True Grit (1969).

Review #1314: True Grit.

Cast: 
John Wayne (Reuben J. "Rooster" Cogburn), Kim Darby (Mattie Ross), Glen Campbell (La Boeuf), Jeremy Slate (Emmett Quincy), Robert Duvall (Lucky Ned Pepper), Dennis Hopper (Moon), Alfred Ryder (Goudy), Strother Martin (Col. G. Stonehill), Jeff Corey (Tom Chaney), Ron Soble (Captain Boots Finch), John Fiedler (Lawyer Daggett), and James Westerfield (Judge Parker) Directed by Henry Hathaway.

Review: 
It seems perfectly appropriate to close a year out with a Western (or start one, if you're into that sort of tradition) - particularly one released in a year as intreging as 1969. That year was a time where the genre experienced variations of telling a tale of the Old West through various lens such as The Wild Bunch with its touch of violence or Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and its touch of humor. This is a film that very well could have been made in a previous decade - after all, its director was known primarily for quite a few Westerns in his time (mostly with Gary Cooper as star), with producer Hal B. Wallis having served as producer on films such as Casablanca (1942) or Westerns like The Sons of Katie Elder (released four years earlier, which had both Hathaway and Wayne). However, this was an adaptation of the 1968 novel of the same name from Charles Portis, adapted to the screen by Marguerite Roberts. Wayne had read the novel and soon expressed a desire to star in the main role, while later calling the screenplay the best one he ever read. The other parts of the main trio came a bit more shakily, with considerations for Mattie ranging from Mia Farrow to Sally Field before Darby wound up with the role, while Elvis Presley was the original one in mind for the role eventually taken up by Campbell (complete with singing the title song to open the film). Hathaway did not find himself having a great relationship with either of them along with Duvall, but he certainly leads them to worthy performances, not tripping up the momentum in part because the film knows when to be an adventure and when to have a bit of charm as well. It may be a tale of revenge, but it's still one with tradition involved. Wayne moves with careful confidence, a man wracked by who he is and what he means to someone who needs a person like him to hunt - plenty of grit and plenty of charm beneath that gauze eye-patch. Darby shines with persistence, a fine person to play off the main presence without being lost in the background. Campbell seems a bit stiff when on screen, but at least he doesn't slow the momentum too much. Duvall makes for a fair adversary alongside Hopper and Corey (who gets to make a crack while doing a stare-down) makes for a compelling showdown person for the climax. It uses its 128 minutes to great effect, driving a riveting climax with action and class, earning its wonderful last shot (Wayne jumping a fence with a horse) with conviction and triumph. It is a film with a spirit of adventure that brims itself high and mighty without needing to be wrapped in too much sentiment or bluntness. It falls into the conventions of the genre, without trouble, a well made venture for those who seek it out looking for something worthwhile.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Cats (2019)

Review #1313: Cats.

Cast: 
James Corden (Bustopher Jones), Judi Dench (Old Deuteronomy), Jason Derulo (Rum Tum Tugger), Idris Elba (Macavity), Jennifer Hudson (Grizabella), Ian McKellen (Gus the Theatre Cat), Taylor Swift (Bombalurina), Rebel Wilson (Jennyanydots), Francesca Hayward (Victoria), Laurie Davidson (Mr. Mistoffelees), Robbie Fairchild (Munkustrap), Mette Towley (Cassandra), Steven McRae (Skimbleshanks), Danny Collins (Mungojerrie), Naoimh Morgan (Rumpleteazer), Ray Winstone (Growltiger), and Les Twins (Plato and Socrates) Directed by Tom Hooper.

Review: 
Of course the review of the worst film of the year is the 1,313th review. Triskaidekaphobia fever couldn't be at an all-time high right now. Welcome to the late night shift of a New Year's Eve doubleheader.

Of course this film is a dud. I can't even use the excuse that I went with someone to see it (my mother, when it occurred to me that I hadn't taken her to the movie theater in quite some time), because I basically goaded her (and in a sense, myself) to picking this one, because who can resist seeing...cats? As it turns out, quite a few people, judging from the fact that this is already projected to deliver losses for Universal Pictures, and it only has been out for less than two weeks. It seemed like this was a film destined for ridicule (and not much else) from the moment one got a view of yet another example of the uncanny valley - this time with cats. In fairness, utilizing CGI and motion-capture technology does seem like something that probably could've worked in making an alright movie - too bad it is utilized for an absurd mess. This is an adaptation of the stage musical of the same name composed by Andrew Lloyd Webber, with its original London (1981) and Broadway (1982) productions setting records for longest-running stage productions for several years; the musical in turn was based on T. S. Eliot's poetry collection Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats (1939), which was a childhood favorite of Webber. In 1998, he oversaw the orchestration for a direct-to-video musical film, retaining Gillian Lynne (the original choreographer of the musical), which had a few cuts and a new stage to recreate the musical with a mix of cast members from various productions of Cats that ran 115 minutes (this film happens to be five minutes shorter, oddly enough). All of this foundation that I am writing is really more to just make sure that I am not running blind into writing about a film adaptation of something that did not have much plot to begin with. Context helps sometimes - but it can't quite mask the very fact that this is a vacant kind of movie, one that will inspire plenty of giggles for the few who dare to encounter it.

Think about this - exactly who was this made for? Exactly who in this cast comes out with much dignity? One could simply just say veteran actors like Dench and McKellen, whose crucial parts have a bit more impact than the others (in the same way that one big bite of familiarity seems better than literally anything else). Perhaps one could say Corden and Wilson, who are at least meant to generate a few laughs (the result being mixed, if one is incredibly generous) - on second thought, maybe not. Maybe it is Hayward, a member of The Royal Ballet that at least clears the bar of having a better film debut than Kurt Thomas from Gymkata (1985). Or perhaps it is Elba, who seems like he is having some silly fun. On the other hand, Derulo and Hudson won't quite garner as much appreciation, if only because mediocrity is everyone's excuse when it comes to such ridiculous material (with co-writing and co-producing duties belonging to its director). I suppose Davidson and Swift do just fine - I can't even remember their time on screen. No one so much delivers a bad performance as they just seem completely lost in the ridiculousness of what is going on around them. For pete's sake, it's a bunch of actors with VFX dots singing song after song with large sets (get it, because they are cats) that twist the film around in such a mawkish way to the point where parody seems too kind for this dreck. Sometimes it really does go to show that not every musical needs to become a film - or at least not every movie needs to be done in live-action - for pete's sake, I think people would've at least tried to accept an attempt at making a cat costume (you know, like in a play). It never really feels like interesting camp either, as if big colors and a pale execution really is going to work - apparently the director finished final work on the film the day before its world premiere, which didn't seem to matter too much, since that version ended up being modified due to reports of CGI glitches. I would almost think the next folly to befall this film would be a stunt involving releasing a pack of cats throughout the movie theater to ''generate good attention'', but alas that isn't quite the case. How does one really judge this film fairly? Is it really just too weird for its own good? It shows traces of garish camp that at least makes the things around the singing-singing-singing things seem like an okay place to look forward to, but a middling attempt at an arching plot leads to confusion and overall frustration that leads to a bit of boredom. You could probably take a nap during the film and still be just as confused at what is really going on. The people who made this film behind the camera and the people who starred in the film may recover just fine from embarrassment like this, but it sure won't be forgotten in years to come. Honestly, there is only one way to describe the film: it is an utter cat-astrophe that deserves to be hairballed in the litterbox when it comes to execution, a felined-felony that deserves to be clawed out of its misery.

Next Review: To close out 2019, Movie Night ventures out and picks a Western to once again serve as the year finale with True Grit (1969).

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Michael (1996).

Review #1312: Michael.

