Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

Review #1251: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

Cast: 
Leonardo DiCaprio (Rick Dalton), Brad Pitt (Cliff Booth), Margot Robbie (Sharon Tate), Emile Hirsch (Jay Sebring), Margaret Qualley (Pussycat), Timothy Olyphant (James Stacy), Julia Butters (Trudi Fraser), Austin Butler (Charles "Tex" Watson), Dakota Fanning (Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme), Bruce Dern (George Spahn), Mike Moh (Bruce Lee), Luke Perry (Wayne Maunder), Damian Lewis (Steve McQueen), Al Pacino (Marvin Schwarz), Brenda Vaccaro (Mary Alice Schwarz), Kurt Russell (Randy), Zoë Bell (Janet), and Lorenza Izzo (Francesca Cappucci) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, and #1218 - Pulp Fiction)

Review: 
It is not a surprise to find myself watching a love letter to a time long since past in terms of movies, particularly since it is a Tarantino movie but also because of the intrigue of seeing such an interesting time like 1969 come to life. It attempts to talk a grand tale of fact and fiction with a cavalcade of actors and images that surely make for an ambitious piece of entertainment. The final result is something that will surely work wonders in terms of design and energy, although it holds itself together with a paste that may very well be described as frantic excess. Tarantino clearly wanted to make a great sprawling tale much in the same vein of other films of the 1960s that has its cake and eats plenty of it in a 161 minute run-time that his fans will probably clamor for (while wondering was left on the cutting floor) while others will probably wonder why it wanders for so long on certain aspects while leaving other parts less covered, with the ending being one of those moments ripe for discussion for quite a while, alongside other moments.

In a sea of actors spread out from substantial to one-scene wonder, DiCaprio and Pitt are game to lead the way in delivering plenty of enthusiasm and charm in respective ways that carry the film steady. DiCaprio in particular shines as a falling star pastiche, where one can see his fading attempts at what was and what could be in the changing of the time. Pitt joins that same kind of road with vigor that rolls right along when all is said and done. Robbie, the last of the main trio, doesn't have as much to say but does make a key impression of warmth and charm whenever we see her, such as when she sees herself in The Wrecking Crew in a theater while enjoying what she sees of her fictional comic relief lead. She plays her time for a part that doesn't fall under complete biopic structure - which can either prove fine or a bit disappointing. Others make their mark, some more than others. Qualley and Butters each make their mark count, conveying plenty of conviction in where they stand in the moment, the former being a marker of descent into the other side of 1969 Hollywood and the latter a young (but aspiring) talent firmly in the system in a changing time. Butler, Fanning and Dern also contribute for a scene with wiry impact, and it is sure is nice to see Russell make his mark from time to time. The actors with one-shot moments in the TV scenes (Olyphant and Perry) do fairly well with representing the time in helping making a show as forgotten as Lancer come to life again. Moh and Lewis are fine if not too particularly important in the grand scheme.

Once it garners itself to setting a conclusion (complete with narration that certainly feels a bit wry when coming from Russell), the film has already garnered enough enticement that you don't really want it to ever come crashing down (to say nothing of the request from Tarantino to avoid spoiling the film before release, which is a bit strange to say in a quasi fact/fiction film). It fights against the dawn of a different kind of Hollywood and the sign of the times itself that surely can resonate with those who seek the resonance that was a decade such as the 1960s without devolving too much into an old man argument. It aspires to have its cake and eat it too, doing plenty of both with no shame. It is a film that certainly will have fans who will find joy with its decisions (such as its visual and musical choices), but it isn't impossible to find aspects that test the grounds of patience if not in the mood for all the roads wanting to be covered by Tarantino. I enjoyed a good chunk of what I saw, and it could either teeter at the high or low end of his directorial efforts when all is said and done, which is a pretty good testament to his craft. After one views a tale like this, they will likely leave their theater with acceptance with what they saw - the times of big stars and big sights like drive-in theaters and the like may not resonate as much as they did before, but there sure is still something to enjoy then as in now when it comes to the movies and showmanship. It is a bittersweet tribute that succeeds more often than not with plenty of charm and entertainment value to go around that surely will endure just as much as the people that came from it did.
Any movie where a bunch of hippies are beaten to hell does tend to win praise from me, too.
Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

UHF.

Review #1250: UHF.

Cast: 
"Weird Al" Yankovic (George Newman), Kevin McCarthy (R.J. Fletcher), Michael Richards (Stanley Spadowski), David Bowe (Bob Steckler/Bobbo the Clown), Victoria Jackson (Teri Campbell), Fran Drescher (Pamela Finklestein), Stanley Brock (Uncle Harvey Bilchik), Sue Ane Langdon (Aunt Esther Bilchik), Anthony Geary (Philo), Billy Barty (Noodles MacIntosh), Trinidad Silva (Raul Hernandez), and Gedde Watanabe (Kuni) Directed by Jay Levey.

