This sole reason for why I watched "Gothic" was because I am a fan of Julian Sands. However, oddly enough, then I never got around to watching "Gothic" before now in the middle of 2019.

"Gothic" is by no means a great milestone in cinema history. Actually I found the movie to be so bizarre and having such an odd storyline that the movie wasn't particularly enjoyable. There was just too much strangeness happening throughout the entire course of the movie, and not in a great coherent sense, mind you.

The movie was visually great, because there was some really nice and interesting sets and props. This movie doesn't utilize an abundance of special effects, so don't go about expecting a visually great special effects experience.

The characters in the movie were adequate, although they were suffering from the lousy storyline and the slightly off-beat dialogue. This meant that the actors and actresses in the movie were fighting an uphill battle. I will say that they did have some interesting names on the cast list, aside from Julian Sands, which included the likes of Gabriel Byrne, Natasha Richardson and Timothy Spall.

I managed to sit through the entire course of this odd movie, but I can in all honesty say that I am never returning to it for a second viewing. The movie just didn't have much of any appeal to me.

The writer of Frankenstein (Natasha Richardson),her beau (Julian Sands) and half-sister (Myriam Cyr) visit the mad, bad recluse Lord Byron (Gabriel Byrne) at his lavish estate on Lake Geneva in Switzerland. There they meet Byron's equally bizarre physician friend (Timothy Spall) and spend the stormy night of June 16, 1816, in hallucinatory revelry, including a challenge to write a spooky story, which gave birth to Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" and John William Polidori's "The Vampyre," the first published modern vampire story.

The premise of "Gothic" (1986) is great, the first act is interesting and the short epilogue is effective. Unfortunately, the hour in between is meandering, hedonistic, perverse, outrageously overdone and utterly tedious. I can handle the unsavory elements (and expected them) as long as the story is compelling, but that's not the case. It's basically a string of coked-up theatrics and perversions in an attractively gothic setting.

Speaking of attractive, one of the few consolations is the jaw-dropping Natasha Richardson in her prime. She was Liam Neeson's wife from 1994 until her death in 2009 from a skiing accident.

If you want to see a gothic flick set in the 1800s that's actually decent, check out "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (1992). For a movie that treads similar terrain that's really good and in some ways great see "Marie Antoinette" (2006). "Gothic" is trash by comparison and fittingly bombed at the box office. Sometimes director Ken Russell's unique projects work, like "Altered States" (1980),but not this.

The film runs 1 hour, 27 minutes, and was shot at Gaddesden Place & Wrotham Park in Herfordshire, England. Thomas Dolby wrote the score, his first and last.

GRADE: C-/D+

Not a terrible film, but not one of Russell's best. It is very easy why one would be fascinated or dumbfounded, because it is a very good example of being a fairly unique film but a weird one at the same time, so you're not sure what to make of it(again very like Lisztomania). To be honest there's not a whole lot to add that hasn't already been said. The story is very jumpy and chaotic that it is not very easy to follow, sometimes in the middle verging on incoherent. There are a few dull stretches in the middle too, and the ending feels forced and structurally at odds with the rest of the film. Gothic can feel all-over-the-place tonally too, the subject matter- a good idea by the way- is relatively serious but is performed in a camp, theatrical way so it is not easy to take things seriously, considering that this is Ken Russell we're talking about that may have been the intent. There are not many directors quite like Ken Russell, and he is certainly an interesting one but also can resort to excess, and while not as badly as Lisztomania and the Richard Strauss documentary Dance of the Seven Veils this happens in Gothic. His touches do fit well generally within the decadent atmosphere but they are not always tasteful or relevant, sometimes overwrought, and they do swamp what's going on. Most of the cast are very good, taking on a characteristically(of Russell that is) theatrical approach, though Julian Sands' performance is a mix of soppy and over-exaggerated and Myriam Cyr's inexperience does show. Of the performances, Natasha Richardson for me gave the best performance, she was the most subtle actor in the cast and she does it with skill and allure. Timothy Spall is a total sleaze and so much fun to watch and Gabriel Byrne is mysterious personified. Some of Russell's excesses aside, Gothic is a well-made film, as Gothic as the title suggests and has the right amount of grandiose and decadent, which suits the tense and imaginative atmosphere to a tee. The photography was fine as well. Thomas Dolby's music score pulsates with eeriness and energy and not in an over-bearing way. The script doesn't always find the right tone, but I personally can't deny that the campiness was fun to watch and hear, even more so when the actors were uttering it with the amount of relish they did. The prologue at the beginning was beautifully done, it looked beautiful and had a real sense of atmosphere. On the whole, not an easy film to rate but while interesting and with a fair bit to recommend it was personally one of Russell's weaker films. 5/10 Bethany Cox