Any Given Sunday.

Review #1523: Any Given Sunday.

Cast: 
Al Pacino (Tony D'Amato), Cameron Diaz (Christina Pagniacci), Dennis Quaid (Jack 'Cap' Rooney), James Woods (Dr. Harvey Mandrake), Jamie Foxx (Willie Beamen), LL Cool J (Julian Washington), Matthew Modine (Dr. Ollie Powers), Jim Brown (Montezuma Monroe), Lawrence Taylor (Luther 'Shark' Lavay), Bill Bellamy (Jimmy Sanderson), Andrew Bryniarski (Patrick 'Madman' Kelly), Lela Rochon (Vanessa Struthers), Lauren Holly (Cindy Rooney), Ann-Margret (Margaret Pagniacci), Aaron Eckhart (Nick Crozier) Directed by Oliver Stone (#095 - Wall Street, #1090 - Platoon, and #1265 - Natural Born Killers)

Review: 
"I love intelligent films that come at you fast. I don't have attention deficit disorder, my mind moves fast. There's a lot to deal with in my films. We had so many facts to go through, so the governing style was flash, cut, flash, repeat."

One needs to see a bit of distinct vision every now and then from a director, and Oliver Stone closed out his 20th century with another distinct focus in football. He had been a student at Yale University before doing service in Vietnam first through teaching students English in Saigon to wiping Merchant Marine ships to dropping out of Yale and enlisting in the United States Army. He went into New York University after that and graduated with a film degree in 1971. He made his first film as a director with the cheapie Seizure (1974) before getting the chance to write Midnight Express (1978), which resulted in an Academy Award for his script despite inaccuracies of the depiction of the real-life prison story. The Hand (1981) followed for Stone as a director, but the five years between this and his next was crucial, since he wrote Conan the Barbarian (1982) and Scarface (1983) in that time. He rocketed to further prominence with Platoon (1986) that kept him busy over the prevailing years, with this being his 15th as director/writer. He has touched subjects such as war with Salvador (1986), biopics with The Doors (1991), to crime with Natural Born Killers (1994), all seeming distinct in their provocative nature by Stone.

I wonder if Stone wanted to make the ultimate football film. What we have here is truly a hodgepodge of clichés and assumptions you can have in a sports film, right from an upstart rookie becoming a star and then needing to not become consumed in arrogance, a wearied wise coach (perhaps like Tom Landry?), action montages, and even having actual athletes as stars (of which there are several notable ones of the past like Lawrence Taylor or Johnny Unitas). Stone had first expressed an interest in a football project with an early 1980s script about an old linebacker he wrote in mind for Charles Bronson. Years later, he met journalist Richard Weiner. He had developed a script with former player Jamie Williams about a black quarterback. This would be combined with scripts done by John Logan and Daniel Pyne alongside inspiration from You're Okay, It's Just a Bruise by Robert Huzienga Jr (former team physician of the Los Angeles Raiders detailing player injuries); Stone and Logan would get screenplay credit while Pyne and Logan got story and Weiner and Williams were consultants. This frenzy also applies to editing, since there are four listed as part of the film. Stone clearly was under the mindset that football was somehow like war, particularly with how it marched on as a team together as opposed to individual only, while also seeing the other sides of football life (like the pain and egos). On a basic level, I would say that this is a decent movie, wrapped with making an involving film packing an ensemble worthy of carrying most of its weight that Stone wants to put on them on and off the field that can be fairly entertaining. Of course it also is considerably lengthy at 162 minutes (157 for the director's cut, in which twelve minutes were cut for pacing while adding six minutes of other scenes) with a self-importance like no other in its presentation of football players as the modern gladiator (complete with a brief flash of Ben-Hur to drive home the point) with all of the excesses that come from Stone's view on the matter. It is firmly a film of the 1990s in all the right and weird ways, one that I chuck a smile at when it stops doing flashes of editing and focuses on just the basics.

Pacino does quite well with the material required in garnering a leader one could rally around in all of the moods required, whether that involves weary loneliness or stubborn dominance that seems fairly convincing in rally curiosity. Diaz matches him in cleverness that never seems like a doorstep to forget about, a figure of new-school arrogance that does seem quite amusing. Quaid does fine with a man on his last leg of fame (and perhaps health) - respectable without being drowned in pity. Woods doesn't have too much to really do, but he is quite a conniving figure behind the lines that has one really good scene to munch on involving him being caught in a lie about the health of the players. Foxx (picked after Sean Combs lost the role apparently because he couldn't throw a football) captures the bravado of a rising star and all that comes with it in good detail, whether that involves brimming confidence or sparring words with anyone. Others such as Cool J and Taylor make the best of their time on screen in charm and coarse acting that resonate the siding of the football action in its business and excess. It can't quite keep every thread going without being a bit lost, but at least its numerous showing of games do look fairly convincing (hits and all) within a fictionalized football league (in the year 2001 no less). It still has a punch when it comes to the TV-infected sensationalism and other various topics, and it definitely seems willing enough to want to inspire a thought without bashing your head with it. On the whole, it lumbers to points about football gladiators and its exploitation a bit too much, but it does work itself enough to win out in the end.

Next Time: We venture into the 21st century.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Green Mile.

Review #1522: The Green Mile.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Paul Edgecomb), David Morse (Brutus "Brutal" Howell), Bonnie Hunt (Jan Edgecomb), Michael Clarke Duncan (John Coffey), James Cromwell (Warden Hal Moores), Michael Jeter (Eduard Delacroix), Graham Greene (Arlen Bitterbuck), Doug Hutchison (Percy Wetmore), Sam Rockwell (William "Wild Bill" Wharton), Barry Pepper (Dean Stanton), Jeffrey DeMunn (Harry Terwilliger), Patricia Clarkson (Melinda Moores), Harry Dean Stanton (Toot-Toot), Dabbs Greer (Old Paul), Bill McKinney (Jack Van Hay), Brent Briscoe (Bill Dodge), Eve Brent (Elaine Connelly), and William Sadler (Klaus Detterick) Written and Directed by Frank Darabont (#1506 - The Shawshank Redemption)

Review: 
"I think it's the basic need for all of human kind to be a part of something bigger than themselves because as actors we get to create that."
"The notion that we can be better than we are, as human beings; that there’s a bar that can be raised in all of our lives. And that there are certain acts of incivility that we should no longer indulge in. Maybe we should try to do a little better."

The 1990s had a plethora of memorable Tom Hanks performances that turned him from just a star in comedies into an icon. The California native had done plays in high school and at Chabot College and California State University, Sacramento before dropping out to do work with the Great Lakes Theater Festival in Cleveland. He did theater work for a few years (doing three years at the Lakewood Civic Auditorium) before venturing into film with He Knows You're Alone (1980) and television with Bosom Buddies (1980-82). Splash (1984) was his first starring role, which proved beneficial to his career in leading to more comedy roles and a gradual shift to drama with films such as Big (1988). While the 1990s started off with flops like The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990), he proved himself in the following years with neatly-picked roles suited to his personality that resulted in praise, with numerous highlights being iconic ones like Philadelphia (1993), Forrest Gump (1994), and Toy Story (1995). Coincidentally, Hanks was once thought of to star in The Shawshank Redemption before turning it down to commitments, but Hanks found himself onto this film after Darabont's first preference of John Travolta fizzled out. This was also the first major role for Duncan, who had worked odd jobs such as a bouncer/security guard and bit roles before having a break with Armageddon (1998, which he did when he was 40 years old) that led to a recommendation by none other than friend and actor Bruce Willis in this role.

The source material that this is adapted from is the serial novel of the same name, published from March to August 1996 as six paperback volumes (all except the last were 96 pages). There are a few differences between the two works, such as the change in year from 1932 to 1935 (Top Hat, the film with a significant part to play in the story, was released in the latter year), while certain characters are excluded (such as a vicious orderly present in the bookends that Darabont felt was beside the point). Ultimately, what we have here is a nicely-done fable, one that captures a sense of miracles with dignity and emotional power that makes an fairly watchable experience like no other. If it isn't as striking in depth as Darabont's other adaptation of a King work about prison in The Shawshank Redemption, it is at least spirited enough to maintain enough reason and hope to make its lasting point all the more endurable. It sits well with mature audiences without seeming too wistful in 189 minutes to the point of sanctimony, building its foundation with its bookend aspects in Greer that keep its lasting words about miracles and other ideas that can be interpreted with thought by viewers with the patience to do so and linger with it.