Review:
Sometimes you really need something different in order to get a good laugh. What better way to enjoy the day than with a film featuring Weird Al Yankovic in his only leading role for something that has gradually become a cult classic since its release three decades ago. Yankovic has been doing music for over four decades, with his knack being humorous parody songs (with examples such as "Eat It" and "White & Nerdy") that I can attest to enjoying on occasion. The idea for a film came from Yankovic and his manager Jay Levey that would be based on the approach he made when doing music videos but with (in the words of Yankovic) "TV commercial parodies, movie trailer parodies, and obviously TV show parodies" - this episodic approach certainly seems familiar (with Airplane! (1980) coming to mind), and in the right hands this could work really well. Who could not resist shows such as practical jokes & bloopers, a weird clubhouse show, wheel of fish and commercials that range from spatula shops to "Gandhi II"? It did not prove to be a major success upon release; despite a $5 million budget, the film made just six million at the box office while receiving tepid reception in a month full of big movies (Licence to Kill, Lethal Weapon 2, and Weekend at Bernie's, for example). This is a wonderful gag-fest kind of film, happy to deliver weird humor to those who are curious for said fun with a fairly game cast that rises above a fairly predicable and fairly thin story. Yankovic plays a decent straight man, adept at rolling with the material (imagined or not) without too much difficulty, although the chemistry between him and Jackson (doing fine with a pleasant if not too big role) doesn't really register many big moments. McCarthy is enjoyable with such a hammy role that inspires dry gruffness for which he seems to be having fun doing. Richards, featured between his noted work on Fridays and Seinfeld, proves wonderful in delivering rapid laughs without caution - he seizes his moments with zest and keeps the film spinning. The others do fine jobs in their occasional moments on screen, such as Geary and his offbeat charm or Silva (who contributes one of my favorite puns about not needing badgers). The film lands more often than not with its barrage of jokes on numerous things that land fairly well now, and it could be argued that the film laid groundwork for the weird humor that can pop up in various forms on the Internet (the accident involving a saw seems especially ripe for someone to make a dark video to emulate). It never seems to run with ideas too half-baked - or at least it knows when to roll to its next show. A more seasoned filmmaker would've probably delivered a bit more depth with these characters before driving up with humor, although I wonder if it would have really made for a better experience overall. The film rolls along in its 97 minutes without too much trouble - it isn't hard to see where it goes to get from point to point besides it's humor, but at least it puts some sort of effort to carry along without becoming too eccentric or one dimensional. It freewheels with charm enough to make this a winner to recommend, one that suits well for the current times with a nudge and a weird grin on its face.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Footprints on the Moon: Apollo 11 (1969).

Review #1249: Footprints on the Moon: Apollo 11.

Cast: 
Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, Pierre Jalbert (voice of Jules Verne), with narration by Wernher von Braun. Directed by Bill Gibson.

Review: 
It should only make sense that I cover two documentaries on the subject of the Apollo 11 mission given today's date being the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing, with the first documentary released about the landing being the easiest choice, released in September of 1969. However, it languished in a fair bit of obscurity - despite being distributed by 20th Century Fox (with production by Barry Coe), the film did not receive a DVD release for four decades (with only occasional showings on television, although it is fairly easy to find it on the Internet for viewing nowadays. The easiest thing to say is that this works fairly well for viewing as a curiosity piece, whether for a science class or for days like this. It certainly covers its own bases of the Apollo 11 mission in its span of 95 minutes, with occasional sprinkles of narration from noted aerospace engineer von Braun or snippets of Jules Verne (voiced by Jalbert, most known for his work on the 1960s series Combat!) that make this an engaging sit just as one should expect for a great lunar adventure like this. Von Braun does well with carrying the weight of the adventure scope with clear expression. The references to Verne come off well (given his notable work From the Earth to the Moon - written in 1865) to accompany the gravity of the moment. One will see moments like the rocket launch, the landing of the Eagle, and quite a few moments of the astronauts in the vessel and of course the first step - it surely must have proved fascinating to see it on a big screen only a few months after seeing it on a television screen. Nowadays, you can see plenty of iconic (and not so iconic) moments on the Internet, and it is the freedom to search and look for these kind of things that make for such enduring power for films like these. One could argue that if you've seen one moon landing film, you've seen them all, but the real interest is in how the film gets to that point and makes it something to follow with interest instead of just showing you the moment without any sense of real context or mood. In that sense, the film succeeds with clear intent. This is the only credit listed for both Coe and Gibson as producer and director, respectively, while being the first film edited by John F. Link, who eventually became known work on films such as Commando (1985) and Die Hard (1988). One key highlight involves how the crew would drink water while on the mission, involving a water dispenser, with one ensuing shot being the water floating. It really is a case of having to see it for yourself when it comes to the landing on the Moon, whether through a re-enactment in First Man (2018) or documentaries such as this or Apollo 11 (2019) - one won't have their patience tested, since the eyes will be too busy being in amazement of the enormity of a mission like this that executes without many hitches that hopefully might inspire one to look into the stars tonight and smile. You'll certainly come out of this one with enjoyment, that is for sure.

This ends the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary doubleheader - I hope you folks enjoyed these reviews. I don't normally cover documentaries, but I felt it was necessary in this case to do something that featured the three icons of this historic mission, and it can be interesting to compare the two films in how they depicted the mission then and now.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Apollo 11 (2019).

Review #1248: Apollo 11.

Cast: 
Buzz Aldrin, Joan Ann Archer, Janet Armstrong, Neil Armstrong, Jack Benny, Johnny Carson, Clifford E. Charlesworth, Michael Collins, Walter Cronkite, Charles Duke, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Gene Kranz, Jim Lovell, and Glynn Lunney (all archival footage) Directed by Todd Douglas Miller.

Review: 
July 20, 1969 marked the first time that man stepped foot on a planet that was not their own. It served as a key marker for over a decade of travel of manned and unmanned missions to explore beyond the planet, with Apollo 11 fulfilling the dream of having a man on the moon before the decade ended. President John F. Kennedy had remarked in 1962 about an ambition to go to the Moon before the decade had ended, stating that "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too." It has now been half of a century since the iconic landing on the Moon, and it is quite obvious why I would set my attention on a documentary like this. It is part of a quite a long line of films revolving around the missions of the Apollo program, with several examples ranging from Footprints on the Moon: Apollo 11 (1969, released just months after the landing), Moonwalk One (1970, which attempts to add in some historical context and capture the mood of people on Earth), and For All Mankind (1989, which includes narration from several Apollo astronauts). The best way to do one of these is with complete cooperation with NASA and the National Archives and Records Administration, with this film utilizing footage of newly discovered 70mm footage from the launch and recovery of Apollo 11.

