Addams Family Values

Image credit: IMDb

Continuing on with our little trip down the creepy and kooky rabbit hole that has been sparked with the new season of Wednesday on Netflix, Partner and I curled up last weekend to indulge in the family fun and madness of Addams Family Values.

While there is certainly a lot of love going on in the Addams family mansion with the arrival of baby Pubert, there is also discontent. While Wednesday and Puglsey concoct deadlier games to play with their brother, Uncle Fester begins to despair that he'll never find the special love that Gomez and Morticia have. But this changes when Debbie, the new babysitter, enters the mansion and Fester falls head over heels in love with her. But Debbie’s not really a babysitter, she’s a gold-digging serial killer known as the Black Widow and Fester is her next victim.

Where the first movie was all about the kooky novelty of the Addams family, the second one provides a bit more of a narrative backbone, giving the film semi-solid plot reasons for a few of the circumstance in which the characters find themselves. Alongside the central murder plot, which goes delightfully awry as Fester proves harder to kill than a cockroach, is the escape from summer camp plot starring Wednesday and Pugsley. For context, Debbie convinces Gomez and Morticia to send the kids to summer camp, as they suspect she’s not what she seems. Stuck at a cringeworthy camp for the rich and privileged, the two attempt a number of escapes before having to succumb to a full-out mutiny. During these scenes, we get to enjoy more of Wednesday and Puglsey as characters as well as a load of face-scrunching racism, ableism, and other political incorrectness because, it’s the ‘90s.

Still playing on the ironically sweet naivety and trustingness of the Addams Family and the idea that ‘normal’ people are actually the ones to be scared of, the film goes through a series of fun and chuckle-inducing sequences exploring themes of familial bonds, sex, and companionship.

Image credit: Fangoria

A lot more well-rounded that its predecessor, Addams Family Values is another fun, quirky, and engaging family comedy, definitely a bit dated in terms of some social commentary as well as janky special effects, but I think that all adds to the cinematic experience. There’s still never a dull moment.

Director: Barry Sonnenfeld, 1993

Cast: Angelica Houston, Raul Julia, Christopher Lloyd, Joan Cusack, Christina Ricci, Carol Kane, Jimmy Workman, Carel Struycken, Christopher Hart, David Krumholtz, Dana Ivey, Peter MacNicol & Christine Baranski

The Addams Family

Image credit: Wikipedia

One pro of the reboots and revamp debate in visually consumable media is that it does create/prove the longevity of certain stories or characters by exposing them to a different audience and seeing if it bites. As an example, Partner and I have been recently binging Wednesday on Netflix and enjoying the characters so much that we recently curled up on the weekend and watched the Addam’s Family movie from the early ‘90s.

The creepy, cooky, and eccentric Addams family have been lamenting the loss of their dear Uncle Fester for years, holding seances to try to find him either on this side of existence or the other. Their grief and vulnerability make them the prey of a group of con artists who send a Fester lookalike to infiltrate the manor and steal the fortune in their vault. But the plan starts to falter when Gordon, the undercover infiltrator, starts to develop rapports with the Addamses.

A classic ‘90s spoopy romp that is all about the sight gags and playing on the absurdity of its characters, The Addams Family is a delightfully funny movie that is 100% about its characters and aesthetic rather than its story. The weak narrative with an ending that you can already see coming a mile away is more of an afterthought, a necessary framing structure to support the delightful set design, costume design, performances, and visual comedy.

The fun of the Addams Family has always been the characters. In the role of Gomez Addams we have Raul Julia who is amorous, charismatic, and hilariously zealous in every dance or sword-fighting scene he’s in. We then have Angelica Houston as Morticia Addams: sultry, sincere, a beautifully morbid matriarch. Christina Ricci as Wednesday Addams delivers every line with a wonderfully unfathomable deadpan expression and inflection, and then Christopher Lloyd as ‘Uncle Fester’ provides the film with a significant portion of its comic relief, being the bodily trigger for many of the manor’s wonderful traps while also playing the role of heart-fluttering black sheep in an already unusual flock.