Undeniably, the cast live up to the period piece fable staging with care. Hanks proves charming in everyman consistency, sinking into manner of dignity and curiosity for those he works with in a place of officers and a cell of doomed men. Morse accompanies him as the lead focus of officers to view, maintaining a spirited patience that contributes well to the sequences within the prison in pragmatism. It is Duncan who shows the best presence with his time needed, a force of nature that inspires the passion and pan that comes with someone who pulls off sensitivity and conviction with no trouble at all, seeming one with the world and with us in a world that seems to just have pain. Hunt and Clarkson accompany the film with fair importance that proves useful, whether in grace or in withered nature. Jeter provides a little warmth within the bars, while Hutchison makes a tremendously slimy bully with accomplishment. Rockwell taps into wild evil with careful energy that could have been thought of as just a loon in lesser hands but seems quite underlying in creepiness with him. Cromwell does fine in hard-lined moments while Stanton provides a chuckle in his one key scene involving a execution rehearsal.

There were various filming locations that ranged from studio work at Warner Bros along with the Tennessee State Prison to go with custom-built interior sets from Terence Marsh to depict a sense of space and mystery in those prison scenes, which are quite effective. In its fable of miracles and pain, one has time to ponder upon its style and its weaving of story threads that make an experience that can inspire curiosity alongside revulsion, such as during its first hint of a miracle or a disastrous execution in the chair, respectively. It makes us want to think a bit more clearly about life, or more specifically the joys and pains that can come from such an emotional release that comes from something like this. It isn't completely perfect in its road to perdition in all of its time spent, but I find it worth at least one watch, particularly if one is looking for a Stephen King adaptation with an accomplished director and stars behind it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Three Kings.

Review #1521: Three Kings.

Cast: 
George Clooney (Major Archie Gates), Mark Wahlberg (Sergeant First Class Troy Barlow), Ice Cube (Staff Sergeant Chief Elgin), Spike Jonze (Private First Class Conrad Vig), Cliff Curtis (Amir Abdullah), Nora Dunn (Adriana Cruz), Jamie Kennedy (Specialist Walter Wogeman), Saïd Taghmaoui (Saïd), Mykelti Williamson (Colonel Ron Horn), Holt McCallany (Captain Doug Van Meter), and Judy Greer (Cathy Daitch) Directed by David O. Russell.

Review: 
"I just love real characters; they're not pretentious, and every emotion is on the surface, they're regular working people. Their likes, their dislikes, their loves, their hates, their passions; they're all right there on the surface."

Some people are cut out for writing and others are cut out for directing. David O. Russell found his way into both through filmmaking that elevated him to rising star in the 1990s. A graduate of English and political science from Amherst College, he had worked a variety of odd jobs after graduation that ranged from community work to teaching. He did some work with documentaries and shorts (having found inspiration from classics watched such as Chinatown), such as with Bingo Inferno: A Parody on American Obsessions (1987). He was given grants to do a feature involving fortune cookies and microphones in a Chinese restaurant that he would instead use to do Spanking The Monkey (1994), debuting in feature films at the age of 36. The film was originally written by John Ridley (a standup comedian who later turned to writing for television along with novels), who wanted to experiment in making and selling a script in very little time; the script was done in a week and it was bought eighteen days later. However, Russell (brought in for his first major studio film) would do his own writing changes to the draft, and Ridley had to go through arbitration to get a story credit.

There had been quite a share of war films over the 1990s, but this sticks out as one involving the Persian Gulf War (1990-91); a war film involving a heist has been done before with films such as Kelly's Heroes (1970, which involved AWOL soldiers getting gold bars out of a bank vault). Russell accomplishes a distinct war film with its look, involving vibrant color though Ektachrome transparency stock (noted for its distinct look used for photographers like National Geographic) and one-shot explosions that was shot in the desert of several states such as Arizona that featured Iraqi refugees as advisors and extras. It is a reckless film that makes the best out of touching upon the consequences and spoils of war with a balance of humor and humanity that makes for a fairly clever movie that benefits from a formidable main quartet that shows its disconnect between war and the reality that comes from its perceived end without becoming absorbed in cliché or lingering on the soapbox too long. Clooney got the part after actors of various age targets were thought of/approached (such as Clint Eastwood and Nicolas Cage). He does a commendable job here, curious in a burnt-out stage of cynicism and lost values that we gravitate to with smoothness in a journey that means most to filling in the layers the film seeks to show through heist and war. Wahlberg does fine with being the middle man, an observer of being done from war on both ends with a careful brow. Rapper-turned-film star Cube makes the most of his time in conviction in handling the tension presented in faith handily. In the same year that Jonze debuted as a feature film director with Being John Malkovich, this was his first (and so far only) prominent role as an actor, doing so in a part that was written for him as a way to shake things up from the established actors, which he does in adequate comic relief. Curtis does well with providing perspective for what we know (or think we know) about the people around a simple trek for gold, which applies just as well for Taghmaoui in his scenes against Wahlberg. Dunn provides hard-edged zeal as the eyes of a fleeting moment, while the others in the cast do fine when needed.

On the whole, the film pulls itself off well within 114 minutes in delivering a clever film on the other sides of war beyond just the battlefield through a game cast and well-timed movement in pace and timing that make it as bitingly endurable as fellow war film M*A*S*H (1970) with its own style and presence worthy for its time of 1999 that still sticks a punch now.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Saving Private Ryan.

Review #1520: Saving Private Ryan.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Captain John H. Miller), Edward Burns (Private Richard Reiben), Matt Damon (Private James Francis Ryan), Tom Sizemore (Sergeant Mike Horvath), Jeremy Davies (Corporal Timothy Upham), Vin Diesel (Private Adrian Caparzo), Adam Goldberg (Private Stanley Mellish), Barry Pepper (Private Daniel Jackson), Giovanni Ribisi (Medic Irwin Wade), Ted Danson (Captain Fred Hamill), Paul Giamatti (Sergeant William Hill), Dennis Farina (Lieutenant Colonel Walter Anderson), Joerg Stadler (Steamboat Willie), Max Martini (Corporal Henderson), and Nathan Fillion (Private James Frederick Ryan) 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, #1068 - Ready Player One, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, and #1478 - The Color Purple)

Review: 
"What Steven wanted to do from the get-go was to use all of his magic, and all of the tools that existed in cinema as of 1997, and make a war movie that was going to break every one of the tropes, visually and cinematically, that all war movies had"

The 1990s were an interesting time for films, with Steven Spielberg being a significant contributor to that distinction through six films, which primarily resulted in audience attention, a studio that he helped to establish in DreamWorks Pictures, and three Academy Awards. Within those films are a mix of both adventure and historical drama, although this would be his first epic war film since Empire of the Sun (1987). The genesis for the script by Robert Rodat came from inspiration over the Niland brothers while reading Stephen Ambrose's book about D-Day (Ambrose's other book in Band of Brothers would later be turned into a miniseries by Spielberg and Hanks). There were four brothers in the family that served in World War II, with three of them fighting in the Normandy campaign. The surviving brother was believed to be the only Niland left, and he was shipped back to the United States to complete his service (however his oldest brother, a member of the Army Air Forces captured in a POW camp, was eventually liberated before the end of the war). The script appealed to Spielberg and his interest in the war, which he once described as "the most significant event of the last 100 years", one in which his father had served in as a member of the Army Air Corps, with the younger Spielberg being fascinated with the war due to his father's stories and recollections and what was depicted of it on American television; some of his early short films were combat ones inspired by his father. It shouldn't be surprising that the actors seem up to what is required in depicting combat with respect, since the main stars all endured a mini-session of boot camp led by Marine Dale Dye, who you might hear about as a trainer for other military-themed films.