Of course one can't really just throw a bunch of footage together without making sure it is preserved and edited with precision (done so by director/editor Miller), and it is a great thing that one can view a movie like this and look back upon a great achievement in the history of man with craftsmanship as wonderful as this. From the very first shot involving the Saturn V rocket, the film generates plenty of curiosity and plenty of interest. Even just seeing the shots of the crowds (of which there were plenty, since its been estimated that a million people saw the launch from nearby the launch-site, whether by highway or beach) eyeing for a view at the launch is something to stare at, a look back through images and occasional voices, where a narrator does not prove necessary to have it all set in. It attempts to depict the mission from launch to splashdown in 93 minutes, and it does pretty well with making an eight day mission roll handily without seeming plodding in any one place. The Eagle landing is handled well in the editing room, with the music by Matt Morton helping alongside the view of the ship trying to make a safe landing with fuel running out (as signified by a counter) - knowing about the success of the mission doesn't make this any less thrilling to behold, where Armstrong and Aldrin had to do their job with precision and care. Of course one can't forget about Collins, a man that spent a day flying solo around the Moon, later describing his feeling not of loneliness, but of "awareness, anticipation, satisfaction, confidence, almost exultation". Commander Armstrong and his commanding and lunar module pilots in Collins and Aldrin shined in the time they were required to, doing so under all the pressure one must feel when trying to land a vehicle on another surface besides the one inhabited by all; this program was an expensive one, a project that did not garner universal support - but the Moon landing was a unifying moment, where man could be one and see a great adventure reach its zenith. The film celebrates the great adventure done five decades ago with tremendous relish that honors history and the people that helped make this achievement come to life, from its trio of astronauts to the thousands of technicians and people that helped in construction, design and more (with a bunch of time spent on Mission Control and all of the people and devices that were present that day). Apollo 11 is an easy recommendation to make, whether on this fateful day or for when one wants to see how the first great adventure to the Moon came to fruition from start to finish and how it still relates to us today and beyond.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

12 to the Moon.

Review #1247: 12 to the Moon.

Cast: 
Ken Clark (Capt. John Anderson), Michi Kobi (Dr. Hideko Murata), Tom Conway (Dr. Feodor Orloff), Anthony Dexter (Dr. Luis Vargas), John Wengraf (Dr. Erich Heinrich), Robert Montgomery Jr. (Dr. Rod Murdock), Phillip Baird (Dr. William Rochester), Richard Weber (Dr. David Ruskin), Muzaffer Tema (Dr. Selim Hamid), Roger Til (Dr. Etienne Martel), Cory Devlin (Dr. Asmara Markonen), Anna-Lisa (Dr. Sigrid Bomark), and Francis X. Bushman (Secretary General of the International Space Order) Directed by David Bradley (#824 - Talk About a Stranger)

Review: 
It only proves natural to land on a science fiction movie, but it also proves interesting to do a film involving people trying to travel to the Moon on this particular month and year, what with a film ship name of "Lunar Eagle 1". It was released in the time of the Space Age, sandwiched between the dawn of Sputnik 1 and Explorer 1 just a few years earlier and the Earth orbiting missions of Yuri Gagarin and John Glenn that would occur the year after the release of the film. It proves interesting to note the ideas the film has with travel to the moon - not only does the mission include a mix of men and women of several countries (only the second film to do so, with First Spaceship on Venus being released just months earlier), it also includes a bunch of animals like cats and monkeys with them as well (one's really got to know if the cats will raise any new kittens on the moon, which I guess is the curiosity the cat lobby wanted to know). It wouldn't be hard to think this was made on the cheap fast. After all, this was a film shot in eight days on a $150,000 budget, utilizing devices around them such as editing machines for communication devices, or darkroom timers with obscured brand names. But ambition can outride a dearth of money or big-name talent if done right. Really, the most notable person behind this is John Alton as cinematographer, with this being his penultimate work of over three decades of work that ranged, doing work such as He Walked by Night (1948) and the balletwork in An American in Paris (1951). 

Honestly, the final product isn't terrible, it just falters with clunky parts that can't hold an interesting international space angle together for 74 minutes. It is an odd little movie that surely will leave a few heads spinning with either confusion or a few chuckles - neither of which the filmmakers (or two writers with Fred Gebhardt and DeWitt Bodeen) probably wanted. Nobody pulls a real great performance with their respective time to make moments, but at least one can ride with these folks and pretend that each would be suitable to be on a big ridiculous mission like this, from the two with squabble over relatives taking out their relatives being the ones doing the final mission together to the French communist saboteur at the end. It would probably be too easy to give this movie flack for its holes in terms of science, since this was done before a picture of the Earth was even done, although I will say the moon picture writing being a bunch of random shapes that still gets translated is pretty amusing. Really, there are plenty of silly moments to sift through. The quicksand sequence is also a bit amusing to sit through, having about as much danger as if one just lied on their back on the beach and pretended to sink. One has to love the fact that the "The Great Coordinator of the Moon" want the crew to leave the cats with them right before they leave the place - guess the dog wasn't cool enough to belong on the Moon with the space folks, who we never actually see in person. Actually, the space helmets with "invisible electro magnetic ray screens" is just as hysterical to think about, if not more. The solar flare footage for the end when dealing with erupting a volcano to thaw out the world (yes, really) probably qualifies in the "taking the cake" competition. It could go on further, but let's just say that this is a movie with quite an imagination over what makes for a space movie, having plenty of cliches on less than half a tank of money and time to go with. In the end, this is a film that won't win any kind of award or notations for great entertainment quality, flailing the lines of mediocrity that only can come from a fast and cheap kind of sci-fi film as this, found in the bottom of an Internet search or multi-movie pack. You could get a laugh or two while looking at it with mild interest, for better or worse.