Image credit: vrogue.co

The Addams Family is a movie that delivers a cinematic experience based on how well the audience is across its characters and their history. I am certain that there were many jokes that we missed due to our having never seen the original series or followed the characters’ origins but nevertheless, we still found ourselves laughing out loud at the silliness and sharp-witted humour of the film as well as being touched by its heartwarming message about the staying power of family.

Director: Barry Sonnenfeld, 1991

Cast: Raul Julia, Angelica Houston, Christopher Lloyd, Dan Hedaya, Elizabeth Wilson, Christina Ricci, Judith Malina, Carel Stuycken, Dana Ivey, Jimmy Workman & Paul Benedict

Greed

Image credit: Wikipedia

Greed and the pursuit of capital has been a villainous theme in storytelling for centuries, with the hubris of those afflicted delivering satisfying emotional payoff for audiences of all races, ages, and genders. Even though one can absolutely guess where characters are heading in a film entitled Greed, the craftmanship and artistic direction of Erich von Stroheim’s 1924 silent classic still holds shock and cringe value for the modern audience.

The film follows quack dentist, Mac McTeague (Gibson Gowland) who falls in love with an extraction patient, Trina (Zasu Pitts) despite his best friend Marcus (Jean Hersholt) already being sweet on her. As a sign of friendship, Marcus gives Mac his blessing to court Trina, but changes his attitude when, shortly after their marriage, she wins five thousand dollars in a lottery. The sudden fortune starts to put a strain on Mac and Trina’s relationship as Trina hoards her winnings, even when Marcus forces Mac out of business and the couple begins to starve.

An adaptation of the novel McTeague by Frank Norris, Greed is credited as the first film to be shot entirely on location. Showcasing 1920s San Francisco, the film is an epic psychological drama that depicts the poisonous and corrosive nature of addiction. Rather than showing a terrifying descent into madness due to alcohol or narcotics a la Blow or Days of Wine and Roses, Greed explores how the fundamental need for capital can become a cyst that can fester and grow to the point where it destroys even the strongest relationships. Alongside the terrible ends that meet our heroes-turned-villains, we lament the death of the wholesome and sweet tone that the film begins with before Stroheim begins to torment us with disturbing and borderline erotic scenes that include starved and elongated limbs caressing mounds of gold.

The performances are all incredible with Gowland and Pitts both starting the film as likeable and upstanding people and then plummeting into a free-fall of manipulation, gaslighting, drunkenness, and violence.

Image credit: Wikipeda

Considering that the original runtime was over nine hours, then cut down to four and, finally, to two, Stroheim manages to tell a very rich and disturbing story, mainly through his use of mise en scene and reflective metaphors. The shots of Mac’s pet birds that he presents as a wedding gift are particularly powerful in depicting the marital turmoil, beginning the second act as docile and loving creatures before shrieking and fighting some scenes later. We then have the increasing grubbiness of the costumes, set, and even the camera lens as the final scenes in the third act, set in Death Valley, take on a grainier and dustier look – aside from the shots of the bag of gold of course.

A film that claimed notoriety for its behind the scenes story as well as the one it enthrallingly tells on screen, Greed is captivatingly dramatic and disturbing.

Director: Erich von Stroheim, 1924

Cast: Gibson Gowland, Zasu Pitts, Jean Hersholt, Dale Fuller, Tempe Pigott, Sylvia Ashton, Chester Conklin, Franke Hayes & Joan Standing

Dr. Mabuse, Der Spieler (Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler)

Image credit: Wikipedia

There is no doubt that, narratively, genre films have gone through phases of becoming increasingly complicated: whether it be the ‘scientific’ intricacies of sci-fi or the superhero origin story, or the seemingly endless cast of characters that populate a gangster drama. There have definitely been a number of movies that I have gotten to the end of and thought, ‘there was a bit too much in that for me to keep track of’.