The film opens and ends at the same place that seems interesting for an epic war film: the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial, with Harrison Young as our first focus as a certain veteran here to pay his respects. I found these sequences to be fairly well-done in setting the film on pace for the thought that occurs after war when it comes to sacrifice in the horrors of war. And then of course there is the second sequence of the film, likely one of the best ever put to film that involves the landing on Omaha Beach in Normandy, France, with over a thousand extras used within a recreation of the beach shot in Ireland. There is nothing quite like it in such devastating power as it moves across the killing field with tactile precision that makes for a harrowing experience for its viewers (who can feel every little moment of spilled seasickness and various other things) to set in and feel immediately without pretense. Soldiers being taken down before they hit the sand is still a striking image to dwell on. It has been a point of debate over the idea of said battle being the "peak" moment of the film. To me, that's pretty ridiculous, because that seems to imply that the rest of the film isn't as maintained in heightened fear or well-executed in discipline. If the D-Day sequence was at the end, would we being saying the same thing? Of course I also don't find the film drowns in maudlin nature unlike others - it grips me and keeps that grip firm and steady. I found that the film worked just as well in building its conflict within its mission that makes the inevitable fates all the more successful. One doesn't bat an eye much at the 169 minute run-time because of how well-involved it is when relaying the sacrifices made in the name of war. The film does its best work in depicting the fears and instincts that made up the men to fight without becoming a caricature, the absolute best in uncompromising epics for what Spielberg wanted to do.

But enough about details, there has to be a cast to go with it. Hanks proves quite resilient in displaying the humane side of persisting onward with what he must do regardless of the reasons or consequences, one who maintains himself with range that stands on his own terms as a useful lead to follow without becoming swept up in platitudes. Damon, showing himself past the halfway point does well with role filled in reluctance and care apart from the main group that does what is needed. Burns (in his first role that he also did not direct/write/produce, as he debuted with The Brothers McMullen three years prior) and Sizemore both do well with simmering intensity that carry the film in moving with the tides of weariness that doesn't seem wavering. Davies works well with unassuming quiver that we observe in the contrast between combat in translation and non-combat in translation a different way that sells that harrowing last shot of him worth it. Another filmmaker featured in this film Diesel, who had previously made two low-budget films of his own (as writer, director, producer, and star), and it was his short in Strays (1997) that impressed Spielberg to wedge his way into this film, and Diesel makes the most of it with some of the hard-edged charisma that would later make him a star. The others that are peppered through the film work handily in keeping the candor efficient from its journey across the fields of war with care, whether that involves folks like Goldberg or smaller turns for Danson and Giamatti. As a film that set itself on garnering more realism from what had come from war films in the previous decades (which featured films such as The Longest Day), Saving Private Ryan packs enough a wallop in its initial setup of harrowing bloodshed to make its resulting story a stirring experience that leaves its audience something it cannot forget about as just entertainment when it ends.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Truman Show.

Review #1519: The Truman Show.

Cast: 
Jim Carrey (Truman Burbank), Laura Linney (Hannah Gill / Meryl Burbank), Ed Harris (Christof), Noah Emmerich (Louis Coltrane / Marlon), Natascha McElhone (Sylvia), Holland Taylor (Alanis Montclair / Angela Burbank), Brian Delate (Walter Moore / Kirk Burbank), Paul Giamatti (Simeon), Jen Taylor (Contralto Singer), Peter Krause (Laurence), and Harry Shearer (Mike Michaelson) Directed by Peter Weir (#960 - The Year of Living Dangerously and #1185 - Witness)

Review: 
"I'm still amazed how you can put your pen down and think not a line can be changed... You've finally got it right. You pick it up ten days later, and it's all so bad."

Intuition matters in a director, and Peter Weir has made an accomplished career built on that in his native Australia and beyond. He was inspired by people he met while studying law at the University of Sydney to take up film, and he soon became part of Ubu Films, a short-lived filmmaking collective in the region, with it being morphed into the Sydney Filmmakers Co-op that favored independent filmmakers both in the region and abroad with a focus on experimental work. When he was 24, he started in film by making his first shorts with The Life and Times of the Reverend Buckshotte (1968). Weir added television to his foray with Man on a Green Bike (1969), and his next contribution was the segment "Michael" in the TV/film anthology 3 to Go (1971). He then made his first true film with the 50-minute black comedy Homesdale later in that year. The Cars That Ate Paris (1974) later found a cult following, but it was Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) that proved his first triumph in Australia and abroad. The script had been done by Andrew Niccol (known for writing/directing Gattaca in 1997) over the course of several years (with the first treatment being done in 1991) and numerous re-writes, which originally featured prominent elements of science fiction in a New York City setting, which Weir (recommended by Niccol after failed considerations of directors like Brian De Palma) felt should be lighter. Also contributing to a wait in filming was Carrey's busy schedule, but it ultimately proved worth it as a comedy-drama triumph for Carrey that differed from his usual comedic work.

We gravitate to comfort because sometimes we are afraid of the truth that stares us in the face. People can get absorbed into the lives of others because it gives us something that we can gravitate to as a community - imagine watching someone's life at a bar. Creepily enough, the film depicts an aftershow to the main subject - I mean, how many after-shows are there about discussing the show that you literally just watched on television (or streaming, if one is into that)? In that sense, this is a very prescient winner, one that fascinates itself in tender enjoyment held in place through a dynamic Carrey and a good sense of timing in terms of harrowing reality satire. Carrey is enjoyable and convincing for our curiosity to focus on because of the fact that he draws us in through simplicity of the heart: we warm to him with no hesitation or desiring some sort of cheap gag or rubbery movement - in other words, an average Joe that draws humor from what we the audience know at first. Linney does pretty well in generating humor through a retro-inspired act of dubious normalcy that generates an amusing one-two punch with Carrey when there. Harris (hired after Weir let Dennis Hopper go a few days into production) comes along for the second half with an aura of visionary exploitation that pulls in a craven nature of wanting to show entertainment with complicity and conviction without even needing to go past the viewing room like a scientist looking upon his specimen with fascination. Emmerich makes for an adequate assuming pal, while McElhone does okay in small parts involving being the one sane person in this land of television.

The look of the film is certainly very interesting. It was filmed primarily in the master-planned community of Seaside, Florida, which Weir found about due to his wife telling him about Seaside, which falls in line with the inspiration of old-style postcards and paintings and a surveillance-like touch to certain shots. Perhaps it is no surprise that there is actually a delusion suffered by people that relates to the film, one in which people that believe their lives were reality TV shows (such as climbing the Statue of Liberty in the belief that it would release him from the show). If you believed that people all over the world were watching you, would that be a comforting feeling or outright horrifying? Imagine the people you loved or were friends were actually liar-I mean actors. I bet there's probably at least one person who really would like to be on television for the masses to see, or if that fails, stream it to the Internet for unchecked audiences. Perhaps people might really just might watch anything if you give them something to look at, whether that involves surviving on an island, or living on the shores of Jersey, or other representations of supposed "reality television." It lingers for 103 minutes with a fair hand on the wheel in prescience of human satire without becoming consumed in just showing off its premise to pull cheap tricks or diverge itself from keeping its adventure on point right to the very last moment of choice. In the end, we see a lot with our eyes, but it is our choices with what we see and hear that means the most to being free.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Bulworth.

Review #1518: Bulworth.

Cast: 
Warren Beatty (Senator Jay Bulworth), Halle Berry (Nina), Oliver Platt (Dennis Murphy), Don Cheadle (L.D.), Paul Sorvino (Graham Crockett), Jack Warden (Eddie Davers), Isaiah Washington (Darnell), Christine Baranski (Constance Bulworth), and Amiri Baraka (Rastaman) Directed by Warren Beatty (#205 - Dick Tracy)

Review: 
"I think it’s crazy to take what aspires to be a work of art and loquaciously expand on what you think about it. Ideally you’d like a movie to speak for itself. It’s like giving subtitles to one, two or three years of work. But nowadays it’s such a mass medium you have to. Especially if you make very few films."

It is hard to state how much responsibility one can really have on a film if they have enough self-confidence and control in oneself to back themselves up. Warren Beatty certainly belongs in that category. By the time the New Hollywood era rolled around in the late 1960s, he had already worked with numerous respected directors while eventually growing an interest in becoming more than just a star in a production, such as producing the hit Bonnie and Clyde (1967). In a film career that started in 1961, he has starred in 23 films (with considerable time spent in other interests such as family), while also serving as producer on ten of them, directing six of them (starting with Heaven Can Wait in 1978) and writing for five (he does all three for this film). He has made his films his own way to his own interests like a good director does that has received quite a deal of attention, such as an Academy Award for Best Director with Reds (1981) and an Irving G. Thalberg Award (meant to honor creative producers such as him) in 1999.