Next Time: Something truly deserving to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11...

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Akira (1988).

Review #1246: Akira.

Cast: 
Mitsuo Iwata (Shōtarō Kaneda), Nozomu Sasaki (Tetsuo Shima), Mami Koyama (Kei), Tarō Ishida (Colonel Shikishima), Mizuho Suzuki (Doctor Ōnishi), Tetsusho Genda (Ryūsaku), Fukue Itō (Kiyoko - No. 25), Tatsuhiko Nakamura (Takashi - No. 26), Kazuhiro Kamifuji (Masaru - No. 27), Yuriko Fuchizaki (Kaori), Masaaki Ōkura (Yamagata), Takeshi Kusao (Kaisuke), and Hiroshi Ōtake (Nezu) Directed by Katsuhiro Otomo.

Review: 
What better time to do this review than now - yes it is the 31st anniversary of the release of the film, but it also happens to be the month and day the film is set upon (albeit in Neo-Tokyo), which coincidentally also is awaiting the start of the 2020 Olympic Games. This one has been on the back-burner for quite a while, so I hope you enjoy.

Akira began as a manga series in 1982, illustrated and written by Katsuhiro Otomo initially as a serial in Young Magazine. In the span of eight years, six volumes of work were created that equated to over 2,000 pages. He was inspired by works ranging from Star Wars (1977) to the manga Tetsujin 28-go, and it soon became known as a key piece in the cyberpunk genre. While working on the manga, he was approached to making an anime adaptation, for which he would have creative control, serving as director and co-writer (alongside Izo Hashimoto). Helping in its creation was the Akira Committee, a partnership of several Japanese companies ranging from the Laserdisc Corporation to Toho to help bring production have the massive budget (1.1 billion yen, translating to $9 million) to fruition, with animation done by Tokyo Movie Shinsha. Of note is the pre-scored dialogue (recorded before animation began, although animatics were used as an aid), which was generally done more in American animation than in Japan at the time. The music is done by Shōji Yamashiro, inspired from traditional Indonesian and Japanese music such as gamelan and noh, performed by the collective Japansese group Geinoh Yamashirogumi (re-creators of folk music from all over the world).

With such craftsmanship, one would not expect to be surprised at how magnificent the film ultimately proves to be. It proves itself very early on with dazzling energy and imagination that makes the viewer curious to where it ultimately will end up, having such vivid shots that prove their standing power three decades later. The actors each do their parts fairly well; Iwata and Sasaki each generate plenty of interest for each side of the coin of conflict, with Ishida also proving a key highlight, providing reason in a weird world like this. To say nothing of the three psychics and their alluring draw that lingers with you just as the others do. Koyama and the others do just fine, filling the screen in whatever way necessary to make an epic seem completely well-versed in features. It shines among the genres of cyberpunk and animation with ease, having little difficulty in making a captivating story like this come alive, succeeding as an epic without collapsing under its own weight in terms of look or on a philosophical level. It is a fairly violent movie, but it never seems to lose complete focus and ambition on telling an adventure spectacle. For me especially, this proves to be quite a fun time to sit through, and its pace remains steady through a 124 minute run-time while gradually getting its story to click into full gear and not let up. The film seals its fate among other films of its type with an astonishing climax that surely will leave its viewer with appreciation and curiosity over what they just viewed, like any memorable film should do. If it at least makes you wonder how the source material compares with what is on screen, that is a pretty good compliment to be had. One could only help but wonder why attempts to remake the film (or at least make a new adaptation of the manga) have persisted for nearly two decades, but I suppose it really does come to the idea that you could do something better than what was done before, no matter how foolish that idea has proved for several studios in recent years (particularly with animated films). It proved no surprise that the film eventually spread beyond Japan, finding distribution throughout America and other countries over the next few years (with respective English dubs done for release in 1989 and in 2001, respectively); the movie has a rightful place among great science fiction films along being a standout for adult animation and anime film along with its lasting inspirations that it has left to certain productions from animes (like Ghost in the Shell) to films (like The Matrix) that surely makes this one to view when the time ultimately feels right for a viewer to experience something as entertaining as this film proves to be.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Squaw Man (1914).

Review #1245: The Squaw Man (1914).

Cast: 
Dustin Farnum (Capt. James Wynnegate / Jim Carston), Monroe Salisbury (Sir Henry, Earl of Kerhill), Lillian St. Cyr (Nat-u-Ritch), Winifred Kingston (Lady Diana, Countess of Kerhill), 'Baby' Carmen De Rue (Hal), Joseph Singleton (Tab-y-wana), William Elmer (Cash Hawkins), Mrs. A.W. Filson (The Dowager Lady Elizabeth Kerhill), Haidee Fuller (Lady Mabel Wynnegate), Foster Knox (Sir John), Dick La Reno (Big Bill) Directed by Oscar Apfel and Cecil B. DeMille.

