Frida.

Review #1822: Frida.

Cast: 

Salma Hayek (Frida Kahlo), Alfred Molina (Diego Rivera), Geoffrey Rush (Leon Trotsky), Mía Maestro (Cristina Kahlo), Ashley Judd (Tina Modotti), Antonio Banderas (David Alfaro Siqueiros), Edward Norton (Nelson Rockefeller), Diego Luna (Alejandro Gonzalez Arias), Margarita Sanz (Natalia Sedova), Patricia Reyes Spíndola (Matilde Kahlo), Roger Rees (Guillermo Kahlo), and Valeria Golino (Lupe Marín) Directed by Julie Taymor.

Review: 

If one wants to hear about an entertainer director that made marks in both film and stage, Julie Taymor would be a useful start. Born in Massachusetts, Taymor developed an interest in theatre from a young age, complete with study with L'École Internationale de Théâtre Jacques Lecoq before moving onto Oberlin College (where she studied mythology and folklore). She honed her interests through masks and dance while first serving as director in New York theatres in 1974. She would make a variety of plays such as Shakespeare productions before having her prime moment with her production of The Lion King on Broadway, which was one of the most popular productions of its day in 1997, complete with Tony Awards for Taymor. Meanwhile, Taymor also did ventures into filmmaking, having her first directorial effort with an American Playhouse-produced film with "Fool's Fire" (which both premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and aired on PBS). Her feature debut was Titus (1999), which received fair marks (particularly with costume design). In her film career, she has made five films in over two decades of work. You might be surprised to hear that this film went through a lengthy development hell, with a plethora of considerations considered that involved Madonna, Jennifer Lopez, and Robert De Niro at different points. Hayek (who had slowly built a presence in Hollywood in the mid-1990s) had been interested in doing the role for a number of years, and by that time the works of Kahlo was attracting further interest from art folks, but it only came around in 2001 with Miramax alongside a variety of producers (seven credited) and four credited screenwriters (Clancy Sigal, Diane Lake, Gregory Nava, Anna Thomas) that listed Hayden Herrera's Frida: A Biography of Frida Kahlo as adaptation material, as championed by book editor/literary agent-turned-executive Nancy Hardin.

Admittedly, I had considered watching this film for a number of years, if only because one is always curious about art (no matter how "mediocre" or bad one is at it, as I can attest to). I think most of us at least know about the works of Frida Kahlo (born of German and Mexican heritage), if only because of how striking her art is. With a runtime of 123 minutes, I think the movie does a spectacular job in capturing the artist with enough strokes in style and engagement to make a solid biopic, one that runs through a number of interesting events in the life of Kahlo (and Rivera) with useful patience that never seems to collapse into easy generalizations. It captures the essence of someone with growing pain and talent for a fitting capture of an artist with such a vibrant personality that honors the art without falling into hagiography. With a useful ensemble like this, it should only make sense that Hayek (who received a plethora of award nominations for her role) leads the way with suitable timing, having a burning sense of self that lives through two great accidents (a trolly and Diego Rivera) with honesty. The chemistry between her and Molina sears through with confounding energy, one that endures with the quality of a bird and an elephant that is endearingly watchable, and Molina makes a good showman to pair with Hayek. The rest of the group come and go with varying strokes that hone interest for what is needed when looking upon history with general interest, with Rush and Norton probably being the most notable of the historical presences that compare interestingly when played against Hayek (of course, Golino is quietly effective in small moments spent with Hayek too). The clash of visions (ideological or not) collides for an engaging movie that elevates its subject (complications and all) for a curious biography worth watching from a director engaged with making entertaining projects with style to accompany it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: To end our month of Women Directors...we end with Marie Antoinette (2006).

Rain Man.

Review #1488: Rain Man.