I discovered recently that this overloading audiences with everything plus the kitchen sink approach is nothing new though, having just finished watching Fritz Lang’s 1922 2-part thriller Dr. Mabuse, Der Spieler (Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler).

The film chronicles the dramatic, thrilling, and unsettling exploits of Dr. Mabuse (Rudolf Klein-Rogge), a renown supercriminal and master of disguise with ambitions to upset the stability of society and rule over Berlin. From running a counterfeit operation to stealing a Swiss-Dutch trade agreement and causing a major upset in the stock market, Mabuse’s plans are far-reaching and grand, which becomes a problem when the determined State Attorney von Wenk (Bernhard Goetzke) gets on his trail.

While the narrative itself is not too difficult to follow: it’s essentially a thrilling game of cat and mouse between the societal ‘hero’ and the supervillain, Lang packs the film to absolute bursting point with everything from politics, to satire, to sex, to social commentary, to horror, violence, art, psychology, and special effects. A commercial success in which the villain is the embodiment of the real evils of the era, Dr. Mabuse treads a fine line between the surreal and the pulpy. You can definitely see elements of the noir, a little prophetic of the hardboiled detective films of Bogart, Oceans Eleven, and even Die Hard.

While the achievements in makeup design, set design, costumes, and even special effects are to be applauded in this movie, the real star is the narrative figure of Mabuse. A vessel for the film’s social commentary on the ‘worth’ of money, the strength of morals, and the terrifying idea that we can’t even trust our own minds, Mabuse is wonderfully manipulative both inside and outside the film. Handling identity photos like a deck of playing cards, we don’t even get confirmation of who this character is until almost midway through the film, his actions and reactions are indicative of a person with no readable (thus unfathomable) emotional slate, and there is a truly delicious – if very tragic- irony in what happens to him in the end. Lang expertly uses Mabuse as a key narrative tool to convey the intelligence of this movie that lies underneath all the shallow thrills of sex, violence, action, and intrigue. It’s very smart, very compelling, and stands up against the tests of time.

Image credit: Film Forum

Considering that this is the man who would later bring us Metropolis, it’s unsurprising that this level of spectacle could be achieved in a (seemingly) simple cat-and-mouse criminal thriller. Dr. Mabuse, while long, harbours a lot to be enjoyed.

Director: Fritz Lang, 1922

Cast: Rudolph Klein-Rogge, Alfred Abel, Aud Egede Nissen, Gertrude Welcker, Bernhard Goetzke, Robert Forster-Larrinaga, Paul Richterll, Hans Adalbert Schlettow, Georg John, Grete Berger, Julius Falkenstein, Lydia Potechina, Anita Berber, Paul Biensfeldt & Karl Platen

Orphans of the Storm

Image credit: Rotten Tomatoes

It’s interesting to consider the vast history of cinema, specifically the fact that we have gone through the advent of sound and colour and computer-generated effects and still there are so many terrible films in the world. As a modern movie-watcher, it tickles me particularly that I can go back and watch a black and white silent movie and still have as good a cinematic experience as if I were watching a contemporary flick.

This morning, I was back into my 1001 project (which now is horrendously outdated, but I’m still going to do it) and watched another epic drama from D. W. Griffith: Orphans of the Storm.

A French aristocrat is forced to abandon her baby born from a commoner and leaves it on the steps of a church with a single note, ‘Her name is Louise. Love her.’ A poor man is about to leave his own daughter, named Henriette, on the same church steps to save her from starvation, but instead brings both babies home and raises them as sisters. After losing their parents to a plague Louise (Dorothy Gish) is left blind and Henriette (Lillian Gish) determines to travel with her to Paris to find a cure. Shortly after arriving the two sisters are separated, Henriette being abducted by a lavish aristocrat and Louise forced to beg for the crooked commoners who ‘charitably’ take her in. As revolution brews in the streets, Henriette tries desperately to escape from her captor and reunite with her sister.