Cast: 
John Travolta (Michael), Andie MacDowell (Dorothy Winters), William Hurt (Frank Quinlan), Bob Hoskins (Vartan Malt), Robert Pastorelli (Huey Driscoll), Jean Stapleton (Pansy Milbank), Teri Garr (Judge Esther Newberg), Wallace Langham (Bruce Craddock), and Joey Lauren Adams (Anita) Directed by Nora Ephron (#554 - Sleepless in Seattle and #1020 - You've Got Mail)

Review: 

It may have already been said before, but it bears repeating: some movies are just easier to write about than others. Some are involving pieces that can deliver on laughs while others can do that and a bit of romance. This is not quite one of those films, as it seems I have stumbled onto yet another mediocre Nora Ephron effort, although at least it isn't one with some sort of following (sidenote: this was a fair hit with audiences upon release). It is fundamentally a mediocre movie, wracked by middling humor that seems to be the work of too many cooks at writer (there are four credits for screenplay, one of them being the director) while also being too hokey when trying to inspire any sense of passion. Its one highlight is a lead performance from Travolta, an angel with a devil-may-care attitude that occasionally imparts wisdom.  He is eccentric enough to almost push this forward, but we're dealing with a road movie with otherwise empty others. That sure is a shame, because Hurt and MacDowell are capable actors, but it takes too much time to really build hints for a romance and it leads to a mild payoff that can't satisfy anyone. So they're both too cynical to open their hearts to love at first, big deal. The antics of its lead character almost seems enough for its own film without any attempts at comedy-drama, or even just a silly television movie. On the road with a fellow like its lead should be more interesting than what plays out here, aside from its one barfight scene and trips to random landmarks. The supporting cast is fine, but they aren't too special, mostly serving as one-hit wonders (such as a brash Hoskins) that carry the film with a mild relish (although the dog is cute, I guess). My expectations for this film were fairly middling, where I didn't think it would be a silly time or a particularly moving film - 105 minutes seems okay when it comes to mediocrity, I suppose. Once one gets behind the idea of Travolta playing a rascal from above (complete with wings), the possibilities could be endless (for hilarity or ridicule, you be the judge). It just seems a road movie isn't exactly what one has in mind (especially with how obvious its story beats are). Even a scene of a dog being run over doesnt have a pull, because one knows it's going to be reversed a few moments later anyway. If a film is about the journey and how it gets there, this is one where the journey seems to have a few too many dead ends. It needs more laughs and shocks to really pull something to the skies and above. At least this is the kind of film you could watch a few minutes on television without trouble -before either switching to find a better Travolta lead to view or going to sleep.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.

Review #1311: Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.

Cast: 
Carrie Fisher (Leia Organa), Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Adam Driver (Ben Solo / Kylo Ren), Daisy Ridley (Rey), John Boyega (Finn), Oscar Isaac (Poe Dameron), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Naomi Ackie (Jannah), Domhnall Gleeson (General Hux), Richard E. Grant (Allegiant General Pryde), Lupita Nyong'o (Maz Kanata), Keri Russell (Zorri Bliss), Joonas Suotamo (Chewbacca), Kelly Marie Tran (Rose Tico), Ian McDiarmid (Palpatine / Darth Sidious), and Billy Dee Williams (Lando Calrissian) Directed by J. J. Abrams (#009 - Star Trek, #150 - Super 8, #665 - Star Trek Into Darkness, and #769 - Star Wars: The Force Awakens)

Review: 
Well, isn't this an interesting day. Nine years of Movie Night in written form, and I celebrate it with the ninth (and last) film of the Skywalker Saga (alongside being #98 in the Theater Saga). It sure has been quite a ride over these 3,287 days - basically a review every 2.5 days. The best is yet to come ahead for Movie Night 2020 (or Season X, if you will). If I am not mistaken, this may actually be the longest review yet. May the force be with you. 

How did you picture the last Star Wars movie in a trilogy was going to end? That's a question you can now ask three times and get three different answers. One trilogy conclusion had the burden of closing the loop on what was thought to be a six film saga while also sealing up loose ends of its own. Another trilogy conclusion had the burden of ending its story with its beloved characters that made for a worthy space fantasy adventure worth telling again and again. This trilogy conclusion has the burden of sealing a trilogy of trilogies once and for all - 42 years and nine main films with various actors tasked with interesting (for the most part) characters and worlds. Some landed better than others, but there are plenty of people who can say they grew up with a Star Wars trilogy, for better or worse. It is the journey that counts in the end when it comes to Star Wars, really, where George Lucas used his imagination alongside inspiration to cultivate a film all those years ago. He loved his comic books, his fairy tales, his Saturday morning serials, and he loved creating a mythology for a new generation. Everything gets picked apart in the age we live in nowadays, but it doesn't diminish the basic core of what made this series endure for so long. It will be nice to have a rest from these films for a little while, I must admit. After five films in five years, one can appreciate something else taking over the landscape for a bit (for those who refer to television, I have my own things to cycle through). This may seem like an elegy for Star Wars, but it really isn't. I am trying to express my train of thought when it comes to the realization of seeing a saga come to a close yet again and how it ended up following up not just its "polarizing" predecessor film (The Last Jedi, which I ran out of time in regards to re-watching it before doing this) but the others as a whole. Look, the last film had Leia pull herself out of space through the Force and then decided to kill off its big bad villain suddenly (complete with a jump to lightspeed to obliterate a ship because...[BLANK]) and wrote itself into a corner with mawkish sentiment. An intriguing corner, but still a corner that is not easy to pull out from without some sort of effort.

Could it really do a better job at closing a saga that Return of the Jedi did three decades prior? Honestly, it didn't. It sure tries hard to seal it all into a big ball of entertainment, and I applaud the effort - but the film is a mess. However, I enjoy big messes when there is enough positivity to go around (or camp), and this has that in spades. It becomes evident right from the very opening, where text crawls say the dead rise and get things rolling with quick editing and plenty of shots to go around. This is a 142 minute movie (somehow being ten minutes shorter than its predecessor), yet it sure feels like a big roller coaster ride that doesn't want to end. It tries to please everyone and may very well have a different kind of result. That doesn't mean it will go down as a monumental thing to ridicule, it just means it will go down as something to argue for/against when it comes to imagination for a space opera about laser swords and space beliefs. At a certain point, one has to wonder if this is meant to be a comeback on the scale of Elvis, where fan service deliver greatest hits very much like Abrams' previous work in this trilogy - wrapped with a tinge of bittersweet fervor. You know it is the end, I know it is the end - but it wants to throw everything at the void to make sure the end doesn't come easy. If the last one was inherently too ham-handed to stick to its principles in the face of the past, this one is inherently determined to glue everything together to land certain twists down without making too much laughter come out than needed. Allow me to use one pop culture analogy here: this is essentially the equivalent of when Homer Simpson tries to build his own barbecue pit and frantically tries to build it before the wet cement makes it stick permanently, just replace the grill with story toolbox and Homer with...you get the idea. Seriously, the film has four credited writers: Abrams and Chris Terrio for the screenplay while the story credit went to Derek Connolly, Colin Trevorrow (the initial director slated to direct this film before leaving production due to creative differences), Abrams and Terrio.

Golly, there sure a whole bunch of actors and characters present. Some are given their time to shine, some are thrown in there all of a sudden, some are given a bit less to do from before, and some are somehow back in the thick of things (for better or worse). You really have to just roll the dice and see what works and what doesn't, honestly. I didn't so much see a bad performance as I saw actors trying their hardest to stick through a big sprawling adventure with plenty of skepticism and fear circling around. I find that the best ones to come out of it are Ridley and Driver, a duo with their odd own kind of bond of vulnerability and fear over who they think they are and what they must face to step forward beyond their doubts. They definitely do well when it comes to lightsaber fighting, graceful despite rocky environments like a bit of water to get in the way. Granted, their paths seem a bit easy to draw out, where I wonder if it had been better to have swapped the focus to Driver as the main focus (or perhaps better framing to have a trilogy that spans more than a year in movie time). Boyega and Isaac try to fend off being wooden with humor, which goes off okay. They felt better together four years prior with the seventh film, but I do find myself at least going along with them on essentially a scavenger hunt, where characters pop out to wedge their own part to play, because I suppose one needed to try and give some sort of backstory/shared thing for people we just met to people we barely know much of through three films. It is quite striking to see Fisher appear on screen for a few minutes (in the sense just as much as she did for the other two films), where the re-purposed footage of her works for what is needed and gives her a fair way to make farewell without going overboard. It is nice to see Daniels get a bit more scenes to chew upon for another trip down the lane for our favorite fussy golden robot, who delivers a chuckle or two that is welcome here. The sudden new blood of Ackie, Grant and Russell prove alright, moreso for the latter two in that one can seep right into an obvious villain trap without having to get outside and the other can just wear a mask and beat some nobodies for a bit. Gleeson, Nyong'o and Tran seem like they drew small straws when it comes to "Who gets to be in another Star Wars film but doesn't have much meaningful things to say?" (which proves amusing if thought as essentially being Jar-Jarred out of importance). McDiarmid and Williams return to their roles with ease, in that neither have to really move too much to deliver their lines to serve the plot, where it is nice to see them again, if not for the camp of the former and the smooth charm of the latter. Granted, it barely makes sense to see either come back - but why not? The film feels like a whole batch of why nots. One might wonder how much of this is a hand-wave of what happened before - the jokester in me is slightly delighted at the idea of shaking the head-turning predecessor, even if that means more predictability. A good adventure is all that it takes, and this does fine with that. It won't be the kind of thing that inspires navel gazing or anything when it comes to analysis, but always take to heart four words: It's just a movie. Turning off my brain a bit for some ridiculous things in a Star Wars film didn't give me a headache as it did just help my throat get some chuckles.