Cast:
Dustin Hoffman (Raymond "Ray" Babbitt), Tom Cruise (Charles "Charlie" Babbitt), Valeria Golino (Susanna), Jerry Molen (Dr. Bruner), Ralph Seymour (Lenny), Michael D. Roberts (Vern), Bonnie Hunt (Sally Dibbs), Beth Grant (Mother at Farm House), and Lucinda Jenney (Iris) Directed by Barry Levinson (#383 - The Natural and #561 - Diner)

Review:
"On a day-to-day basis, he's like an actor who's making his first movie, with the enthusiasm and energy to want to make things happen and try things and experiment."

Winners can come out of nowhere when it comes to film, and it takes several individuals and some luck to really make something meaningful. Rain Man is no exception. Its director was Barry Levinson. He started his way in show business through writing for comedy and variety shows, most notably for The Carol Burnett Show. He soon moved to writing for films, collaborating with others on a few films such as Street Girls (1975), Silent Movie (1976), and ...And Justice for All (1979). He made his directorial debut in features with Diner (1982), which he drew from experiences living in Baltimore, Maryland. The film found first life with the script of Barry Morrow, who had met Kim Peek, a megasavant that had exceptional memory on a considerable scale but also social difficulties. He had previously known Bill Sackter, a mentally disabled man that had spent 44 years in a mental institution for those thought a "burden on society" before working his way through a variety of jobs that led to the two meeting and eventually becoming Sackter's guardian. Both of these individuals played inspiration in Morrow's writing, which later had screenplay contributions by Ronald Bass (who finished just before a writer's strike). Three directors came and went before Levinson signed on, which included Martin Brest, Steven Spielberg, and Sydney Pollack. Hoffman would study Peek along with spending time with autistic individuals (coincidentally, he had worked at the New York Psychiatric Institute as a young adult) and compiling notes. Oddly enough, he actually wanted to quit early into filming, believing the early rushes to be his worst work.

Sometimes a film really does just find the proper road to one's heart. It was a good film in a year with other good movies that found an audience (whether it's your favorite film of that particular year or not is up to you). What we have here is a road movie, but it is one with two enterprising stars spending time with each other with a meaningful and fairly-guided foundation that achieves a majority of what it aims as a story of bonding. I think we all know at one least one person like Raymond or Charlie in our lives (I used to have an autistic friend myself), and it is watching their journey of discovery that makes something more than what could have been exploited for elaboration or over-sentiment- in other words, it's a movie about people that would've either been an interesting consideration in a previous decade or overanalyzed in a later one (now we might just yammer on about how not all autistic people are savants, which misses the whole point of daring to make a film about someone like Raymond in the first place). We first start with Cruise, enterprising and alluringly arrogant in dealing with others that make an interesting performance for the yuppie crowd that grows with you. Hoffman, with a quieter voice and a bit of a shuffled walk that makes a worthwhile performance of someone in the spectrum of life different from what we know that we care to appreciate over the course of the film, being in his own world that we can understand about. The film is really just for these two, but Golino makes a fair impression regardless. What matters most to the film in holding up is how we feel about this particular duo and their journey together as human beings. For the most part, the film works in that regard, going from place to place with little moments of appreciation we feel about these folks. They go through different but similar pathways on the long winding road without becoming a lightning rod for stereotypes and ableist bleating. Probably the most effective sequence is the dance sequence, where they just share a moment as brothers shuffling their feet. By the time they finish their quiet but meaningful last words with each other, we might reflect ourselves on what it really means to know someone and maybe smile a bit.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Escape from L.A.

Review #732: Escape from L.A.