One can only imagine what kind of film can be made on the pitch Beatty had for the film: "A man is depressed, makes a deal for life insurance, takes a hit out on his life, then falls in love with a girl, changes his mind and tries to call the whole thing off.” It only was after he was given the green light to go with it that led to what he wanted beyond that pitch (in other words, a lost idealist finding the words to what he really wants to say to everybody that involve race relations and class disparity). Beatty sought others who helped him in the past with ideas, such as James Toback (writer on Bugsy) and Jeremy Pikser (previously a historical consultant on Reds and credited co-writer on this film with Beatty) while Aaron Sorkin reportedly did a re-write on the script, and the approach of hip-hop came about because of Beatty favoring it as a "great comic contrast." In a way, I had to resist my first instincts when it came to approaching the film. It definitely is a strange film in terms of tone that will either seem really dated or somehow fairly prescient in what it means to society as a message film that verges away from others of its type by going off the rails at certain points with humor. It is an acrid film, one that argues for one to find the spirit in them to rise above market research and go against the grain to speak the straight truth - no matter how it may come out to some in its clash of ideal and compromise. Is it a prescient film about the nature of straight-talking politicians? I don't know if I would go that far (because just saying "It's the film for [current year] politics" is complete hokum), but it definitely has a bit of meaningful sting as a wakeup call of sorts for what matters most: Stick to the issues and just money compromises (whether Democrat or not). It certainly isn't perfect by any means, but I did find myself soon enjoying its attempts at satire that hit more often in striking lines with a beat towards the present without becoming too dated in outlandish histrionics.

One might come to see Beatty have his share of dialogue in rap, but they will generally also stay to see him engage in some straight charisma that will rally some insight alongside some decent timing that never seems too buffoonish, although the romance is debatable. His little jabs at everyone along the way in talking facts (or at least straight-edge ones for 1998, like supporting single-payer healthcare), for better or worse. Berry provides some intrigue, although really they seem more suited as a counteract than anything involving romance mostly because it also just happens to be interlocked with this assassin stuff very disjointedly - she has a good sense of careful charm while playing against a beleaguered (or perhaps strange) Beatty. Platt plays the sniveling type that surely was meant to be an amusing supporting counterpart to management, which he does fine despite not really being that funny (one almost would rather see a criminally underused Warden in that role instead). Cheadle makes fragmented appearances that likely deserves more to really do, which can be reflected with a just as quiet Sorvino in their deep presences within certain interests. On the whole, its first half seems more suited to more interesting moments of farce and perhaps some insight moreso than the stranger (if not still curious) second half that trades in a suit for contemporary clothing and becomes perhaps a bit more hollower than it really believes it should be. I can't say it really kicks in for all of its 108 minutes to be anything more than a passing curiosity of its time, because it really does dwell a bit all over the place, but the rails can go off and still click fine. The ending yearns to inspire a lasting thought about being a ghost with a song to sing for when it comes to saying (and being) what you believe in, and whether the film succeeds in actually generating a push for curiosity about certain aspects of society (race, and I mean more than just asking if you can solve racism by having everybody mix in as one race) is up to how much of it really resonates in the final margin call.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Big Lebowski.

Review #1517: The Big Lebowski.

Cast: 
Jeff Bridges (Jeffrey "The Dude" Lebowski), John Goodman (Walter Sobchak), Julianne Moore (Maude Lebowski), Steve Buscemi (Theodore Donald "Donny" Kerabatsos), David Huddleston (Jeffrey "The Big" Lebowski), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Brandt), Tara Reid (Bunny Lebowski), Philip Moon (Woo), Mark Pellegrino (Blond Treehorn thug), with Peter Stormare (Uti Kunkel/Karl Hungus), Torsten Voges (Franz), Flea (Kieffer), Jack Kehler (Marty), John Turturro (Jesus Quintana), David Thewlis (Knox Harrington), Sam Elliott (The Stranger), and Ben Gazzara (Jackie Treehorn) Written, Produced, and Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen (#659 - True Grit (2010), #765 - Fargo, and #1063 - Blood Simple)

Review: 
"What's interesting to us are the people you know that are very good at what they do but aren't necessarily successful."
"The movie people let us play in the corner of the sandbox and leave us alone. We're happy here."

Brothers can make for great things together, and it is the work of film that Joel and Ethan Coen are best known for. They had an interest in film from a young age by what they viewed on television living in Minnesota and doing their own remakes on a Super 8 camera. Joel spent his studies in college in film programs such as New York University while Ethan studied in philosophy at Princeton University. They made their first feature together with Blood Simple (1984), which they had enticed backers with through a trailer they did together that led to a funding over the course of a year - the resulting film was a hit, and other films followed (with fair degrees of attention from critics and audiences). Over the course of over three decades, the Coens have made a total of eighteen films together, for which they have written, directed, produced and also edited together.

If there truly was a cult movie that stoked so much fervent interest in the years that followed being (at best) a modest hit with audiences, I would say that this is exactly the right film to qualify as "cult classic". With countless examples of lines that people can repeat to each other endlessly and an actual festival dedicated to a screening of the film alongside bowling and wearing costumes of certain characters. When it gets to that kind of blandishment before watching a film, either you'll be hooked in or you won't care that much about it, and others have certainly described it as their favorite film of the Coen brothers (when asked about the film years after release, J. Coen noted the "enduring fascination for other people than it does for us"). Attention can be everything, but I know in my mind that this is a pretty good film. It certainly does not reach greatness, nor does it teeters towards mediocrity, it just serves as a nice little experience worth a fair curiosity if one is in the mindset for it. One can abide it with no problem, whether in its attitudes of eccentric presences and a story that the Coens aimed to seem like a "modern Raymond Chandler story" that goes where it wants in twists before unraveling in relaxation. It's a silly movie at times, such as with its dream sequences, but it never wavers in cheapness or becomes anything too outlandish.

In a role generally referred to as iconic (along with one of his favorites), Bridges certainly grabs onto such a terminally relaxed role (with one inspiration being producer Jeff Dowd) with ease that strides from scene to scene with absolute feeling in out-of-shapeness that is obviously suitable for what is needed in casual charm (Eagles slander notwithstanding). Goodman (based in some part on friend John Milius) rolls with bombast and blazing timing in speaking his mind with no restraint needed. The others prove fine to follow along with besides our undeniable curiosity over the main duo, to a point. Buscemi says a few lines in second gear to Bridges and Goodman (with one distinct retort to tell him to shut up a few times), which I suppose makes sense in the fringes of chuckling along. Turturro shows up for moments at a time, to which I check my watch, chuckle in theory and move on to someone else (preferably a character that isn't a pederast, so not only is Turturro playing a useless character, he's playing a useless pedo). Huddleston moves things along past slack with a little edge to him, while Hoffman follows with care. Moore livens in quirks for those small moments one thinks it is needed, while Elliott provides a well-suited narrator.

Really, if the plot was tightened just a little bit more or some a trimming of all these characters may have meant a better movie (again though, one tries to not express a desire for what they wanted out of a film and just talks about what is in it instead). If one ranges entertainment through how much they enjoyed the characters they saw moreso than a deep plot, all power to you. Plenty of good movies can do that and also become icons in their own right. To me, it is good enough to overcome a decent (if not quite as interesting as it should be) setup because it generally results in fascination for where it could go next with interest. It has a nice look (credit to Roger Deakins along with the Coens' desire for a retro pop film in contemporary times) and certainly will provide those who desire to see what all the fuss is about something to remember for nearly two hours. Whether it serves enough to repeat lines from it or even go to church over it (Dudeism, because of course that is a thing) is up to you to sit on the couch and decide for oneself.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

As Good as It Gets.

Review #1516: As Good as It Gets.

Cast: 
Jack Nicholson (Melvin Udall), Helen Hunt (Carol Connelly), Greg Kinnear (Simon Bishop), Cuba Gooding Jr. (Frank Sachs), Skeet Ulrich (Vincent), Shirley Knight (Beverly Connelly), Yeardley Smith (Jackie), Lupe Ontiveros (Nora), and Jill the Dog (Verdell) Produced and Directed by James L. Brooks (#1470 - Terms of Endearment and #1485 - Broadcast News)

Review: 
"Just let the wardrobe be the character. You play yourself. That's the way you approach it."