Review: 
Everyone and everything has their start somewhere, and this can especially prove true for films. This is the directorial debut of Cecil B. DeMille alongside the first feature length film made in Hollywood, California (with In Old California (1910) by D. W. Griffith being considered the earliest short made there). DeMille had been a stage actor since he was eighteen, having a love of the theater since childhood, and he dabbled in agency and as a playwright. The Jesse L. Lasky Feature Play Company was created by DeMille alongside other businessmen (two of which who became crucial co-founders of studios in Hollywood such as Paramount) that would serve to produce movies over the decade, some of which directed by DeMille. This film is an adaptation of the play of the same name by Edwin Milton Royle, a Broadway play that had premiered in 1905 that proved fairly successful upon its initial run, lasting five months while having revivals four times in the next sixteen years. DeMille shifted filming from Arizona to California to get a proper Western look. Interestingly enough, DeMille would do two remakes of this material, doing another silent rendition in 1918 and a talking version in 1931. It isn't much of an understatement to say that the film is a curious little piece of its period in time, where film was only just evolving out of the woodwork of shorts and into experimentation. A key reason for films shifting production to California was to evade the patents held by Thomas Edison relating to the motion picture camera, to the point where his competitors made a licensing agreement with him in 1907 to stop the barrage of lawsuits. With that in mind, the film itself is merely a fairly standard, if not passable piece for entertainment. The historical value in this case makes it stick out from complete obscurity that would befall other kinds of Western films. It dwells on the outsider encountering the Old West and those who inhabit it, doing so with still pace that doesn't quite hit the mark for consistent drama. It definitely isn't the prime choice to begin viewing silent film, although it is good that this film survives for ready viewing where other films of its time did not. The film dwells a bit too much on standing around with their actors gesturing to each other before an intertitle shows up now and then, and while the romance between Farnum and St. Cyr certainly must've proved unique for the time, it mostly comes off as fleeting; its ending certainly isn't too surprising, either, although at least it doesn't plod itself along further than 74 minutes. For those who seek curiosities from yesteryear, this may prove more of a relic than a diamond in the rough, but at least it is something that one could see if only to wonder where a famed director like DeMille started from and evolved in his future productions.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Midsommar.

Review #1244: Midsommar.

Cast: 
Florence Pugh (Dani Ardor), Jack Reynor (Christian Hughes), William Jackson Harper (Josh), Vilhelm Blomgren (Pelle), Will Poulter (Mark), Ellora Torchia (Connie), Archie Madekwe (Simon), Anna Åström (Karin), Mats Blomgren (Odd), Tomas Engström (Jarl), Gunnel Fred (Siv), Isabelle Grill (Maja), and Hampus Hallberg (Ingemar) Written and Directed by Ari Aster (#1099 - Hereditary)

Review: 
I went into this film with a few reservations, not so much because it seemed like an unsettling horror film, but moreso because I really did not want to build much anticipation for an offbeat experience that was going to last 147 minutes and come from a director that made an uneven debut movie that a bunch of people really embraced. At least I can say that this one is easier to recommend, if only because it actually feels like a whole experience of creepy horror. It has a great deal of craftsmanship in being unsettling, and I do very much applaud an attempt at folktale horror, even if it meanders a bit too long in actually driving the scares forward. Aster had initially rejected the pitch of studio executives to make a Sweden-set slasher film because he didn't think he a way into a story, although he ultimately based it around the disintegrating relationship of the two main characters as the main central conflict due to him experiencing a difficult breakup. Then again, he apparently had an original cut of the film that lasted over three hours, so perhaps this is a film that really does just want to take its time in getting me to care about said couple and their problems, which is more of a hit-and-miss type. I'm more focused on wondering if the main group of characters are ever going to figure out what is really going on with this commune dressed in white that has creepy drawings and sacred yellow triangle temples. The answer to that does tend to get lost in the shuffle with a bunch of creepy images and moments, which surely shine better than the drama between Pugh and Reynor, although they certainly prove their worth with their performances when needed. The others do their parts just fine, such as the folks in the commune being as assuring and observable up to a point.

Perhaps others really do care enough about how this relationship withers and withers through two hours, but time is better spent looking at how bright everything looks alongside camera warps and some interesting splatter shots. What film other than this has a sequence where it is shot upside down before gradually coming back to right-side up? It certainly is one of those "is this really happening?" type of movie, ranging from the obvious to the absurd, which will play differently for whatever mindset you're in, whether involving a certain ancient ritual or a certain sequence involving passion and plenty of weird imagery. The laughs do come out a bunch of times, whether intentional (such as with Poulter) or not, so at least the film isn't taking itself completely seriously all the time. Honestly, I was fine with what I got to see on screen, but it really is a case of inevitability - how much can you really show before it becomes too much to bear? Horror is what I sit for, with drama taking a backseat - sometimes you really need to get to the point without making patience become a tired virtue, where weirdness runs rampant. At least I can say this isn't a horror tale that gives you whiplash when it comes to actually delivering the parts - which it does enough to outweigh its burden of overwhelming itself with breakup/revenge fantasy as opposed to just toeing the slasher film standards. At least I can say this wasn't some limited release that only went to art-house theaters (the most obvious place this film belongs to) and nowhere else. Let all the movie-going folk encounter a curious offbeat film to stick out from the other types of fare, I say. Maybe you'll love it, maybe you'll hate it, but I sure am curious to see exactly where Aster can go from here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Spider-Man: Far From Home.

Review #1243: Spider-Man: Far From Home.