Orphans of the Storm is the last of D. W. Griffiths great, historical melodramas that tells a beautiful story of love in times of turmoil. As extravagant as any of his other works, it's both a visual feast and a dramatic, narrative triumph. Despite being based on a play, Griffith wrote the screen during filming, which obviously gave rise to all sorts of complications. But nevertheless, the film rose to the challenge and even today, remains a masterpiece of stage direction, set and costume design, and dramatic performances.

Sticking to one historical time period unlike Intolerance, the film takes place during the French Revolution giving Griffith ample space to dazzle audiences with lavish and excessive costumes as well as incredible sets that really hammer home the social disconnect between the aristocracy and the working class. Elaborate dresses, and suits, and hats, and wigs put us in mind of the ballroom scene in Labyrinth or an Ultravox music video while you can practically feel the lice crawling over you when you watch the scenes set in the street or impoverished hovels of the commoners.

Image credit: United Artists

The Gish sisters deliver performances that have been praised as the best of their careers, absolutely shadowing the otherwise male-dominated cast.

Filled with drama, romance, action, and suspense, Orphans of the Storm is a classic from a bygone era that still stands up.

Director: D. W. Griffith, 1921

Cast: Lillian Gish, Dorothy Gish, Joseph Schildkraut, Franke Losee, Katherine Emmet, Morgan Wallace, Lucille La Verne, Sheldon Lewis, Frank Puglia, Creighton Hale, Leslie King, Monte Blue, Sidney Herbert, Lee Kohlmar & Marcia Harris

The Fantastic Four: First Steps

Image credit: Disney

Leaving the shores of black and white for a jaunt into the more modern age, this weekend saw me diving back into the MCU with The Fantastic Four: First Steps. I’ll admit there was some trepidation, after all there hasn’t yet been a Fantastic Four movie that has been particularly good: the one from the Naughties I recall with a bit of embarrassed nostalgia and honestly, I never bothered seeing the remake in the 2010s. But of course, there have been too many hints that the cosmic-hero quartet were muscling into the MCU, so I had to go see it. I’m glad to say that I was pleased with the experience.

Reed Richards, Ben Grimm, Susan and Johnny Storm have been the protectors of the world since venturing to space and coming back with superpowers. Now they are about to voyage to a whole new frontier: parenthood. Shortly after announcing Sue and Reed’s pregnancy, a mysterious silver surfer comes to Earth heralding its destruction. The four heroes suit up and follow the herald into space where they discover a monstrous, consuming entity named Galactus, who agrees to spare their world in exchange for Reed and Sue’s baby.

What’s nice about Fantastic Four: First Steps is that it works as another standalone Marvel movie. Despite taking place within the multiverse, no prior knowledge of the various other universes and timelines is really required. Like the later Thor movies or Multiverse of Madness, First Steps is another enjoyable genre piece, paying homage to the comics’ Silver Age in the 1960s. Set in a campy, retro, yet somehow also space age NY, it’s got the feel of a classic ‘60s sitcom or cartoon – the predominant vibe is The Jetsons -  with a refreshing edge of not being over dramatized.

Where a slight bit of discombobulation comes in is from the scenes that take place in outer space, in which the modern computer wizards have free reign to remind us that this is an MCU movie. The special effects of Galactus and Shalla-Bal are visually very impressive and the battle sequences that take place both in space and NY are reminiscent of The Avengers, Thor, or Guardians of the Galaxy. But the jarring contrast between the ’60s futuristic sets and the great beyond is fleeting and doesn’t really dampen any of the fun cinematic experience of the film.

Image credit: Space

With great performances, funky set designs, and classic Marvel special effects, Fantastic Four: First Steps is a fun instalment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Director: Matt Shakman, 2025

Cast: Pedro Pascal, Vanessa Kirby, Ebon Moss-Bachrach, Joseph Quinn, Ralph Ineson, Julia Garner, Mark Gatiss, Sarah Niles, Matthew Wood, Paul Walter Hauser & Natasha Lyonne

Intolerance

Image credit: Amazon

The cinematic masterpiece: what makes it so? We’ve had over a century of cinema and I don’t believe we have even come close to identifying a magic formula that makes a masterpiece. They just are or they become. The ones that later become celebrated thanks to the progression of time and the changing of cultural attitudes are the more interesting ones to consider. Films such as D.W Griffith’s Intolerance.