It's easy to do a romantic comedy-drama when you have two of a kind playing against each other. Jack Nicholson was already an icon in doing a variety of outsider/anti-hero roles through a long and varied career that toiled for years in low-budget fare and writing before rising to prominence with Easy Rider (1969) and Five Easy Pieces (1970). As for Helen Hunt, she came from a family of photographers and directors and worked as a child actress from a young age. She eventually took on film with films like Trancers (1984) before reaching some success with the sitcom Mad About You in 1992. As for director Brooks, this was his fourth film venture (the first after the flop I'll Do Anything three years prior). It came about because of a script he found named Old Friends, written by Mark Andrus (who went from graduating in business from UC Riverside to creative writing, and he had his first script credit with Late for Dinner (1991) at the age of 36). Its story of a vile man and his gay neighbor had toiled around for years in limbo with various actors like Kevin Kline expressing interest. A year was spent in doing reworking of the script in changing its emphasis, but Brooks would spend considerable time experimenting when filming along with tinkering with the editing and its ending (which apparently changed five times).

As a love story of aggravation and change, it certainly has quite a strange appeal. Over the gradual pace of 139 minutes, it creaks and moves towards romance with a reluctant foot forward and a good cast to make a moderately funny piece of entertainment. It all starts with Nicholson, who is quite enjoyable in acidic misanthropy, one that is hard to resist in viewing because of how Nicholson makes the role across in compulsions and obsessions with conviction that never is sold out for cheap tricks. He can throw a dog in a chute and yet we still find ourself going along with his curious nature in what makes one the way they are and aren't. Hunt matches him with a mix of weariness and her own rediscovering of herself that makes a well-rounded performance of charm that goes quite hand-in-hand for some interesting chemistry like fire and ice when with Nicholson that doesn't seem too out of the blue for where they need to go. Kinnear accompanies the proceedings as the other piece of a trio of human frailty and wit that comes from it with a snappy Gooding Jr or brief moments of charm from Knight alongside smaller moments from folks like Harold Ramis that lend the film some breath of a capably human world trying to deal with very real miseries and quibbles that come from all facets of life, whether that means work or other stuff. The first half definitely works better than the second in setting up moments of back-and-forth between Nicholson and Hunt (along with pretty much anybody else his orbit, such as a quip about how he writes about romance), while the second half travels on the road with our trio and sticks itself in a bit of sentiment that gels adequately to try and arrange what you could (or could not) expect from its setup of exacting change in the patterns of people - if you remotely believe that our main duo can stick as a couple, then it will work out with wonders. For me, it sticks okay, but it definitely seems a bit tinkered one too many times to really separate it as a great experience, particularly with a length of 139 minutes. On the whole, the film gradually builds a human story towards romance with most of it in the right place with an absolute winning pair in Nicholson and Hunt to go along with a few good humorous moments to make something worth going for both the heart and the throat in charm.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Titanic (1997).

Review #1515: Titanic.

Cast: 
Leonardo DiCaprio (Jack Dawson), Kate Winslet (Rose Dewitt Bukater), Billy Zane (Cal Hockley), Kathy Bates (Molly Brown), Frances Fisher (Ruth Dewitt Bukater), Gloria Stuart (Old Rose), Bill Paxton (Brock Lovett), Bernard Hill (Captain Smith), David Warner (Spicer Lovejoy), Victor Garber (Thomas Andrews), Jonathan Hyde (J. Bruce Ismay), Suzy Amis (Lizzy Calvert), Lewis Abernathy (Lewis Bodine), Nicholas Cascone (Bobby Buell), and Anatoly M. Sagalevitch (Anatoly Milkailavich) Written and Directed by James Cameron (#001 - Terminator 2: Judgement Day, #063 - The Terminator, #388 - Avatar, #574 - Aliens, and #606 - True Lies)

Review:
"People call me a perfectionist, but I'm not. I'm a rightist. I do something until it's right, and then I move on to the next thing."

Having particular interests and a particular way of wanting to do them can prove for a resilient director, and James Cameron certainly has proved one of the more memorably resilient directors in ambition. While growing up in Chippewa, Cameron had an interest in building things and in art, although he later expressed interest in doing 8mm home movies after seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). He had an interest in building and physics in his brief time in Fullerton College, but he moved on to small-time jobs such as truck driving with writing on the side. However, he decided to get himself into films because of the excitement of seeing Star Wars (1977). The following year, he raised funds to do a short film in Xenogenesis (1978). Over the next few years, he worked on a few films in effects and assistant work (such as Battle Beyond the Stars and Galaxy of Terror) before being hired to direct for the first time with Piranha II: The Spawning (1982). Although it was a flop, his next film brought him into prominence within science fiction entertainment with The Terminator (1984). Cameron has ventured beyond filmmaking in subsequent years, such as sea exploring and documentary filmmaking alongside activist work.

What can one expect from a film that is actually longer than the sinking of the ship the film is named after? Director/writer/co-producer/co-editor Cameron spent a great deal of time in research while pitching it as "Romeo & Juliet on the Titanic" to 20th Century Fox, with Cameron taking numerous diving trips with a miniature remotely operated vessels to view the wreckage of the Titanic. The film was a tremendous financial venture, with 20th Century Fox handling the international rights while Paramount Pictures handled the North America distribution for a total $200 million budget upon release...and you know the rest. What's there to say that isn't already known or stated already by someone else? It certainly handles itself well in spectacle and trappings of the period in detail. Once it gets to the wreck, you can't stop the freight train of chaos. Of course the film also quibbles itself with a mediocre love story that bloats itself in woodenness that will either inspire fluster in its audience or snickers at just being a slightly-better version of The Poseidon Adventure (1972) while somehow not being as rewarding as Cameron's previous works. One can make two billion dollars with a movie and still come out of it feeling like they only got 80 cents on the dollar, I suppose.

There proves to be an interesting mix of acting, trying their best in a period drama that also has to not become lost within effects and occasional stilted moments. DiCaprio certainly has an instinctive everyman quality to him, certainly proving idea in resonating charm out of simple things, whether that means first seeing the ship for the first time or his high society dinner act with others. Winslet proves just as resounding, wrapped with resourceful grace that makes the star-crossed romance come across without too many obstacles. They click well and likely prove enough in interest to make the inevitability all the more bittersweet to see play out in a climax effects ride. Zane proves quite enjoyable as the default adversary of the film, surprisingly enough. He is quite hammy in the right places needed when it comes to arrogance and anti-chemistry with Winslet that chews scenery quite handily, and the only quibble I have is that his fate is told to us rather than being shown, because one does need one more hammy last moments with Zane, honestly. Bates proves ready in small moments when it comes to clear-cut contrast with stuffier companions. Fisher comes and goes with inevitable parental conflict over romance that is decent for those fleeting moments needed. Stuart and Paxton bridge the beginning and end with proper fitting in clear perspectives when it comes to the ship and the story that is weaved from it.

For all the expense spared in making one feel like they really are on the Titanic, there are still little details that inevitably spring up. Was it really so hard to depict a mix of fictional and real-life characters without tarnishing reputation? What is the point of perpetuating the myth and lie that J. Bruce Ismay was a coward? While he had his part in the reduction of lifeboats on the ship (which could have had sixty but had barely a third of that), he most certainly did not force the ship to go faster. Perceptions can be everything, and press coverage of Ismay was extremely negative to the point that subsequent film adaptations (including the famed A Night to Remember (1958), which the film apparently shares a few moments of similarity with in terms of arrangement) included this in their portrayals of him (this can be said in a different light about Captain Smith in regards to how history recorded him and his actions before going down with the ship). One depiction was controversial enough to literally inspire an apology to the relatives of William Murdoch (first officer), who is depicted shooting two people before dying himself (the circumstances of his death are disputed, and his body was never found). The enjoyment comes from the obvious for me: the great and wonderfully re-created ship that makes one really experience this ship and the time that comes from it with finesse - and then of course the splitting of said ship that goes from growing waters to panicky escape attempts. This was a pure technical winner for those involved, with Academy Awards ranging from cinematography to visual effects to costume design to other awards like music (score and song) while Cameron would win three Academy Awards. Perhaps this really is just a film that people just love because they love the emotions it can inspire, particularly in crying. If one really wants to judge movies on how well they make you cry, all power to you, but crying at something isn't exactly my thing, and the idea of crying at this almost seems hysterical. To some, it is a great experience, capable of inspiring tears and quotable moments, while others might find it as pure pablum. I recognize its scope and semi-effective touch as enough to win me over on a casual level, where I may roll my eyes at some of its moments while knowing full well it still ranks as good enough to be worth it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Chasing Amy.