At least the effects work themselves out pretty good. Sometimes you really need a bunch of flashing lights on a stormy dark world to really make something ooze out well, really. You don't need spoilers to know that the film will fling whatever it takes to make things work - a Skywalker has to stand triumphant after all. It isn't like anyone actually thought this would end on a downbeat note (much like how Lucas liked his happy ending for VI) - by golly one has to sell this product somehow (besides, Rogue One wedged in hope even with its downbeat stuff). One does tend to get tired of saying "X was better than Y", so I'll try to refrain from said comparisons too much. What we have here is an okay sequel trilogy, packed firmly between what was done before through Lucas and others - and that's okay. I'll probably look at these films in retrospect as ones that had their moment in the sun and did what they thought made sense - churning some nostalgia and Internet frothing for better or worse. They aren't the best or worst things to happen to the franchise, that much is for sure (a statement one could even see someone saying about the previous trilogy). Everything moves in a flash to get to some sort of point that matters, and I liked more than what I shook my head at. If you want to see something with space action and a bunch of things that relate to the stuff of the past, go right on ahead. If you want something a bit deeper or perhaps more fitting for the end of a space opera, consult oneself first. In my heart I enjoyed this weird little film, but I know the rating it really does deserve - it's an average film, but at least it isn't a complete mediocre one for the books.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Million Dollar Baby.

Review #1310: Million Dollar Baby.

Cast: 
Clint Eastwood (Frankie Dunn), Hilary Swank (Margaret "Maggie" Fitzgerald), Morgan Freeman (Eddie "Scrap-Iron" Dupris), Jay Baruchel (Danger), Mike Colter ("Big" Willie Little), Lucia Rijker (Billie "The Blue Bear" Osterman), Brían F. O'Byrne (Father Horvak), Anthony Mackie (Shawrelle Berry), Margo Martindale (Earline Fitzgerald), Riki Lindhome (Mardell Fitzgerald), and Michael Peña (Omar) Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys)

Review: 
We all love underdogs. Or at least we love the idea of someone trying to claw their way out of their past and find a new life for themselves (a second act, if you will). Of course one may have already seen a Cinderella story through the eyes of boxing before with Rocky (1976), but the film finds its own place to deliver a wrenching drama that works wonderfully for its 132 minute run-time with a solid trio to make its foundation stick. The film is based on a short story collection named Rope Burns: Stories from the Corner by F.X. Toole (pen name of boxing trainer Jerry Boyd), with Paul Haggis writing the screenplay. The film plays itself out in realism piece by piece that draws its ensemble with quiet precision. The film plays itself out in realism piece by piece that draws its ensemble with quiet precision. Eastwood does the task of acting/directing with ease, seeping into a grizzled yet well-meaning teacher with confidence. Freeman (who also serves as narrator) does a wonderful sobering job, carrying the soul of the film to where it needs to go whenever he is on screen or narrating about these characters and who they are when down and out in boxing. Swank clearly trained hard to sell such a tough role, where looking the part is only the half of it all - one is invested in Swank because of the drive and raw charisma she brings here. It's no surprise each won an Academy Award (Best Director, Supporting Actor, Actress) for their work - they all play well with each other, no matter whose partnered with who is a scene. The supporting cast (filled with actors who would become known in their own right) give credence to this grizzled atmosphere seen in the film, where one has to find something to stick with to belong and face hard truths - whether it means how one can be as a fighter or as a father or with one's own relatives or with the reality of sudden changes. The boxing looks the part when it comes to giving the right balance of brutality and entertainment, where one is involved with the punches without bellowing for more or being squeamish for less.  It grips the audience like a book you'd find in the store and find reading piece by piece without hesitation, never hedging itself too long on somehing without a clear reason.

The film hits most of the right punches when it comes to mining hard hitting drama in and out of the ring, being more than a typical boxing film through its distinct first and second halves. It forges with its choices without hamhanded compromise or cruelty for its characters, which may work differently for a viewer with their own mindsets about certain uncomfortable decisions. For me, the film hits the landing with a quiet but resounding focus, where a tear may very well come out of a stone composure. After 15 years, it's no wonder why this proves to be a modern classic worth checking out at least once.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Krampus.

Review #1309: Krampus.

Cast.
Emjay Anthony (Max Engel), Adam Scott (Tom Engel), Toni Collette (Sarah Engel), David Koechner (Howard), Allison Tolman (Linda), Krista Stadler (Omi Engel), Conchata Ferrell (Aunt Dorothy), Stefania LaVie Owen (Beth Engel), Lolo Owen (Stevie), Queenie Samuel (Jordan), Maverick Flack (Howie Jr.), and Mark Atkin (Ketkrókur) Directed by Michael Dougherty (#1227 - Godzilla: King of the Monsters)

Review: 
I suppose the best way to enjoy the holiday season would be to have at least one good scare to go along with the usual festivities, at least one holiday horror film to differentiate from the usual Christmas fare (or at least something that isn't a shameless remake of a classic without any new ideas). In that regard, this is inspired by Central European folklore with its title character, a half goat/demon that punishes children that have been bad for the year. Of course, the key thing to remember here is that this is trying to be a Christmas horror comedy, filling its cast with a mix of notable names and others alongside demented holiday creatures and an occasional sprinkling of Krampus, which proves to be an okay if unwieldy mix. It definitely does alright with tongue-in-cheek humor, mixing its familiar yet dependable character types with fairly decent special effects, that much is for sure. Anthony proves a worthy child lead to follow with, where a unwieldy family visit isn't always the most terrifying possibility to have for the holidays, and he does well with reacting to his surroundings when needed. One needs levelheaded people with a little sense of humor before the storm, and Scott and Collette do a fair job in that regard, who play off with Koechner and Tolman to pretty good effect when it comes to small consistent moments or when faced with the cold reaches of disagreements or killer gingerbread men. Stadler stands out just as much as the others without having to say as much as the others, a warm presence that lends the film's most interesting moment, a description of her first encounter with Krampus (told through stop motion). Ferrell delivers a good portion of the laughs throughout the film as well, and the other castmates prove fair with rounding out the remainders of a family dealing with a lack of holiday spirit. Honestly, while I did find myself chuckling at times with the film, I do wish that it had gone for a more serious turn with its main focus, where the stakes could be a little higher than where it eventually finds itself before its 98 minutes are up. Does this film even have a body count? Sort of. The creature is certainly a terror to think about, where he doesn't just lumber down on a family as much as he sends in smaller terrors to wear them down, but it seems to make one wonder for a little bit more. The ending is at least fine for what is needed (something to think about), accompanied by a cheesy jump scare. For the parts that seem reminiscent of Gremlins, it only just seems to remind me that some horror comedies handle their balances better than others. It is technically scary, in that one would probably go nuts wrapped with the idea of not having any power before a bunch of weirdo holiday creatures try to take you down in a blizzard. I ultimately found more to like than dislike when it reached its endpoint, so I can say I liked the movie okay. It isn't so much disappointing as it is just an okay film for the holidays, whether for a scare for the relatives or for a take on a different kind of folklore.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Being John Malkovich.

