chapter.

In some ways, Whale actually improved what he told in Frankenstein. How so? He makes Dr. Frankenstein (Colin Clive) regret his actions from before. He removes unwanted characters and adds those meaningful to the story. It's almost a tragedy that his career went downhill afterwards.

There are some analyses that highlight the hidden themes of Bride of Frankenstein, the main one being homosexuality. One analysis placed Whale in the form of the Monster (Boris Karloff), mostly the social rejection towards it. It's seems fitting since Whale was an openly gay director from an era where many homosexuals stayed in the closet. It's just a bold statement from him.

Bride of Frankenstein is without a doubt one of the best horror films in existence. It's an even more interesting film to watch if you've also seen Gods and Monsters (its title is a reference to a line from Bride of Frankenstein). Try to watch it as not just a horror film but also a character study.

My Rating: *****

Frailty

There's always a good omen when the opening credits of a film leave an impact. Take Se7en, Catch Me If You Can and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang as recent examples for this. (Older examples include those designed by Saul Bass.)

Another good recent example is Bill Paxton's Frailty. Depicting crime scenes photos and sensational headlines screaming about murder, they set the framework of what the film is about. And what is Paxton's directorial debut even about? How twisted a man's mental state can become.

You've heard of those case studies where the guilty party claimed God told them to do their deeds? (To me, those cases just send chills up my spine because they don't see the error of their ways.) That is the story Paxton tells his audience and damn, it's a creepy one. A true rarity nowadays.

The actors are just great. Frailty contains one of the few great performances of Matthew McConaughey's career. There's also some really solid work from child actors Matt O'Leary and Jeremy Sumpter. But this show belongs to Paxton. The deadness in his (and McConaughey's) stare is one that you don't forget.

Frailty has to be one of the best horror films of the last ten years. That's pretty much a given. I hope Paxton directs another film as great as this. Dude knows how to make a film. (Oh, and I hope McConaughey gets another role like this. Dude's actually a good actor.)

My Rating: ****1/2

Freaks

They say that films from the 1930s were wholesome and clean. Whoever said that clearly never saw any of the horror films from that era. Many of the films from that time period influenced so many films in the decades to come.

That said, there are some that filmmakers don't even dare to top. One such film is Tod Browning's Freaks. The fact that no one had even thought of remaking it shows the film's impact. The fact this was made back in 1932 makes it all the more shocking.

Browning (who directed Dracula the year before) knows how to captivate his audience. How so? Simple: he takes a story commonly found in most films and gives it a surreal take on it. Think of it as Double Indemnity set in the circus.

The most curious factor of Freaks is that the freaks in question aren't the people who allow themselves to be put on display because of their deformities. The freaks are actually trapeze artist Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova) and her strongman lover Hercules (Henry Victor). That's because Browning makes the "freaks" human and glorifies the bad traits within Cleopatra and Hercules. It's a clever move by him.

Freaks is, well, a freaky film. Just watching it shows why it got so much controversy eighty years ago and how it shocks today. Finally, a film Hollywood doesn't even dare to remake. (You never see those nowadays. Never.)

My Rating: *****

The Wicker Man

This is generally a rule of thumb. (Or it should be.) Any remake of some sort is usually one to avoid. It's the original film that should be seen. (There are a few exceptions of course, but they're so rare.)

In 2006, Neil LaBute unwisely remade Robin Hardy's The Wicker Man. The end result was an unintentional comedy ("NOT THE BEES!") and a complete failure. If you're wondering, this review's about Hardy's film and not LaBute's. (Like I would even think about watching a crap remake.)

Hardy's film, released thirty-three years before LaBute's, takes its material seriously unlike LaBute's film. It focuses on sex, religion and cults to a very provocative level. (Then again, any film from the 1970s focusing on those subjects would be on that level. After all, The Wicker Man was released the same year as The Exorcist.)