Review #1514: Chasing Amy.

Cast: 
Ben Affleck (Holden McNeil), Joey Lauren Adams (Alyssa Jones), Jason Lee (Banky Edwards), Dwight Ewell (Hooper X), Jason Mewes (Jay), Kevin Smith (Silent Bob), Ethan Suplee (Fan), and Scott Mosier (Collector) Written and Directed by Kevin Smith (#794 - Clerks)

Review: 
"The people that write about movies and talk about how important film is, and blah blah blah, it's ridiculous. Because at the end of the day, film's not important. What's important is kind of the simple things: Family, survival, life. Film is just entertainment."

It's easy to be drawn into film if you have an interest from a young age. Kevin Smith once described himself as "raised on television", but he had not truly thought about doing a film until he saw the film Slacker (1990), which interested him in how different it was from other films of the time in entertainment in its approach to characters. He decided to try and make his own independent film while looking up directors that had done work with less money to draw from that ranged from Jim Jarmusch to Spike Lee; he spent four months at Vancouver Film School before returning to his native New Jersey to work back at a convenience store. This proved the basis for his debut with Clerks (1994), which you may very well already know as the ultra-low budget comedy cult classic. His next film the following year in Mallrats crashed and burned with audiences, although it later developed a cult following in its own right.

Sometimes you just have to have a film about the hows and whys of a relationship, regardless of how good or bad the material turns out to be. Part of the inspiration for Smith to do this film (which he would also co-edit) was the experiences with his then-girlfriend Adams. I suppose the true enjoyment of the film comes from how much it resonates in biting humor about the absurdities that can come from relationships, whether as friends or more. What we perceive in our minds about people and the self-doubts that can come from it can shape who we are. Not everything has a bright beginning or ending when it comes to trying to find love and make it stick because of how you love someone, not who it is. This was the first breakthrough for Affleck, who had started acting as a child before moving into small roles in film (such as Dazed and Confused, which also featured Adams). He does fairly well here, having a confident vulnerability to him that generally can sell himself with useful nature. Adams proves just as (if not more so) interesting, having an alluring charm and good timing on certain moments to make the inevitable chemistry pop-ups work out as fine as they do. Skateboarder-turned-actor Lee makes for a snappy third for the proceedings, being pretty amusing in combative bonding. Ewell does fine, although it is his opening scene involving Affleck, Lee, and a convention speech that is his highlight moment. Mewes and Smith continue their double act from before with no sort of trouble in bumming a laugh and perhaps a bit of insight.

Honestly, I guess it really depends on how much experience one has when it comes to relationships like this, where one wonders how the perspective changes from say a bachelor viewer to a married viewer or even just someone with their own distinct fluidity. We are talking about a guy who pines after a "lesbian", after all. All I can think is the same thing I can think of "standard romcoms" that have their own little conflict in contrivances: Who really cares? Who the hell really cares about if your significant other had some experience before you and why does it matter to make a film about?. For all of its little moments of raunchy humor, it really isn't that much different from the clichés of before, right down to detailing personality at moments and beginning contrivances - one might as well be watching Annie Hall (1977) if they need an anatomy of neurosis at that point. I can appreciate taking on trying to do nuance with a romcom, but the mileage that it tries to drive itself with isn't really as deep as it thinks it is, existing on the idea that I really will just think this dilemma is just that meaningful and different from before - basically like window dressing up a comic book store. Whether it is sensitive or honestly raw enough to truly make for meaningful experiences is up to the viewer. On the whole, it is fairly decent, garnering some laughs with an ideal trio while making some of its connections count in perceptions and poignancy for a fair time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Jerry Maguire.

Review #1513: Jerry Maguire.

Cast: 
Tom Cruise (Gerald "Jerry" Maguire), Cuba Gooding Jr (Rodney "Rod" Tidwell), Renée Zellweger (Dorothy Boyd), Kelly Preston (Avery Bishop), Jerry O'Connell (Frank "Cush" Cushman), Jay Mohr (Bob Sugar), Bonnie Hunt (Laurel Boyd), Regina King (Marcee Tidwell), Jonathan Lipnicki (Raymond Boyd), Todd Louiso (Chad the Nanny), Jeremy Suarez (Tyson Tidwell), and Jared Jussim (Dicky Fox) Directed by Cameron Crowe.

Review: 
"I'm proudest of the fact that I've been able to make a few movies in the studio system that are slightly unorthodox and personal. But it's never quite as easy as you dream that it could be."

Cameron Crowe had his own little path towards filmmaking: writing about music. He graduated from high school at 15 before being hired to write for Rolling Stone magazine, travelling with bands such as the Allman Brothers Band about travels on the road with them and their voices. In 1981, nearly ten years after graduating high school, he finished writing his first book based on the idea to pose undercover as a high school student in San Diego, which resulted in Fast Times at Ridgemont High and a film the following year. Crowe wrote another look into teenagers with The Wild Life (1984) before James L. Brooks took interest in the writer that would result in him producing Crowe's first directorial effort: Say Anything... (1989). This and Singles (1992) were mild successful romantic comedy hits with audiences and critics before Crowe did this for his third effort.

Truly, if you work hard enough, you too can make a heartfelt, overproduced romantic comedy just like the ones your parents made, complete with hokey lines (having me at hello goes straight to the garbage can) that threaten to shake the agent parts out of actual interest. Beyond a long 139 minute stretch that seems to be intricately built on too many characters and plot threads while trying way too hard to be anything other than just a decent "sports" film. When it tries its hands at romance, it doesn't really spring as much enthusiasm beyond what you could find in anything else. It is built on the idea that one really wants to hear much about the plight of a sports agent (with Leigh Steinberg being the inspiration that Crowe would follow around for significant amount of time in 1993 for research) and their crisis of conscience (money isn't everything when it comes to customers-I mean clients, story at 11). In a way I care, but if you zero in on just Cruise and Gooding Jr without most of the others in building itself, you may very well have a better film, or at the very least one that doesn't seem so choked in selling itself short. Rom-com clichés or sports clichés, I'll take the latter any day. Sap has become the way to try and teach someone empathy for years so at least Crowe can say he made something that looks different from the typical film without really doing too much different, complete with a third-act breakup after having them marry (ooh, different from the usual breakup before marriage).

I suspect Cruise wanted to do a role to challenge him from the usual charismatic charmers he usually played, one where he has to bring himself up from narcissistic loneliness. It isn't really that hard to like Cruise anyway, and he does fine with generating some carefully controlled interest, wracked with doubts and zeal. In a sense, Zellweger does fine. She has a zip and interest to her that seems to suit her in trying to elicit charm even while having a script that seems lacking in really giving her something to really do beyond idealism and "cute" moments with Cruise or her on-screen son. Actually, it is Preston and her ferocious honesty that seems more suited for this strange little film, amusing in zippy honesty. Gooding delivers a well-faceted performance with charm and humor, confident and well-suited against Cruise when showing the connection of agent and star beyond just the memorable lines of showing one the money, which is a good highlight in of itself, although the scene near the end with them hugging is probably more poignant than anything else in the film. Lipnicki and Mohr seem to be in competition for who I don't care to see more deliver what is meant to be charming/funny lines (whether out of a child actor with one trick of trying to tug at the audience's heart or a comedian with...one trick of trying to be smarmily hilarious), but I actually enjoyed the resistance displayed by Hunt far better in managing to display the point-of-view of the audience in skepticism. On the whole, I did think the film was at least somewhat successful in generating interest in its agency world, where one has to see beyond big profits and egos to really see something fresh in life. If one can't find something to like in life, it will be hard to sell something in it as well. It might be a bit plodding and cliched, but it is at least passable in most of the right places of quippy humor that shows some heart without needing to become consumed in itself.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Lost and Found.