Review #1308: Being John Malkovich.

Cast: 
John Cusack (Craig Schwartz), Cameron Diaz (Lotte Schwartz), Catherine Keener (Maxine Lund), John Malkovich (John Horatio Malkovich), Orson Bean (Dr. Lester), Mary Kay Place (Floris), and Charlie Sheen (Himself) Directed by Spike Jonze.

Review: 
Have you ever wanted to be someone else? Did you ever find yourself with an opportunity to step into someone else's mind for a moment? The first question is an interesting one to think about, while the second is certainly imaginative enough for a film to make for quite a ride, one that is full of desires, interesting imagery, and plenty to talk about after it ends. Writer Charlie Kaufman had written the script for this film in 1994, a combination of separate ideas he had, one involving a man falling for a woman that wasn't his wife, and the other being a discovery of a portal into John Malkovich. His attempts at selling it to studios were not successful, but it eventually reached the hands of Francis Ford Coppola, who showed it to Jonze (who was involved with his daughter Sofia) in 1996. Jonze, who had been known for his work on music and skate videos, agreed to direct the film (which served as his feature debut). 

Sometimes you really have to just keep an open mind and let the film go where it feels like going in its run-time, and this sure is one of them, where one does not get left off the hook easily in its 112 minute run-time when it comes to overt sympathy for these characters and their human nature when it comes to choices. Being someone else isn't just wish fulfillment or a case of touch and go, really. In that sense, there is a fairly picked trio to go along with the dimensions of finding themselves with a portal to a famous person's mind: commercialization and experimentation, where they are not so much easy to like as they are just people we can at least understand on a basic level. Cusack does a fine job in that regard, capturing someone with plenty of self-involvement and neurotic devotion to his craft of puppeteering (in whatever form it may take itself) without becoming wrapped in too much pity. Diaz sinks into a homely role without much hesitation, a quirky person that is seemingly trapped in their marriage but finds their own means of escape and actualization. Keener is the bold part of the triad, filled with self-confidence and desire, which serve as a pretty clear contrast to the other two from the very moment she is introduced to the film. Malkovich (playing Malkovich) had initially wanted to just produce the film and find a different star to be the focus before ultimately signing on. In that sense, he serves as the highlight of the film, a man faced with the task of playing a version of themselves that happens to be intruded by people in your head alongside the usual trappings of being famous. He composes himself well in each scene is in, most notably when faced with being in his own head. Bean and Place prove quite eccentric when needed, and Sheen is exactly the kind of off-balance cameo one needs for a fantasy comedy-drama, really. 

Once the film gets itself going, it moves with weird confidence, appropriate for delivering useful entertainment without tricking or angering its target too much. This is a film with plenty of weird things to say and show that handles itself without too many bumps in the road, where offbeat seems to meet The Twilight Zone (such as with its ending, a can of worms that goes off fine for discussion) and conventions aren't all necessary. On the whole, this is a fairly good movie, utilizing its imagination to fine heights through a well-rounded cast and careful execution that make for quite a debut for its director and writer.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Jackie Brown.

Review #1307: Jackie Brown.

Cast: 
Pam Grier (Jackie Brown), Samuel L. Jackson (Ordell Robbie), Robert Forster (Max Cherry), Bridget Fonda (Melanie Ralston), Michael Keaton (Ray Nicolette), Robert De Niro (Louis Gara), Michael Bowen (Det. Mark Dargus), Chris Tucker (Beaumont Livingston), LisaGay Hamilton (Sheronda), Tom "Tiny" Lister Jr (Winston), Hattie Winston (Simone), and Sid Haig (Judge) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, #1218 - Pulp Fiction, and #1251 - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood)

Review: 
For a crime film, a well-detailed story can go a long way to make an experience worth remembering. Quentin Tarantino certainly had plenty of films to showcase interesting people and the environments they inhabit, and Jackie Brown proves no different, showing plenty of wit and charm through a 154 minute leisure that has a solid cast and pretty good execution that leaves one fairly satisfied. This happens to be the only Tarantino film where he adapted a previous work, with the source material being Rum Punch by Elmore Leonard (which Tarantino did over adapting Freaky Deaky or Killshot after re-reading), for which there were a few changes made involving its title character alongside her race that Leonard approved of, reportedly saying that this was the best screenplay he had ever read. For his third directorial effort, Tarantino uses a little less violence and a bit more chronology when it comes to telling his story, which works pretty well within some casual confines, featuring six distinct players in something reminiscent of blaxploitation films (having Grier helps in that regard) without losing itself too much in clear style. The main group of actors do pretty well in that regard, starting with its main lead. Grier, already a trail blazer for female action heroes in the 1970s, proves just as capable in sinking her teeth into a towering presence, capable of holding her own with whoever is on screen without even having to use a gun all too much. Jackson exudes ruthless confidence to a tee here, capable of sticking any kind of line involving unseemly things (such as trying to get someone in a trunk as a favor) without too much reluctance. Forster seems completely in his element here, a world weary straight-laced player with complete professionalism and subtle chemistry with Grier that makes for a well-deserved comeback for the character actor that ended up with an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor - the film's only Oscar nomination. Fonda and De Niro also provide welcome players, casual and raw for the moments that need to happen, which all comes full circle with the parking lot sequence in terms of emotion and payoff (sometimes you just need to see it all play out to make it really count). Keaton doesn't have as much time, but it sure is nice to see him and the rest of the supporting cast in those little moments to surround the environment of the plot. It has its choices when it comes to music or homages, doing so with careful ambition that extends to a plot that plays by the book in gathering these characters to the moments that matter without shortchanging them with cheap gags or rushes. The film has its amusing moments, but it knows when to drive itself with sharp senses of focus with characters who all seem to have been around the block a few times and seem weary for it. It's a nice movie that drags itself with daring regard for plenty to see with its characters and its sudden turns that make it all feel worth it. Sure, it isn't his best film, but it does prove a worthy one to view once if not twice to see how the run plays out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Knives Out.

Review #1306: Knives Out.

Cast: 
Daniel Craig (Benoit Blanc), Chris Evans (Hugh Ransom Drysdale), Ana de Armas (Marta Cabrera), Jamie Lee Curtis (Linda Drysdale), Michael Shannon (Walt Thrombey), Don Johnson (Richard Drysdale), Toni Collette (Joni Thrombey), Lakeith Stanfield (Detective Lieutenant Elliot), Katherine Langford (Meg Thrombey), Jaeden Martell (Jacob Thrombey), Christopher Plummer (Harlan Thrombey), Noah Segan (Trooper Wagner), Edi Patterson (Fran), Riki Lindhome (Donna Thrombey), K Callan (Wanetta "Great Nana" Thrombey), Frank Oz (Alan Stevens), and M. Emmet Walsh (Mr. Proofroc) Written and Directed by Rian Johnson (#1027 - Star Wars: The Last Jedi)

Review: 
To have a good murder mystery is to have something worth looking at once enough to want to see it again. Entertainment is one thing, having something that compels you into its little game is another, as is the intent behind Knives Out, which has certainly gained a bit of buzz leading up to its release. It sure is amazing to see something as wonderfully average as this proves to be, as if someone wanted to make the dumbest smart mystery movie. It does prove a bit irritating to wonder how much one can really say about a movie mystery like this without seeming like a spoiler hound waiting to bite. Whatever you may say about "subverted expectations" when it comes to movies, it also proves irritating to manage to make a farce as opposed to a real intriguing mystery on a consistent level. The fact that it does just okay with its ensemble cast should inspire annoyance rather than rapture, really. You could've made this with average marquee-sounding actors and nobody would shout to the balcony about how it was exceptional in its execution. But hey, what are deftly built murder mysteries for when you can have snide humor and creaky foundations? You too can hit for the low hanging fruit for humor and mystery if you have the PR push (edgy political commentary for current year flavor? Ooh, tell me more before I stick a fork in my brain and call it art), where using buzzwords for certain moments makes for okay satire.