I don't know why, but this films reminds me of Hot Fuzz. (It's not because Edward Woodward, the star of The Wicker Man, had a small role in Hot Fuzz.) I think it's because both films revolve around an outsider police officer visiting a small rural village where the residents act in strange ways. That's only a guess, mind you. I don't know the precise reason.

Anyway, The Wicker Man is fantastic. (Then again, can you go wrong with a film that has Christopher Lee in a juicy supporting role?) But, man, that ending though. It gets under your skin in all the right ways. Truly haunting stuff.

My Rating: ****1/2

The Haunting

I admire directors who dabble in different genres. Anyone who can depict a variety of different subjects with complete ease is bound to be someone I'll like. (That is precisely why I like George Cukor and Howard Hawks so much.)

Another noted director is Robert Wise. He has done a number of varying genres from musical (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) to sci-fi (The Day the Earth Stood Still) to war (Run Silent, Run Deep) to sports (Somebody Up There Likes Me). Then again, can you really go wrong with the man who also edited Citizen Kane?

Wise also dabbled with horror in the form of The Haunting, which he amusingly made between his two Oscar-winning musicals. This is practically a textbook example of what a horror film should be like. (Seriously, Hollywood. Quit fucking around with unwanted sequels and remakes.)

The main draw of The Haunting isn't just the story Wise is telling. It's also the acting, especially Julie Harris. The unhinged nature of her character can be compared to Catherine Deneuve in Repulsion two years later. A far cry from her work in East of Eden, that goes without saying.

The Haunting definitely ain't your typical haunted house film and believe me, that's a very good thing. That creepy cinematography is just divine, precisely what a horror film should be presented as to the masses. Bravo, Mr. Wise.

My Rating: *****

Frankenstein

This year has been filled with adaptations of Mary Shelley's famous novel for me. This summer I saw two screenings of Danny Boyle's brilliant stage production. Earlier this month, I saw Tim Burton's stop-motion homage Frankenweenie. (I'm not complaining: I just find it...unusual.)

And what better way to cap them all off than with James Whale's famous film? Made in an era where horror films were king, Frankenstein tells of a tale where one man tempts the moral ethics of his being. How? Nothing too extreme. Just trying to create a "am" from the remains of corpses.

The man in question is Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive), a brilliant but visibly disturbed mind. (Not sure why the name went from Victor to Henry.) His devotion to his work becomes an unhealthy obsession, something that those close to him can clearly see. Yet he sees no flaws in it. Method to his madness, I suppose.

The "man" is, of course, played by Boris Karloff. Along with Bela Lugosi in Dracula and Claude Rains in The Invisible Man, Karloff just makes the role his own. There have been many imitators, but there can only be one original.

It feels rushed towards the end, but Frankenstein is still a great film. Whale knows how to capture the rage within both the creature and its creator, channeling anger towards the society that has scorned them. Oh, and you just can't beat Clive's manic delivery of this line: "Now I know what it feels like to be God!"

My Rating: ****1/2

Ali

Raging Bull. Rocky. Somebody Up There Likes Me. These are a few titles that spring to mind when great boxing films are discussed. The reason is simple. They know how to depict the life of the boxer both in the ring and out.

If only I could say the same for Michael Mann's Ali. I mean, I don't blame Mann for trying to tell a tale. I just blame him for trying too hard. (I don't like it when good directors stoop to that level.)

I do, however, admire Mann for providing the brief backstory of Muhammad Ali (Will Smith). He pretty much chronicles the pivotal events in Ali's professional life, which, in this case, were during the mid to late 1960s. (This of course was an era where everyone and everything was changing.) It's not like what Mann did with The Insider, but Lord knows it's better than Public Enemies.

Smith is pretty much perfect as Ali. He's charismatic and knows how to get people to like him. But as Ali, he makes a few enemies. Just goes to show you that even the greatest have their downfalls.

Ali clearly has its flaws, but Smith (as well as Jamie Foxx) keep it afloat. Perhaps the main flaw of the film is simply that the story doesn't go anywhere. It just...stays put. But as I said earlier, even the greatest have their downfalls.

My Rating: ****