The film explores tragedy fuelled by intolerance and the struggles of love through the ages over the course of four stories. A selection of events from the life of Jesus, a tale from Babylon in which a king is betrayed by those against his rejection of sectarianism, the story of the St Bartholemew’s Day Massacre of French Protestants, and a modern melodrama in which a young man is wrongly convicted of murder.

While critically hailed as a masterpiece today, thanks to its epic scale and ahead-if-its-time editing, Intolerance is also considered an epic disaster and flop in Hollywood’s history; (ironically) thanks to its epic scale and ahead-if-its-time editing.

Riding high off the success of Birth of a Nation, it’s believed that Griffith made this epic doom-and-gloom saga of tragic love stories as something of a retort to the backlash he received regarding the racial politics in Birth. Indeed, he released a pamphlet entitled ‘The Rise and Fall of Free Speech in America’ to coincide with Intolerance’s release, arguing against film censorship. And it certainly is a film that forces audiences to look at some hard truths about human behaviour. Everything from conspiracy, to betrayal, to incredible violence, to jealousy, to a plethora of prejudices is depicted.

While the audience of the time struggled with the random time-jumping and crosscutting between stories, the modern audience – especially feminist- will cringe at the questionable ‘love’ stories, the rough treatment of women on screen, and the fact that none of the young heroines are given names.

Then there is the sheer size of the thing. The film is famous for having had a couple of million invested in it to make a lavish spectacle: the enormous sets for the Babylon sequences are monumental and very impressive, as well as the elaborate costumes for the both the Babylon story and the French period drama. Add to this a herd of elephants, camels, catapults, and what appears to be a flame-throwing Babylonian tank, it’s a very elaborate visual feast that sadly failed to make back its costs.

Image credit: Amazon

The performances are captivating, if you can keep track of who everyone is, and this is good because both original and contemporary audiences immediately baulk at the thought of sitting down for that long: the film’s runtime is 3 hours.  While the pacing of the first half of the film can stretch and feel doughy, the climactic final act proves to be quite nail-bitingly dramatic and exciting.

There are certainly a number of things about Intolerance that make it a landmark piece of Hollywood history, but I don’t think that the ‘genius’ of D. W. Griffith stands the test of time. Like Metropolis – another piece of extravagant cinema- you need to really psych yourself up to get through this endurance trial of a film.

Director: D. W. Griffith, 1916

Cast: Spottiswoode Aitken, Mary Alden, Frank Bennett, Barney Bernard, Monte Blue, Lucille Browne, Tod Browning, William H. Brown, Edmund Burns, William E. Cassidy, Elmer Clifton, Miriam Cooper, Jack Cosgrove, Josephine Crowell, Dore Davidson, Sam De Grasse, Edward Dillon, Pearl Elmore, Lillian Gish, Ruth Handforth, Robert Harron, Joseph Henabery, Chandler House, Lloyd Ingraham, W. E. Lawrence, Ralph Lewis, Vera Lewis, Elmo Lincoln, Walter Long, Mrs. Arthur Mackley, Tully Marhsall, Mae Marsh, Marguerite Marsh, John P. McCarthy, A.W. McClure, Seena Owen, Alfred Paget, Eugene Pallette, Georgia Pearce, Billy Quirk, Wallace Reid, Allan Sears, George Siegmann, Maxfield Stanley, Carl Stockdale, Madame Sul-Te-Wan, Constance Talmadge, F.A. Turner, W.S. Van Dyke, Guenther von Ritzau, Erich von Stroheim, George Walsh, Eleanor Washington, Margery Wilson, & Tom Wilson