It certainly has the style to inspire charm, and there are no real bad apples in the acting bunch, so that does tend to help the film in its favor. If you happen to be in the mood for eccentric family drama, this probably seems right up your alley, unless one is more into the sleuth and his southern fried accent. In this case, Craig is easily the best part of the film, amusing in his mannerisms when it comes to working out the oddities that tend to arise, never overstaying his welcome in any sense. Armas makes for a fairly compelling lead to follow when faced with the mystery and the facts that surround her, handling things with a dash of grace and confidence. Evans is tasked with delivering oozy charisma (while doing it in a silly sweater) for the film's second half, and he proves just fine with that in mind, where brash confidence at being the entitled black sheep of the family just comes with the territory. When it comes to the other members of the family, I find myself gravitating towards Curtis and Shannon when it comes to how they interact with the others in their family, for better or worse. Honestly, I feel like the film could've just focused on them even more, since the film doesn't even have red herrings or anything that would lead the mystery solely back on these quirky caricatures besides flashbacks. Plummer is wry and easy to follow as the center of this whole film for when needed that fits the film's bill to a T.

Am I so jaded that I can't appreciate the idea of a mystery that is ever so clever in not really being that much of a mystery? Sure, it seems to want to have cryptic seriousness, before it deluges itself with self-awareness that seems as smug in trying to be clever as having a character vomiting when they lie. Gee, I wonder if this will be used over and over for laughs. By the time the film tries to deliver on its payoff, I was thankful moreso because it meant that the film actually meant something to make 130 minutes seem worth more than just hearing about grandstanding praise for a film that teeters on being dangerously hollow. The film does have a nice look to it, seeming fairly authentic when setting up its story trappings, complete with plenty of knives. It seems cruel to nitpick at a film like this, because my fair expectations were met with mild entertainment alongside confusion at its ultimate execution. Sometimes you can shoot the target and still hit for average in the final tally, but I do at least see myself wondering what could come next from Johnson at least. Curiosity can prove rewarding for this film, if it manages to hit all the right buttons for those who seek it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Catch Me If You Can.

Review #1305: Catch Me If You Can.

Cast: 
Leonardo DiCaprio (Frank Abagnale Jr.), Tom Hanks (Carl Hanratty), Christopher Walken (Frank Abagnale Sr.), Nathalie Baye (Paula Abagnale), Amy Adams (Brenda Strong), Martin Sheen (Roger Strong), James Brolin (Jack Barnes), and Nancy Lenehan (Carol Strong) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, and #1068 - Ready Player One)

Review: 
We all have a collection of lies in our lives, with some having more fabrications than others. We tell it to ourselves, our children, our loved ones, our friends and even random strangers if necessary. They can range from white lies to the outrageous. In this case, this is a film inspired by the real life story of Frank Abagnale Jr, a case of con-man forger turned consultant that wrote about his exploits as a teenager in 1980 with Stan Redding. Attempts to produce an adaptation had persisted for years with several directors attached before Spielberg (who had co-founded of Dreamworks Pictures and initially signed on as producer) ultimately became the one to direct. In any case, Catch Me If You Can is a wonderful crook tale headlined by a wonderful tandem performance from DiCaprio and Hanks that rolls for 141 minutes in consistent stylish entertainment. It takes the expected route to fact and fiction blending, but let it be said that the exploits of Abagnale are still a bit fuzzy even after several decades. Granted, there are significant differences, which range from minor stuff like a consolidated time-line to changing the name of the pursuing FBI agent to his family life (i.e. no siblings). It is a compromise kind of film, where the scenes with DiCaprio and Walken after he runs away from home are warm while being a product of movie-magic, which can be forgiven for a clever film like this one.

DiCaprio drives things along with such suave nature, a charming wunderkind of fabrication that never seems inauthentic to watch, where he doesn't seem too old to be playing a teenager-turned-criminal. Hanks is just as entertaining as the other side of the coin, where he doesn't become privy to the old traditions of the FBI pursuer of gritted teeth or Lt. Gerald style obsession - one trying to do their job without much of a family life (very much like the person pursued) but with a sense of commitment one would see from a composite (loosely based on real FBI Agent Joseph Shea). Walken plays things smooth, where one likes to see him talk to his on-screen son with caring warmth, and Baye does just as fine to portray this on-screen family before things go awry, a picture of a family that you might think was just fine. Illusions aren't limited to cons, you might say. Adams does pretty well with a lively performance to round out the edges of the caper filings. On the whole, the film does best in its look at the pursuit through technical lenses, such as the cinematography by Janusz Kamiński and a jazzy score from John Williams that each give the film plenty of surrounding atmosphere to go around. The film works best when seeing how DiCaprio and Hanks are when in their surrounding environments, or when they speak to each other (it should be noted that the real life Abagnale and Shea did have a long-standing friendship as well) that help the film be more than procedure. You aren't rooting for our lead to be caught, but instead are captivated by what goes on next with someone who goes from plucky kid to pilot passenger. We live in such a different world now compared to the late 1960s that the film presents, but that doesn't mean the con of assuming a different identity is a thing of the past - some just happen to be better than others. This is a case of someone who did it with embellishment, with a film that seems as appropriate for entertainment that is easy to expect from Spielberg but always interesting to see in how it actually plays out.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Welcome Danger.

Review #1304: Welcome Danger.

Cast: 
Harold Lloyd (Harold Bledsoe), Barbara Kent (Billie Lee), Noah Young (Patrick Clancy), Charles B. Middleton (John Thorne), Will Walling (Captain Walton), Edgar Kennedy (Police Desk Sergeant), James Wang (Dr. Chang Gow), Douglas Haig (Buddy Lee), and Blue Washington (Thorne's Henchman) Directed by Clyde Bruckman (#908 - The General) and Malcolm St. Clair.

Review: 
It does seem interesting to finally reach the sound era when it comes to Harold Lloyd. He appeared in eighteen feature films, with just seven of them being sound. The production of this film a few months after the release of Speedy (1928), with the intent to shoot as a silent production with the same director in Ted Wilde. However, Wilde (who subsequently died of a stroke in 1930 at the age of 40) became sick during production, which would continue for nearly a year. The idea to change it into a sound feature coming after it had already been shot after Lloyd felt that sound would not be just a passing fad. Extensive re-shoots where done, namely by re-doing half of the silent version into sound and dubbing the other parts. If one thinks the film seems a bit long at 115 minutes, this evidently was even longer in previews, reportedly being edited from roughly 165 minutes. Admittedly, nerdy botanist (and son of a famed San Francisco police chief) meets dope ring in Chinatown does seem like the kind of thing to inspire shenanigans for a premise. It sure is a shame the resulting film is a jumbled mess, racked with inconsistency when it comes to delivering gags that actually land. I suppose this was bound to happen if one thinks of it like with the law of averages, where one is bound to deliver a clunker at some point when it comes to Lloyd. After all, there are four credited writers for this film in Paul Gerard Smith, Felix Adler, Lex Neal and Bruckman. Maybe there were too many cooks present, or maybe this is an example of a film that really just doesn't have it. At least one can't say Lloyd sounds terrible in sound, seeming a bit more nervous to follow with the times than anything. The times unfortunately come with a slightly annoying lead and a pathetic villain alongside some dated humor to boot (while I do enjoy being amused at complaints from social justice loons for "cancel culture" stuff, the government of China at the time was actually offended at this, which led to Lloyd offering a sincere apology). Kent comes and goes from the film, which doesn't help make this little romance seem any more real than a coloring book. The others range from okay to awkward, where being used to the microphone (or dubbing) is something one needs to get used to but never quite does. I do wonder if the silent version of this film turned out any better, but this happens to be the longest feature Lloyd would ever do (the aforementioned Speedy lasted 86 minutes), with this going from focusing on Lloyd and Kent (i.e. lame physical gags) to the police stuff to Chinatown antics, which goes on and on before I eventually start twiddling my thumbs and start eyeing things on my shelf. Following the story of what actually is going on isn't much better, whereas a silent film seemingly could do more with its premise through imagination. Here, it just seems a bit less loose, and it results in a film that perfectly fits the mold of average old-timey filmmaking. If you want to spend two hours with a film that you could get a chuckle at while spending time with the newspaper or phone, this might work out if you prefer your films from 90 years ago.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood.