Cast: 
Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Jake Gyllenhaal (Quentin Beck / Mysterio), Marisa Tomei (May Parker), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Zendaya (MJ), Jacob Batalon (Ned Leeds), Tony Revolori (Flash Thompson), Angourie Rice (Betty Brant), Remy Hii (Brad Davis), Martin Starr (Mr. Harrington), J.B. Smoove (Mr. Dell), Jorge Lendeborg Jr (Jason Ionello), Cobie Smulders (Maria Hill), and Numan Acar (Dimitri) Directed by Jon Watts (#966 - Spider-Man: Homecoming)

Review: 
In eleven years of Marvel comic book films, there has been a healthy stream of elevating heroes onto screen, familiar and not-so familiar that has certainly made its impact onto entertainment, for what its worth. I've enjoyed most of the twenty-three films just fine, although it certainly can prove tiring to go through yet another one of these kind of films this year, particularly after Avengers: Endgame. Being the film after such a big narrative event (for these films, anyway) is a tough task, with this feeling like an epilogue and a new beginning that justifies continuance without being a gasp for doing the same thing over and over again, having the same director and two of the co-writers of the last one (Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers) back in the saddle. I went into this with mild expectation, having been shaped by the good quality of the earlier film (alongside Sony's attempt at making a Spider-Man with Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse last year, which ruled) and such. I found it to be an adequate sequel that keeps the boat steady with its narrative while having a few charming moments and fanning the flame of interest for further stories with Holland shining at the helm.

What better way to make a film with a bunch of sights in Europe that happens to be interrupted by a superhero movie, which can surely help shake up the familiar dynamics seen in these kind of movies (or more specifically, this century, which now has had eight Spider-Man films released) without being completely out of its element. Holland works to his level with reasoned charm, capable of getting a laugh but also capable at keeping interest with the web-slinging hero for zippy effects scenes (sorry, action scenes) and moments besides that. With worse hands, it can prove hard to make a villain worth following up for a comic sequel. I enjoyed the previous film's adversary just fine, so I wondered exactly how they would do with an illusionist con-man character like this. I must admit, the idea of someone trying to forge success in life with a bunch of tricks can make for an interesting motivation in the big picture. Gyllenhaal lives up well to such standards, balancing charisma under said facade with relative ease, and he makes for a fine theatric when its needs him to do so for its second half. Jackson gets a few moments to shine as well, mostly when interacting with exposition or getting a snappy remark on occasion that makes him nice to show up as this character again. Tomei and Favreau both do fine, even if their respective time to shine is spread out a bit thin. Zendaya does well once again, having capable charm and chemistry with Holland when the moment requires it. Batalon and the others do their part without hesitation or interrupting the film's flow for the most part.

It's a summer flick that has some well-done action and a fairly decent story to go alongside things that will work out for the moment needed with not too many bumps in the road. Honestly, the only thing that got me was the way it dumped its villainous plot into gear through a toast, of all things, although at least the climax makes up for it just fine. Its 129 minute run-time tops out just fine, and it will surely prove a charmer for entertainment while keeping the door open for more with these folks in the future.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Gettysburg (1993).

Review #1242: Gettysburg.

Cast: 
Tom Berenger (Lieutenant General James Longstreet), Jeff Daniels (Colonel Joshua Chamberlain), Martin Sheen (General Robert E. Lee), Sam Elliott (Brigadier General John Buford), Stephen Lang (Major General George Pickett), Maxwell Caulfield (Colonel Strong Vincent), Kevin Conway (Sergeant Buster Kilrain), C. Thomas Howell (Lieutenant Thomas Chamberlain), Richard Jordan (Brigadier General Lewis A. "Lo" Armistead), James Lancaster (Lieutenant Colonel Arthur Fremantle), Richard Anderson (Major General George Meade), Royce D. Applegate (Brigadier General James L. Kemper), John Diehl (Private Joseph Bucklin), Joshua D. Maurer (Colonel James Clay Rice), Patrick Gorman (Major General John Bell Hood), Cooper Huckabee (Henry Thomas Harrison), and Brian Mallon (Major General Winfield Scott Hancock), with narration by W. Morgan Sheppard. Directed by Ronald F. Maxwell.

Review: 
How does one do proper justice to a film such as this? It is a film that runs at 254 minutes (with 17 additional minutes added for the Director's Cut), making it one of the longest films released by an American studio. The original intent was to broadcast this as a miniseries for TNT, after ABC turned down backing the project earlier in the decade. However, it was felt by network namesake and famed media mogul Ted Turner that the rushes coming in were good enough to release in theaters. The film did indeed get shown on TNT the following year, shown on two nights to a viewership of over 20 million; it did not prove to be a major success at the box office, making back only twelve million on a $20 million budget owing to a limited release of less than 300 theaters at its peak distributed by Turner-owned New Line Cinema and being limited to few screenings per day (due to the length, naturally), but it did prove to be a hit on the video market, with its attention to authenticity ensuring that it would have a place with any history or Civil War buff. This is a film that had been sitting on my shelf for over a decade, and I had wondered exactly how to approach this over the years (alongside the question of exactly how many times my father must have put the film on to watch, with its disc having to be flipped over to experience both parts), but I find that at long last it needs to have its day in the spotlight. One must admire the courage to try and make a film like this, adapted from the 1975 historical novel The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara (awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction for his novel) with adaptation by director/screenwriter Maxwell that used many writings from the book; it is a sprawling spectacle that was filmed on location in Pennsylvania, including scenes recreated on the actual battlefield (allowed by the National Park Service), with plenty of Civil War reenactors to go around to contribute the scale that this movie wishes to show at times through the three-day battle.