Cast
Kurt Russell (Snake Plissken), Steve Buscemi (Map to the Stars Eddie), Georges Corraface (Cuervo Jones), Cliff Robertson (President), Stacy Keach (Cmdr. Malloy), Peter Fonda (Pipeline), Pam Grier (Hershe Las Palmas), A. J. Langer (Utopia), Valeria Golino (Taslima), Bruce Campbell (Surgeon General of Beverly Hills), and Michelle Forbes (Brazen) Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween, #634 - Escape from New York, and #712 - The Thing)

Review
It's been a while (ten days) since I reviewed a movie, so let me get back to work with a familiar director, John Carpenter. And hey, it's the sequel released 15 years after the first movie, what could go wrong? The answer to that question lies within the movie itself. I praised the original for its dystopian outlook, Russell himself, and the thrilling action. What I forgot to mention is that Escape from New York managed to keep itself from losing momentum. The sequel? Not so much. While Russell is still the best actor in the movie, the rest of the cast isn't as impressive. Corraface's character comes and goes too quickly to make any real impression on you, while Fonda's character is more pointless than Buscemi's character, but at least the latter does something important, so points for that. The movie is bleak, but it isn't as interesting as the first movie, and the computer effects for water effects (especially the surfing - yes Snake surfs) don't help the movie, as they come off as too distracting. It takes a while for the movie to become interesting, and the action scenes are passable, though they are overshadowed a bit by the scene where Plisskin has to make 5 baskets in a row (at the LA Coliseum, no less), and the aforementioned surfing scene, which is just plain strange. The movie was written by Debra Hill, John Carpenter & Russell, with Russell apparently coming up with the ending. I guess it was hard to make an ending that wasn't just like the last one, with this ending being more bleak given that there was no sequel (which apparently would've been Plissken escaping Earth) because this movie proved to be a failure financially. It's not a bad movie, it at least is entertaining to a degree, and Russell clearly had a lot of passion for this movie, and I respect his performance. The movie itself, though, isn't as good, but it is at least a good way to pass 100 minutes, and you might enjoy the movie more than I did. It's hard to believe this movie was released in August 1996. August...9th, 1996. Okay, I didn't plan for this to be an anniversary review. Welcome to the human race.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Hot Shots! Part Deux.

Review #375: Hot Shots! Part Deux.

Cast
Charlie Sheen (Topper Harley), Lloyd Bridges (Thomas Benson), Valeria Golino (Ramada Hayman), Richard Crenna (Denton Walters), Brenda Bakke (Michelle Huddleston), Miguel Ferrer (Arvid Harbinger), Rowan Atkinson (Dexter Hayman), and Jerry Haleva. Directed by Jim Abrahams (#028 - Hot Shots!)

Review
It seems only yesterday that I reviewed the first Hot Shots! film. And if yesterday, I mean over 2 years and 347 reviews later. Oddly enough, this is the 375th Review. The first one parodied Top Gun, with the second being a parody of First Blood (#025), with may references to other films. But is the film funny even after 20 years (it being a parody and all) and such? Well...yeah. The puns and gags are endless and the lines may either make you go groan or chuckle, it depends. For me, it was the latter. The cast does a fine job of comedy acting, not too over the top. Sheen once again has a lot of energy that helps out in the action scenes. The action is over the top, as should be, given the parody material, but it manages to mix in the comedy in a strange blend that works well. Is it better than the first one? Not really, but it does at least come close enough, and it still entertains. And given the "parody" movies in recent years, this does the job of making you laugh, which given these days, it is a good thing.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Hot Shots!

Review #028: Hot Shots!

Cast
Charlie Sheen (LT Sean "Topper" Harley), Cary Elwes (LT Kent Gregory), Valeria Golino (Ramada Thompson), Lloyd Bridges (RADM Thomas "Tug" Benson), Kevin Dunn (LCDR James Block), Jon Cryer (LT Jim "Wash Out" Pfaffenbach), William O'Leary (LT Pete "Dead Meat" Thompson), Kristy Swanson (Kowalski), Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. (Wilson), Bill Irwin (Leland "Buzz" Harley), and Ryan Stiles (Dominic "Mailman" Farnum) Directed by Jim Abrahams.

Review
This spoof of Top Gun might actually be better then Top Gun, with some good gags that might remind you of another spoof, Airplane! (That also had Lloyd Bridges) Anyway, the film is decent with performances, especially Sheen and Elwes. The film is decent enough to become good, making this a film to watch. While it may not be great-great, it at least is useful.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.