Review #1303: A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Fred Rogers), Matthew Rhys (Lloyd Vogel), Susan Kelechi Watson (Andrea Vogel), Chris Cooper (Jerry Vogel), Enrico Colantoni (Bill Isler), Maryann Plunkett (Joanne Rogers), Tammy Blanchard (Lorraine), Wendy Makkena (Dorothy), and Carmen Cusack (Margy) Directed by Marielle Heller.

Review: 
“You know everyone has lots of ways of feeling, and all those ways of feeling are fine. It’s what we do with our feelings that matter in this life. I trust that you’re growing in ways that will help you with whatever feelings you may have. When you’re a child and when you’re a grown up. I hope you’re able to grow to respect whoever you are inside.” - Mister Rogers

I do admit that there was plenty of interest in my mind to see this film. I even watched a pair of Mister Rogers Neighborhood episodes to remind myself of the effect that the show and its star had when it came to charm and sincerity when it came to feelings. This is a biographical drama loosely inspired by the 1998 article by Tom Junod, "Can You Say ... Hero?",  published by Esquire Magazine. It centers itself on its reporter character and the impact that his interview with Rogers has on him, as opposed to a biopic. A documentary based on his life and guiding philosophy had already been released prior with Won't You Be My Neighbor? (2018), but it is still interesting to see what one can do with depicting a man as beloved as Fred Rogers - a beacon of goodness when it came to public television and beyond - on screen. In a time like this where skepticism and cynical outlooks seem more and more prevalent in both media and life as a whole, it does seem refreshing to see a film that doesn't need to escape through action but rather careful honesty. It confronts its drama with the kind of style one could see from the show when it dealt with one's emotions (which work with children just as well as with adults) without becoming overly mawkish. Hanks drives the film all the way forward with care and sincerity, a portrait very much like its subject that inspires some thought alongside a smile without being in the film as much, looming even before he is formally introduced to his costar (helped by a nicely recreated opening sequence of the show, no doubt). Rhys has the task of playing someone racked with vulnerability and world-weariness for a character whose arc leans more towards fiction with its family drama trappings. Ultimately, his striking distinction serves the movie fine, proving worthy enough to follow in the film without needing to see Hanks pop out until proven necessary. It all comes with the right air of care, where one finds to accept their flaws and open themselves through the eyes of someone who strove to be honest and good on and off the camera while still being human. Watson does fine with the family drama without being in the background often. Cooper gives off a few layers to make an interesting play on the family drama without being too predictable. The rest of the cast fill in the environment fine. On the whole, it is the little moments that provide big results, such as a sequence involving silence in a public setting (itself a take off an actual call for silence by Rogers at an awards ceremony), or even just sequences around the Neighborhood set that seem so inviting. One can find themselves invested into this world because it doesn't try to evade or hide its human self, where fact and fiction work themselves into a well balanced thing to spend time with. Maybe it will inspire some emotion within the fellow viewer, but it certainly will inspire a look within oneself inside and outside.

Well, well, a Sunday review. Actually, I had meant to do this earlier, but this whole week has been a busy one. Oddly enough, today is my birthday - so why not break the (unofficial) no-Sunday tradition just once? Good to be another year older, too.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Ford v Ferrari.

Review #1302: Ford v Ferrari.

Cast: 
Matt Damon (Carroll Shelby), Christian Bale (Ken Miles), Jon Bernthal (Lee Iacocca), Caitriona Balfe (Mollie Miles), Tracy Letts (Henry Ford II), Josh Lucas (Leo Beebe), Noah Jupe (Peter Miles), Remo Girone (Enzo Ferrari), Ray McKinnon (Phil Remington), and JJ Feild (Roy Lunn) Directed by James Mangold (#912 - Logan)

Review: 
I do not consider myself a big fan of racing. Granted, I do partake in flipping channels to see a race from time to time, but I can't say I know much about the 24 Hours of Le Mans or really much about manufacturers (one can do that when being on their feet to travel anywhere). Granted, one doesn't really need to do sports to enjoy sports dramas, and this film proves that assessment well with its execution. It has a dynamic cast that sit into the 1960s trappings without any hesitation and plenty of charm to go around to drive a fair rendition of the fact to make something worthwhile for 152 minutes without losing itself. The 1966 edition of Le Mans had already inspired a book with Go Like Hell: Ford, Ferrari, and Their Battle for Speed and Glory at Le Mans (2009) and a documentary with The 24 Hour War (2016), but this manages to inspire curiosity for its main subject without seeming trapped in too many familiar territories. 

It is a crowd pleaser, but it is a convincing crowd pleaser that works to gain attention for more than just parts involving cars going around fast (which is of course a great attraction in of itself). Undeniably, the highlight is Bale, capable of charm and eccentric nature that rolls well whether with Damon or his on-screen family. Damon is also well on his game too, relaxed yet endearing with delivering with the auto drama with conviction that serves the material with dignity. It really could just be a buddy film between these two, really, complete with grocery fights and wrench throwing. Balfe and Jupe also prove fine in the family aspect that gives a bit of depth when it comes to seeing a racer back home off the element. On the other side of the auto drama involves Bernthal, Letts, Lucas, and Girone in trying to capture the Ford-Ferrari rivalry (alongside micromanagement conflict, naturally), and each do their roles alright. For a film that doesn't really drive home an adversary but more so just drives conflict (specifically with Lucas' character) with a bit of amplification, at least one can see the passion behind trying to show a tense war of manufacturers trying to make their cars run fast and run well for a whole day on a world stage. It makes you care for a race like this much in the same one can get caught up in the moment when they watch their first ever auto race. If you never watch another race like this, at least you can say you had the privilege, which certainly rolls in this film's favor. It is a film about ingenuity in the fact of having the guts and talent to challenge the standards (in this case, racing), and that can be something you can find in plenty of sports films. It sure does prove to be a good time for while it lasted, that much is for sure.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Dr. Strangelove.

Review #1301: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

Cast: 
Peter Sellers (Group Captain Lionel Mandrake / President Merkin Muffley / Dr. Strangelove), George C. Scott (General Buck Turgidson), Sterling Hayden (Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper), Keenan Wynn (Colonel Bat Guano), Slim Pickens (Major T. J. "King" Kong), Peter Bull (Soviet Ambassador Alexei de Sadeski), James Earl Jones (Lieutenant Lothar Zogg), Tracy Reed (Miss Scott), and Shane Rimmer (Capt. Ace Owens) Directed and Producted by Stanley Kubrick (#044 - Full Metal Jacket, #065 - The Shining, #093 - 2001: A Space Odyssey, and #1046 - Barry Lyndon)

Review: 
When it comes to satire and black comedies, Dr. Strangelove sure comes to mind as one of the best. It should come as no surprise that it is the work of masters in terms of cast headlined by Peter Sellers and its director in Stanley Kubrick, who are each at their prime in a film that is razor-sharp in every aspect. The film was based off the novel Red Alert by Peter George, a thriller novel that treated its scenario of nuclear accident seriously. In his attempts to write a screenplay based on the book, he found that their was comedy present involving the absurd or paradoxical when it came to the balance of terror that was the arms race between the two superpowers of the world of the time, the United States and the Soviet Union. There certainly was plenty of inspiration involving Cold War tensions for Kubrick to make light of, with the Cuban Missile Crisis, the closest the two powers came to nuclear war, having occurred just two years prior. The "doomsday / mine-shaft" gaps are parodies of the missile gap, which had been popularized for political effect in the late 1950s. As such, the screenplay was credited to Kubrick, Terry Southern (an American novelist known for his dark absurdist style), and Peter George.