What is a film about a battle if not one with a detailed ensemble cast such as this, headlined by Berenger, Daniels, and Sheen most terrifically. Berenger (the first in a line of actors with some sort of big facial hair) shines amiably, having plenty of moments to give credence to such a key role with careful tenacity, which helps carry the first half and chunks of the second well. Daniels plays his side of the coin quite well for himself, showing plenty of humanity and courage that also crucially carries well for the first half. Sheen is just as efficient, blending right in with such a key figure that makes his appearance count without struggle, thoughtful and determined as per the expectation. The rest of the cast make certain they stick out whenever they show on screen, whether it is from the beginning or midway in, acting to the standard one could expect in filling into men long gone but infused into the legend of Gettysburg. People such as Elliott, Conway, Howell, and Huckabee make it count for that first half (the first two hours at least), while others such as Lang, Jordan, and Lancaster accompany what they can in the latter half. It can be easy to see why a project like this was made in the first place, and it does become apparent that this did indeed belong on a movie screen, where the full weight of battle and drama can come out for all to see again and again through the hours.

I will admit that the first half does tend to run a bit better than its second, building its time and characters with a bit more handling than the second half, although the film never has a moment when it all crashes down or feels too out of depth. It is patience and appreciation that carries the tide rather than boredom or confusion. It yearns to cover ground on both sides of the conflict, not devolving itself into one easy corner - it may be about a battle, but it sure makes time to show besides the battle, of these men who have fought other men of their country, a war of freedom and rebellion (or whatever view one has historically) that raged for four years. Despite the war persisting on for two more years after Gettysburg, this proved to be a key fight, and the film makes sure to never lose focus on earning its moments, and the jewel is the execution of the grand battles and accompanying music from Randy Edelman. It isn't a perfect films by any means, and it certainly isn't the easiest one to stick through, but the curious ones at heart who love their history or ones deeply invested in long sweeping spectacles will (and have) find much to appreciate and care for here. Craftsmanship and hard driving work from all involved rule the day here, showing great care and authenticity for such an important event with balance and honor.

Happy Independence Day, folks. I sure hope you enjoyed this unique double-header and I hope you enjoy the 4th and all that comes with it - there are plenty of things to try and cover this month, and a little bit of patriotism helps along the way in getting there. I'll be happy to see where the Independence Day Feature takes me for next year and beyond.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Betsy Ross (1917).

Review #1241: Betsy Ross.

Cast: 
Alice Brady (Betsy Ross), John Bowers (Joseph Ashburn), Lillian Cook (Carissa Griscom), Victor Kennard (John Ross), Eugenie Woodward (Mrs. Ashburn), Kate Lester (Mrs. Vernon), Frank Mayo (Clarence Vernon), George MacQuarrie (George Washington) Directed by Travers Vale and George Cowl.

Review: 
I suppose that making a film about a legend like the Betsy Ross flag had to occur at some point, and it only makes sense that it was made during the dawn of making feature films and not settling with shorts - making period pieces that certainly feel tied to their time more than anything. It is one of the first feature films set during the Revolutionary War, released the same year alongside The Spirit of '76 (which mixed fictional and factual events of the War); that feature generated controversy over its content involving its depiction of England (with the US having entered World War I that year as part of the Allies), but no prints of that film survive. The film was produced by William A. Brady (father of the main star Alice, who acted in both films and theatre) of World Film, a theatre actor and operator who notably produced The Corbett-Fitzsimmons Fight (1897), one of the earliest feature films ever released. The film runs at 60 minutes, and it isn't too particularly hard to find a copy on the Internet (as is the case with films from this decade), although the driving question one has is if the film will prove to be worth their time.

Honestly, this isn't a terrible movie, but it certainly hasn't aged well in terms of consistent entertainment value. It holds itself with a shaky foundation (from writing by Henry A. Du Souchet) that likely fits more for the stage than on a film screen, with the eye wandering a bit for the occasional offbeat highlight. The cast deliver fair performances, nothing too particularly fantastical nor derivative, and Brady certainly doesn't seem too out of place in the lead. I can only imagine how it would be for viewers who saw an edited version that that cut out scenes such as a sword thrust, certain intertitles and other moments. It should be noted that the story that occurs here (with elements such as a romance with a British officer, spy harboring, etc) isn't too particularly interested in telling facts, but then again we're dealing with a legend here - the story only began to surface upon the writings of her grandson during the 1870s, when America was about to celebrate its centennial. Ross was indeed an upholsterer who produced garments for the Continental forces such as uniforms and flags, with a record listing her for work done for the Pennsylvania Navy fleet (a blue flag with 13 stripes, although those stripes where on the upper left hand corner). In any case, it is more a manner of accepting that no one person can be credited with creating the first flag for the country. Certain habits and legends endure, for whatever reason - needing a symbol or role model for others to latch on, but this film isn't really one to completely grasp with, a relic of the past that lurks in obscurity without much struggle. Curiosity for something like this may prove okay or at best a way to spend an hour without being a complete waste of one's attention. One can do better here, but one could also do worse.

Happy Independence Day, everyone. It felt like time to do a seventh edition of the Independence Day Feature and cover some America-themed films, with this being the 12th done since 2012, with the others being Independence Day, The Patriot, Air Force One, America, Yankee Doodle Dandy, Spider-Man, The Devil's Disciple, Sagebrush Trail, Suddenly, Rambo: First Blood Part II, and Rambo III. With that in mind, I have a big feature planned to round out this doubleheader today.

Next Review: Gettysburg (1993).

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Cat in the Bag (Le chat dans le sac)

Review #1240: The Cat in the Bag (Le chat dans le sac)

Cast: 
Barbara Ulrich (Barbara), Claude Godbout (Claude), Manon Blain (Manon J'sais-pas-qui), Véronique Vilbert (Véronique), Jean-Paul Bernier (Jean-Paul), André Leblanc (Toulouse), with Paul Marie Lapointe (Messieurs), Jean-V. Dufresne (Messieurs), and Pierre Maheu (Messieurs) Directed by Gilles Groulx.