Review #1512: Lost and Found.

Cast: 
Takeshi Kaneshiro (Mr. Worm), Kelly Chen (Chai Lam), Michael Wong (Ted), Cheung Tat-ming (Ming), Henry Fong (Chai Ming), Josie Ho (Yee), Joe Ma (Ting's dad), and Steven Ma (Chai Hong) Written and Directed by Lee Chi-Ngai.

Review: 
Not every film has to be an acclaimed classic or well known around the world to merit some sort of attention. Hong Kong has its own distinct place within world cinema through various films and directors over the decades that have lent plenty of interest both in the country and abroad. Filmmakers can come from anywhere, as demonstrated on several occasions, whether well-known or obscure. While Lee Chi-Ngai isn't particularly known as other names in Hong Kong, he has still managed to cultivate a lengthy career for himself. Chi-Ngai started as an art director, with his first film credit being for Brotherhood (1986). He ventured first into directing with Vengeance Is Mine (1988) getting into writing with Goodbye Hero (1990). Even the stars of our film have credit to still linger within its film industry. Our main star is Chen, who had started her twenties with commercials and music videos before adding acting to her foray, and she is generally thought of now as a Cantopop icon. Kaneshiro (born in Taiwan) had also started with music by the time of his twenties before soon taking on acting (soon marked by his appearances in several films in Hong Kong, Japan, and China). Wong is the distinct one of the bunch, as he had left his native America to pursue acting in Hong Kong after graduating high school, gradually rising above challenges to a respectable modest career in the Hong Kong industry.

What does it mean to be lost? And once that is known, what will it take to be found? One could have plenty of money or have lived a long life and still have a world of difference when it comes to hope and a good life. I don't generally tend to philosophize when it comes to films, but it is nice to have one that can drive a smile (or a tear) and have a little room for some thoughts with a film like this. You could live your whole life in the most middling of middle-ground life and still have high hopes in a world of conflicting dignities and misfits among conflict over what really matters, and this is an effective film in well-mannered poignancy. It shuffles itself within drama and romance with a brush stroke like poetry that for the most part keeps itself in check with a fair heart and a decent cast to go alongside a film dealing in episodic moments worth some curiosity. Chen is given a tough task with a vulnerable role in center of a terminal illness drama that also has voiceovers to fill the layers - in that sense, she does just fine with what is needed, certainly useful enough to see growth play out with dutiful care. Kaneshiro proves just as worthy in bright-eyed optimism that exudes hopeful charm that we gravitate to from the moment we first see him trying to find something lost in a trashcan. Wong does fine with a quiet but resourceful reflection of resourceful calmness that is reliable in someone to look upon when not quite there. The rest of the ensemble prove just fine, lending a hand in little moments that drive curiosity in what it means to run with hope (or perhaps run towards it), such as trying to make roses grow so a kid can believe that it will help his mother get better. It moves along at 110 minutes with reasonable movement that while perhaps a bit drenched in sap does generally find itself in the right place at figuring what keeps one going without becoming manipulative. On the whole, this proves to be a finely-hidden gem that merits a curious look (perhaps on the Internet) for those seeking something humanely casual and unique of its time and place in its heart and soul for hope.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

12 Monkeys.

Review #1511: 12 Monkeys.

Cast: 
Bruce Willis (James Cole), Madeleine Stowe (Kathryn Railly), Brad Pitt (Jeffrey Goines), Christopher Plummer (Dr. Leland Goines), David Morse (Dr. Peters), Jon Seda (Jose), Christopher Meloni (Lt. Halperin), Frank Gorshin (Dr. Fletcher), and Vernon Campbell (Tiny) Directed by Terry Gilliam (#1448 - Monty Python and the Holy Grail)

Review: 
"I do want to say things in these films. I want audiences to come out with shards stuck in them. I don't care if people love my films or walk out, as long as they have a strong response."

When it comes to films that have a bit of magic realism with a particular style of imagination, Terry Gilliam is a good director to start with. He had first started with cartoons and animation, such as with Help! magazine (before it closed in 1965) before moving to Europe and eventually moving into work within television with Do Not Adjust Your Set (1968). He would do both animation and various parts for a show that would become famous in England beyond its run in television with Monty Python's Flying Circus. He would serve as the co-director with Terry Jones in his first feature with Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975). He has done a fair mix of comedies, fantasies and adventures in his life, which has resulted in a share of success and clashes with meddling studio makers for films such as Time Bandits (1981), Brazil (1985), and The Fisher King (1991). This is the seventh of thirteen films by Gilliam, which is inspired by the 1962 short film La Jetee (directed and written by Chris Marker). That film told a story of time-travel experiment in a post-apocalyptic France, with travels into the past and future that was told as a still image film (except for one distinct moment) for 28 minutes. Executive producer Robert Kosberg pitched the idea of doing a film based on the short to Universal Pictures and this led to David and Janet Peoples being brought in to do the script while Gilliam was brought into the fold by Universal because of their belief in his style fitting what they needed here (with Gilliam liking the "disconcerting" story).

What we have here is a film about how nothing is ever like it seems, one that wants us ultimately to focus not on the past but instead to pay attention to what happens in the present, in all of its strange settings. With a world coming apart, one can see in this film both death and rebirth for a steady and dutiful 129 minute tale of morose but ultimately fruitful experience with a solid cast ready for the undertaking Gilliam requires in style and execution. The film jumps from time to time with a clear edge for distinguishing past from future with its use of various salvaged and acquired material that make for an unsettling future in creeping technology and even bleaker outlooks. In this sense, it should prove no wonder why Willis (in the midst of a prime career generally with action flicks) decided to do the film on a lower salary just to work with Gilliam and this role. He pulls wonders in the dreariest of requirements: a man lost in time with no future who has to discern what is and what isn't true. Willis weaves weariness and sensitivity with care to making the time go by with conviction and fine timing to fit what is needed without needing to do any tricks to the eye. Stowe follows along with rational care and a resoundingly shaky rapport with Willis that runs with pragmatic care. Pitt shows his resilience as the useful wild card in nervous rapid speech that goes with what is needed in a flickering state of chaotic agitation that makes for dazzling moments in and out of the looney bin. Plummer and Morse accompany the margins with mindful ease. In the end, what matters most is how much the narrative (which will be mostly fine to follow along with) resonates with the viewer in keeping interest with its eye on the present and future, where the pursuit isn't just the virus in front of you (or even shown to you) but instead on what it means to even have a future in the first place. Fear of the unknown can be a foreboding one, but it certainly beats knowing what is to come at all, with this working itself out in time as a carefully-cut curiosity to seek out for its beats in science fiction with a director suited for this particular story to make it right in logical rawness.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Se7en.

Review #1510: Seven.

Cast:
Brad Pitt (Detective David Mills), Morgan Freeman (Detective Lieutenant William Somerset), Gwyneth Paltrow (Tracy Mills), Kevin Spacey (John Doe), R. Lee Ermey (Police Captain), Richard Roundtree (District Attorney Martin Talbot), and Richard Schiff (Mark Swarr) Directed by David Fincher (#586 - Alien 3, #705 - The Social Network, and #1284 - Fight Club)

Review: 
"As a director, film is about how you dole out the information so that the audience stays with you when they're supposed to stay with you, behind you when they're supposed to stay behind you, and ahead of you when they're supposed to stay ahead of you."

From a young age, David Fincher knew he wanted to make films. He expressed an interest in photography and drawing as a child, and it was his viewing of a behind-the-scenes show about Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969) that proved the biggest inspiration to directing, noting that it was when he realized films didn't happen in real time, seeing it as a "cool job". He started making 16mm films in the third grade, with film classes during those times proved helpful to his pursuits (such as for example doing an assignment about making a film to a particular song). Fincher would do a variety of jobs and projects growing up in Oregon, such as directing and designing sets for his high school plays along with work with a news station and as a busboy. After turning 20, he moved into doing work in the film industry with people such as John Korty and Industrial Light and Magic (ILM) which started with work such as Twice Upon a Time (1983) with special photographic effects. He moved from doing assistant work to directing for television commercials and soon music videos (both involving prominent companies and groups like Levi's and Rick Springfield, respectively). He was given his first chance to direct a feature with Alien 3 (1990). To put it mildly, he hated the experience, one undone by script troubles and re-editing.