On the surface, one might wonder humor could be found with the scenario of an accident that could lead to nuclear warfare. The answer comes out pretty quickly with a film that captures an atmosphere where such a ghastly thing could happen in eccentric hands with subtlety. This for a film with plenty of interesting to go around, such as a general who believes in a Communist plot involving water fluoridation prior that threaten one's precious bodily fluids, or a crazed scientist resisting the urge to have his hand rise to a familiar position, or even a cowboy style wearing pilot that provides the most famous image from this film for its climax involving a missile and him. Sellers is the star of the show, playing three roles with such brilliance that could only come from a comically unique actor, for which he had already showcased with his various disguises in Kubrick's previous film Lolita (1962). He just blends into his two surrounding sets and actors (one being Hayden and the other being Scott and Bull) with perfect ease, each having their own distinct mannerisms and voices without seeming like a distraction from artistic depth. Scott is just as excellent in his role, where over-the-top isn't so much a guild-line as it was a case of Kubrick utilizing takes that were thought to be warm-ups for less ridiculous takes with the actor (for which he swore to never work with Kubrick again, although he later came to appreciate his performance). One can see him give his all with unapologetic grace and bluster that is keen to the moment needed. This goes just as well for the gritting Hayden, who is absolutely the one needed for a madman general like this, needing only a cigar and some talk about the water to make him captivating to view in humor. Pickens (a rodeo performer who also appeared in Westerns), told to play the role straight, is just as fine a highlight in part because his natural cadence shines through to make for laughs without seeming inauthentic. The rest of the cast have their small moments, such as Wynn and his deadpan delivery for his last line that lands perfectly, or Bull and his expressive nature when he first comes into the war room with a small camera, or Jones (who had acted on stage for nearly a decade) with a short but capable way to make a film debut, or Reed and her one-scene show with Scott.

The film is a funny one about such serious things because it knows how to utilize its surroundings without playing everyone for complete fools while having plenty of style to go around in terms of cinematography (Gilbert Taylor, with that wonderful look) and its set design (Ken Adam, with that wonderful war room), where one can see a thriller alongside the satire without seeming like two different films. After all, a serious rendition of potential nuclear warfare through accident would be shown that same year with Fail Safe (itself based off the novel of the same name from Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler), which ended up being released ten months after this film from the same studio after Kubrick and George had sued for copyright infringement. In any case, this is a wonderfully dark comedy that plays on the fears and culture of the time with zest and prime work from its cast and crew to make this an easy winner for everyone, having a bittersweet climax that seals everything up quite nicely (changed from the original intent of having it end with a massive pie fight). It still stands true today because its basic framework of human error and the attitudes of warfare when the chips all seem to be in place for it.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Caddyshack II.

Review #1300: Caddyshack II.

Cast: 
Jackie Mason (Jack Hartounian), Robert Stack (Chandler Young), Randy Quaid (Peter Blunt), Dan Aykroyd (Captain Tom Everett), Chevy Chase (Ty Webb), Jessica Lundy (Kate Hartounian), Dyan Cannon (Elizabeth Pearce), Jonathan Silverman (Harry), Dina Merrill (Cynthia Young), Marsha Warfield (Royette Tyler), and Brian McNamara (Todd Young) Directed by Allan Arkush.

Review: 
This film is awful. Are you really that surprised? How could anyone think that this would be a good idea, particularly after eight years and only one returning co-star from before? Is the fault of this cinematic waste really all at the feet of its producer trio (Neil Canton, Peter Guber, Jon Peters)? Oh sure, Harold Ramis returns to serve as writer (co-writing with Peter Torokvei), but it is evident very early that this is the product of re-writes that have warped its original draft into something out of the Four Horsemen of the Movie Apocalypse: Terrible direction, listless acting, miserable atmosphere, and awful execution. One could almost be impressed with how dumb this proves to be, if they didn't burst into flames first. Going from an R rating from the previous film to a PG rating (when PG-13 already had been introduced as a rating) is the first sin one could identify for this film, oddly enough. It sure is hard to believe how Arkush found himself on such a strange film, having started his film career with Roger Corman at New World Pictures with films such as Hollywood Boulevard (1976) that eventually led him to mainstream studio stuff like Heartbeeps (1981). Since this film, he has primarily served as director for TV shows and telefilms. At least one can say Arkush has just one awful standout in a string of several things to list for a career, where probably no one could have done much better with. Predictably, this film proved to be a financial failure, making just half of its $20 million budget back (while the previous one had made roughly six times its $6 million budget).

When it comes to acting, the biggest ugly duckling in a sea of ugly ducklings is losing Rodney Dangerfield to studio disputes (which is why Ramis decided to reluctantly come back to write the script), since he might have made this at least seem palpable. In his place is Mason, who actually had received good notices on stage and television (including a Tony Award for his one-man show The World According to Me alongside an Emmy Award after the film's release). If it sounds like I am trying to give slack, it really is more me trying to resist asking the best way to describe his performance when it comes to jokes: In what world is Jackie Mason a replacement for Rodney Dangerfield? Flashy dress styles can't make up for sluggish attempts at humor (with PG trappings, remember), and the story revolving around him isn't any better. It sure is interesting to see Stack in a terrible comedy sequel (insert reference to him not being in Airplane II here), but his wooden deadpan delivery here doesn't quite work out here, since it doesn't register as many laughs as before, sadly. Quaid, playing a crazed lawyer that obviously exists in cartoon world where threatening people and giving them wedgies in public, manages to come off as aggressively unfunny, owing in part because this film doesn't have any real clue what to do with him. The less said about Aykroyd and his silly voice for this character, the better. Oddly enough, Chase returns (for which he later said he regretted doing), looking much like a bored cat when dealing with such lame gags, although he technically is the highlight, since he draws an occasional laugh. You know, I actually thought to try and count the amount of time that he is on screen. The total ended up being around fourteen minutes, with a good chunk of it being after an hour has already passed. I then thought, why not just count the minutes for Quaid and Aykroyd as well? Quaid and Aykroyd show up for about 8-9 minutes each. Honestly, any of these three leave more of a lasting impression than Lundy, Silverman, Merrill, or McNamara do as the young leads. That's not to say that the caddies present in the previous film were comedy magnets, but at least one could follow Michael O'Keefe and his pursuits (golf and ladies, namely) without being completely lost in the all-star cast chokedown that this film spews down the throat for 98 minutes. After all, you can see the parallels between the Dangerfield-Knight-O'Keefe-Murray pairing from before and the Mason-Stack-Silverman-Aykroyd "quartet" here, for which each can't quite live up to even the lowest of expectations. For one thing, they barely share that much time on screen as a group, and the golf game at the end feels so thin in actual depth (complete with "wacky" golf course designs). If you can't care about what goes on, you might as well just stare at the bathroom wall for ninety eight minutes instead.

For all that can be said about the film not being funny, a bunch can also be said about the fact that the golf aspects are tremendously terrible. The first film may have had a few weird swings from its main actors, but at least one could actually believe they were playing golf. It was based off the experiences that Harold Ramis and Brian Doyle-Murray (both co-writers of the first film) had as caddies when they were growing up, but this film seems to treat golf like it is some sort of wacky piece of puddy that can be manipulated to do any odd thing, with golf trajectories that seem more in like with a cartoon than anything, right down to giving the gopher more to "say". Even the plot aspects involving the club are boring, where motivations seem thrown out on a whim. There will be nobody who can give this film a defending, unless producers count as impartial I guess. Mercy is a quality one really shouldn't have for dumb movies like this, but I present the fact that it perfectly belongs in the pantheon of movies like Troll 2 and Rollerball (2002). There are no real reasons to ever watch this film, unless one prefers comedy torture from films instead of bad standup routines, or if they have a death wish of the cinematic kind.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Silkwood.

Review #1299: Silkwood.