Review: 
I knew that at some point I would cover a film from Quebec cinema, particularly to how it relates to Canadian cinema. Quebec experienced their first movie projection in a theater room in 1896, but it took decades before a real cinema industry would occur for the province (a mostly francophone population), especially when the French branch of the National Film Board of Canada was established and became autonomous in 1959, leading to debut of several directors such as Michel Brault and Gilles Groulx. The province went through a period of turmoil in terms of change between society, politics and culture for numerous decades that is generally referred to as a Quiet Revolution. All this relates to the film, one that is a product of Direct Cinema, which grew in the region that serves under the documentary genre with lightweight film equipment along with live sound that wanted to capture reality with truth along with questioning reality's relationship with cinema, which was popularized with Chronique d'un été (1961) by French director and anthropologist Jean Rouch along with sociologist Edgar Morin, with one of the cinematographers of the film being Brault.

To call it just a coming-of-age story of a young man would simplify things a bit too easily - It is a film about a young man who is occupied by a budding relationship with a fellow young lady but questions his identity as a French Canadian living in Montreal that seems to reveal some sort of feeling at heart of a society as unique as Quebec. When asked about filmmaking in 1964, Groulx stated that "A filmmaker is a journalist: he must inform and comment. For me, what counts in a film is the moral, what the author has to say. Mere technique is meaningless. The story, too, is meaningless; it's the pretext for the film; it's like the model for an impressionist painter."

One can see the angst all around through crisp black-and-white photography and music from John Coltrane that serves as a mix of documentary and fiction that proves quite interesting to view through the lens of over five decades and other certain aspects. It definitely wants to challenge the viewer, that can be assumed, and it surely moves itself efficiently in its 74 minute run-time without having to strain itself in overwrought lecturing or strain in trying to cover too many things at once. One highlight involves its final act, with a few scenes spent in a snowy cabin - it surely makes the isolation and contrast stand out really quite starkly when it comes to the path one can take in search of self. It doesn't have too much of an ending, leaving itself to the thought on the viewer about what could occur with the path of the young fellow looking for a place within a society looking to etch its own statement within a nation that can be viewed through two people and their view - a Quebecois who is occupied with intellectual readings and his alienation over contemporary society and an anglophone who is occupied with passion for the theatre that doesn't share such concern. Ulrich and Godbout certainly prove worthy to the task of making this drama click, each playing with such compelling anxiety that makes for a natural fit for the mold required from Brault. It can be easy to relate to one or both of these folks, and the film doesn't find itself stuck pushing hard to get you to like (or accept) who they are, instead it just lets you in for a view or two with a bit of conviction and perhaps a bit of awakening. In the end, it surely is a film for thought that sticks out for its ambition in what it wants to say without choking the viewer out of entertainment or interest. It certainly fits well as a curiosity piece, especially for one wanting a bit of perspective from way back when from Quebec cinema at a key time for growth.

Happy Canada Day, folks. I hope you enjoyed this interesting doubleheader - there were quite a few possibilities leading up before I figured that these two films would prove for quite a fun time and give some perspective while sticking out from the films that usually come through this show - whether from America, Canada or somewhere else. Hopefully there will be some fun films to sit through and cover for the rest of the month.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Stereo (1969).

Review #1239: Stereo.

Cast: 
Ronald Mlodzik, Jack Messinger, Paul Mulholland, Iain Ewing, Arlene Mlodzik, Clara Mayer, and Glenn McCauley. Written and Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future, #1127 - eXistenZ, and #1220 - A History of Violence)

Review: 
One would wonder what would make a film like this, also known as Stereo (Tile 3B of a CAEE Educational Mosaic), stick out from the usual fare of entertainment. This ultimately proves to be a film that seems more ripe for dissection than a complete watch for entertainment's sake, complete with voice over (owing in part due to noise that Cronenberg's camera made during filming) and a few sound effects. If you are into movies of the experimental / art house genre that try to be something really different with a bunch of educational terms (and a few moments of silly jargon) that talk about telepaths, weird personal exploration, personality splits, and other various events. I can't really say that this was something I found to be worth endorsing, since it meanders and lingers a bit too long with itself, making for a weird 65 minute experience - the best thing that stands out really is when there is a voice over, only if because having no sound (or music) and watching things occur is a pretty strange experience. The actors seem to be having a fine time, walking around Scarborough College (University of Toronto, for which Cronenberg is a graduate of) and making a few faces.

At least I can give credit to Cronenberg, who was just 26 when this film came out, having served as director, writer, producer, editor and cinematographer, which he repeated for his next feature (which retained some of the cast from this one, notably in Mlodzik). It isn't so much a boring time as it is just one of those experiences that you'll feel a bit curious about what you saw more than finding it as just a waste. Giving it a bit of thought to what goes on may or may not help with said assessment. Watching either of his two experimental films (or even his short films with Transfer (1966) and From the Drain (1967)) might make for an odd night in terms of looking at quirky material through the eyes of someone developing their directorial senses with relish - they may not prove to be great, but at least it will play well with the crowd it wants to sit with. At least you won't have one of those little voices that will cry out and say "you just don't get it" when you finish assessing what you saw, at least. Take it for what it is worth.

Happy Canada Day folks. It is good to have done a Canada Day Feature after having done it for five previous years from 2013 to 2017. It happened that this is also the 50th anniversary of the directorial debut of noted Canadian director David Cronenberg, so this made perfect sense for today, since the first film I covered of him was the next film that he did after this one.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.