Cast: 
Meryl Streep (Karen Silkwood), Kurt Russell (Drew Stephens), Cher (Dolly Pelliker), Craig T. Nelson (Winston), Fred Ward (Morgan), Diana Scarwid (Angela), Ron Silver (Paul Stone), Josef Sommer (Max Richter), Charles Hallahan (Earl Lapin), Tess Harper (Linda Dawson), Sudie Bond (Thelma Rice), Henderson Forsythe (Quincy Bissell), and Bruce McGill (Mace Hurley) Directed by Mike Nichols (#175 - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, #550 - The Graduate, and #637 - The Birdcage, and #1157 - Wolf)

Review: 
On November 13, 1974, a chemical technician was killed in a car collision in Crescent, Oklahoma is what is believed to be an accident. Karen Silkwood, of course was more than just a blurb on the newspages, since she was an activist who was investigating wrongdoing into the plutonium plant that she worked in, for which she had been contaminated. Her death inspired a lawsuit against the plant she worked for, which had two trials before a final settlement in 1986, with the closure of the nuclear fuels plant having occurred the year after Silkwood's death. In any case, it does seem interesting to make a biopic drama based on her short life that attempts to stick to a group of the basic facts alongside movie-magic that conjure some ambiguity that goes off mostly without a hitch. Perhaps it proves a bit too long at 131 minutes, but one that can't really be denied is that the movie has a well-picked cast to ready its ship along when it is required to. The cast really does seem to seep right into these ordinary folks without trouble, really, where even knowing the fate of its focus doesn't make for much predictability, one who has a bit of tunnel vision for what she believes is the imperative thing to do. This is key with Streep, who pulls in a tremendous performance, filled with spark of persistence and warmth that make her story flow for its audience that makes her interesting enough to follow with. Russell, in a departure from the usual action genre roles, pulls off a rugged turn that seems just as down-to-earth as the lady he acts opposite with, and they do share some casual chemistry together whenever he is on screen. It shouldn't prove too surprising that Cher was suited for an understated yet fine performance here. In her second film since venturing back into acting (after starring in Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean on stage and screen the previous year), she seeps right into an unassuming role and does just fine with making the right impression with just being oneself. The rest of the cast does alright with filling out this world with no big troubles, where one doesn't need a clear villain or hero to really drive the facts along (McGill does play his role pretty adversarily, but not at the expense of realism). Is our focus a martyr or someone who got caught up in their own moral imperative? However one feels about the muddled circumstances of her ultimate fate, one cannot say that the film isn't still compelling through and through its real-life surroundings that will provoke at least some discussion when it comes to whistle-blowing and what proves to be the right thing to do, no matter what the risks could prove. In that sense, this proves to be a decent piece of entertainment headlined by Streep and her cast to go along with a well-run story from the headlines.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

They Live.

Review #1298: They Live.

Cast: 
Roddy Piper (John Nada), Keith David (Frank Armitage), Meg Foster (Holly Thompson), Raymond St. Jacques (Street Preacher), George Buck Flower (Drifter/Collaborator), Peter Jason (Gilbert), Sy Richardson (Black Revolutionary), Susan Blanchard (Ingenue), and Norman Alden (Construction Foremanst) Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween (1978), #634 - Escape from New York, #712 - The Thing, #732 - Escape from L.A., and #1221 - Dark Star)

Review: 
It should only make sense that the only way to see aliens of the subliminal kind are a pair of sunglasses. The idea for the film came from the 1963 short story "Eight O'Clock in the Morning" by Ray Nelson, which he subsequently adapted with artist Bill Wray into a graphic comic named "Nada" in 1986. As such, the screenplay credit went to Frank Armitage, a pseudonym for Carpenter (who naturally also co-wrote the music score with Alan Howarth). In any case, it really is a variation on Invasion of the Body Snatchers (why else would you have the aliens shown in black-and-white for most of the film), only if the aliens were already here and ready to help people sell out and obey in the vein of an sci-fi action thriller. In that sense, it works out pretty well in the film's favor, one that is packed with plenty of entertainment that is derived from clever subversive material and a mold of action and humor to go alongside it that never seems dull or too convenient. The film holds itself on the every-man in Piper, who signed onto the film after Carpenter met with him in the middle of his run as a professional wrestler. He can play the parts of the action hero like one could see in a b-movie (with that noted bubble-gum line seeming right out of his one-liner notebook) that comes in handy when needed that surely paved the way for other wrestler-turned-actors, but he plays himself with careful simplicity that seems just right for a guy like him. David does a fine job with a quasi-sidekick kind of role, where he can join alongside the action against sellout aliens or even the fight just to believe there even is one needed, which leads to the key highlight for both actors: a five minute fight scene between the two where they just take it to the other. It really does prove astounding how one can make such a scene that is so memorable (imagine having to rehearse that for three weeks) while not leaving the film off balance during the other parts of its 94 minute run-time. Foster is fair and subtle, and the other castmates pull their momentary plays on screen with interest in making a small environment like this seem like one to look at for a while and think about. The effects involving the aliens (resembling ghouls) looks pretty neat for the intent that the film wants to do. The action is also pretty well-done with blending with the rest of the film without suffocating it, and the climax is a nice touch. Of course a film that is meant to be subversive has its shares of political devotees, which are either people who understand the film or partisan ghouls for a certain supremacist side (I only include this sentence lest someone actually think this film is about anything but yuppies and unrestrained capitalism) or nearly as annoying Marxist hacks. In any case, one can enjoy the film for either its action content or its attempts at saying something about the nature of our society when it comes to commercialism through the lens of science fiction that delivers plenty of thrills and thought to go around.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974).

Review #1297: The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.

Cast: 
Marilyn Burns (Sally Hardesty), Allen Danziger (Jerry), Paul A. Partain (Franklin Hardesty), William Vail (Kirk), Teri McMinn (Pam), Edwin Neal (Nubbins Sawyer - The Hitchiker), Jim Siedow (Drayton Sawyer - The Proprietor), Gunnar Hansen (Leatherface), John Dugan (Grandpa Sawyer), and John Larroquette (Narrator) Directed by Tobe Hooper (#348 - Poltergeist)

Review: 
When it comes to raw and authentic pieces of slasher horror, there really is nothing like this film. Sure, there had been previous films that had linings of what you could call a slasher (such as Psycho or Peeping Tom from 1960), but this one certainly stands out in a decade that burgeoned an era of horror films with a crazed killer and certain bladed tools (which is true for Black Christmas as well, released in the same month as this film) that had its influence from serial killers. It is a discomforting film that is unflinching in its method of madness when it comes to horror, right down to its grisly imagery that starts from the very get-go, lingering in terror in a manner that stands just as tall as it did over four decades ago. Hooper utilized his idea of making a film about isolation and darkness to go along with graphic coverage utilized on news outlets of the time, co-writing the screenplay with Kim Henkel. The budget has been estimated to be around $80,000-140,000, with unknown actors utilized for the roles, who had to deal with humid conditions that once peaked at 110 degrees. 

It manages to be such an unsettling film with its gritty imagery and the moments that surround its title massacre, where being isolated in the backwoods almost seems scary enough before encountering creeps like these. It comes together at its own pace for 83 minutes without leaving the horror mind begging for more, giving one quite a fear already without having to go for the gut every time. That's not to say that this film is restrained in any way, it just means that the film works so well without even having to show such a big body count or with having to build its deaths up to high levels. When it needs to let itself into the madhouse, it does so without too much trouble. Of the castmates that we are introduced to early on, Burns comes out the best, proving capable with the opening parts that soon settle into much creepier elements, such as watching someone talk about their former job in the slaughterhouse or faced with having to have dinner with some disturbing people and the screams that come with it. It might not take much to seem convincing when it comes to having to deal with terror for a movie, but she sure does a pretty good job in making it seem real enough to resonate with its audience. Neal and Sideow are creepy enough when the time is needed, and Hansen (who wore just one mask throughout the whole film due to fears over damaging their only costume) is excellent with a role that requires only to make a lumbering chainsaw-wielder have some sort of voice that doesn't usually come from these particular movies. It never lets go on suspense and the looming horror by being grisly yet effective with its choices from Hooper. 

It should prove no surprise that there were follow-up films released in the years to come. Twelve years later, Hooper returned to direct a sequel, which mixed slasher and black comedy elements. There were two following sequels released in 1990 and 1995 (the latter directed by Hinkel) before a remake was released in 2003, which inspired its own prequel three years later. After that followed Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013), which acted as a direct sequel to only the first film. Naturally, another prequel to the series followed with Leatherface (2017). On the whole, this is a film that can be credited as a key influence for the slasher genre along with being a great horror film that delivers most on its intent of showing terror in the woods with a chainsaw and imagery to go with it.

Thankful to have done five reviews in the span of a week for Halloween - The Week After, the first themed-week of any kind in years for this show. It was interesting to think of what should and should or shouldn't be included while making sure they were (mostly) written on time. I don't usually tell what a following review will be, so that's a new one. Actually, I can say what the next one will be, since I pushed it to be after this theme week ended. Hope you enjoyed it.

Next Review: They Live.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.