Fincher went back to making music videos, but he managed to come across an intriguing script done by Andrew Kevin Walker (who had based his experiences living in New York City for five years as his inspiration), which was looked into by New Line Cinema after a few revisions. Fincher asked to read the script, but it was accidentally the one with the original ending that was sent to him by the studio to garner his interest; Fincher liked what he saw, and consulting with studio head Mike De Luca led to the understanding that while studio pressure wanted to go forward with the more conventional manner of ending, provided that Fincher was ready to go in six weeks. This did not stop pressure from other hands at the studio from trying to guide the ending to something different, but several people, including Fincher, Pitt, Freeman, and Spacey, protested against changing the film, which succeeded as Fincher's first key hit in a career that has persisted for over three decades. The movies that linger in our memories are the ones where you can really distill it down to one key moment or quote in crystal clearness, one that you can say "The film with that ending." Sure, you could use The Usual Suspects for 1995's example of an iconic trickster for its ending, but Seven is the superior effort. It manages to achieve such a well-done construction of a compelling crime narrative that has a solid and recognizable cast to go alongside an unnerving tone and pace that makes its ending all the more wrenching in effectiveness, earning its twists and turns with no sort of cheating or contrivances, made particularly clear with the third act in its method of madness with Pitt, Freeman, and Spacey. Drenched in darkness, who can resist its realism? Precise and uncompromising scares of what makes a hunt for a murderer all the more successful. It is no wonder that Fincher was attracted to this, seeing it as a "meditation on evil and how evil gets on you and you can't get it off", rather than just a police procedural. With the way it goes with its gruesome moments (whether shown on camera or not), you almost could put it under horror as well.

When it comes to finely-tuned pairings of procedure, Pitt and Freeman make a good team. They bounce off each other in contrast with their sensibility towards virtue and reality that work out quite well. Pitt has an interesting natural ability to sink into this role with both feet facing forward and a capability of determination in a fledged interest with flaws for us to see through what seems to just be energy. Freeman accomplishes a weary and effective turn of the other side of the procedural screw, one with a steady pace towards his past and future when it comes to the grind of age and the regrets that can come from it. Paltrow lends some brightness to the atmosphere with grace as the only one that isn't directly related to the case yet see in her struggle to maintain oneself in the grind of a brooding life within a city looking dark enough to engulf all. Spacey is concise and effective with the moments he is given (which is best not to highlight in keeping the curiosity to oneself or in just waiting to see when he comes in), making a useful adversary that never adheres to all of the clichés you could see in a lesser killer film. Ermey and Roundtree have small moments, but they are each worthwhile actors with what is required when interacting with our leads regardless. With a slick way of maneuvering through its methods in 127 minutes with most of its moments hitting in keeping the pulse firmly in keeping the audience on their toes without needing to bash them over the head for the sins of lesser procedurals before it. This is a fairly effective film for its era that dares to take its audience through murky touchings with a capable cast and execution that will stay in the boxes of your mind for quite some time after it is finished.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Apollo 13.

Review #1509: Apollo 13.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Jim Lovell), Bill Paxton (Fred Haise), Kevin Bacon (Jack Swigert), Gary Sinise (Ken Mattingly), Ed Harris (Gene Kranz), Kathleen Quinlan (Marilyn Lovell), Mary Kate Schellhardt (Barbara Lovell), Emily Ann Lloyd (Susan Lovell), Miko Hughes (Jeffrey Lovell), Max Elliott Slade (Jay Lovell), Jean Speegle Howard (Blanch Lovell), Tracy Reiner (Mary Haise), David Andrews (Pete Conrad), Michele Little (Jane Conrad), and Chris Ellis (Deke Slayton) Directed by Ron Howard (#301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas, #546 - Cinderella Man, #1085 - Willow, and #1095 - Solo: A Star Wars Story)

Review: 
"I've acted with all types, I've directed all types. What you want to understand as a director, is what actors have to offer. They'll get at it however they get at it. If you can understand that, you can get your work done."

When it comes to well-established directors in entertainment for over four decades, one key figure of versatility is Ron Howard. He was very familiar with show business from a young age, owing to his parents both being actors and his younger brother Clint also became a child actor (all three would appear in several of his films). Howard began acting from the age of five, and his first major role was in The Andy Griffith Show beginning in 1960, which ran for several years. Howard would credit the friendly environment of the production in allowing participation and curiosity over the role of the director's role in making the show what it was for getting him interested in becoming a director. Howard continued to act in his growing years in film and television (such as The Music Man, American Graffiti, and Happy Days) before venturing his way into making a film with the low-budget Grand Theft Auto (1977), which he starred in and co-wrote with his dad Rance. Since his breakthrough with Night Shift (1982), Howard has gone on to directing a variety of genres in a four-decade career, including comedy, adventure, and thrillers.

Howard became interested in doing the film when reading about the facts of the mission and realizing the interest sprang not so much in just making the audience experience space but also making a story of human triumph. The film first came into interest with the non-fiction account of the mission by its commander Jim Lovell that he co-wrote with Jeffrey Kluger in Lost Moon: The Perilous Voyage of Apollo 13, published in 1994. William Broyles Jr and Al Reinert would be behind the screenplay (with un-credited rewrites from John Sayles). What a fascinating film we have here, both on how it treats its subject matter and as an experience in entertainment. Its depiction of the "successful failure" of the Apollo 13 is one that has endured for over two decades because of how Howard and his crew managed to cultivate meaningful drama and spectacle into 140 minutes with near-perfect precision for what makes exploration and resilience so interesting. We look upon the Apollo missions with wonder for how they did those missions from the Earth to space and beyond with the technology of the time while not forgetting that the Apollo missions rode and fell in popularity over the years that followed landing on the Moon, as if one could see travel away from home as just typical, but this particular mission showed the resilience of people under pressure on Earth and off it to maintain themselves with failure not being an option.

Hanks, an affirmed lover of the space program, is naturally perfect here, having a natural charm and spirit that we care to see in his pursuit of travel with curiosity and nuance. Paxton follows him with well-followed spirit and a vivid presence worth viewing in the ship in the struggles that came for the mission. Bacon finishes the main trio of shipmates with earnest interest, while Sinise stands firm on the ground with conviction through those moments used in spurts throughout. Harris reins in respect and determination with a well-rounded performance that exudes confidence and professionalism each time he is on screen within Mission Control. Quinlan certainly seems right in her instinct for what is needed, with the real Lovell praising her as being fairly authentic to her own thoughts and feelings of the time. The others fill in the seams with no problem in keeping the interest and docudrama on the level. The interest in looking at history told through the lens of a film is where the accuracies and inaccuracies blend in with each other. In this case, there are certain quibbles that come with making a drama (such as for example Mattingly being more of a composite for several astronauts and engineers with regards to solving the power consumption problem for re-entry or the neglection of Glynn Lunney and his team in those crucial first hours of doom), but nothing comes across as contrived or illogical to ruin what is a fairly accurate movie, particularly in its look (noted in several parts by crew members, such as the Mission Control set). Think about this: this is a film that did not utilize documentary footage, rather instead going for re-creation of the whole experience through effects and sets, which would include the KC-135 (a fixed-wing aircraft that is used to train astronauts for weightlessness), which they could only use for filming in zero gravity for very brief intervals (25 seconds at a time). On the whole, one can find themselves wholly invested into the proceedings without needing much familiarity with the Apollo missions, and even those who know it will still find plenty to take interest in without seeming inevitable. It wins most of its moments in sentiment and tension with a clear-cut cast and well-done technique to make a solid enough winner for the era that remains timeless then as now as a portrait of the people that stood up when failure was not an option.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Usual Suspects.

Review #1508: The Usual Suspects.

Cast: 
Stephen Baldwin (Michael McManus), Gabriel Byrne (Dean Keaton), Benicio del Toro (Fred Fenster), Kevin Pollak (Todd Hockney), Kevin Spacey (Roger "Verbal" Kint), Chazz Palminteri (Dave Kujan), Pete Postlethwaite (Kobayashi), Suzy Amis (Edie Finneran), Giancarlo Esposito (Jack Baer), and Dan Hedaya (Sergeant Jeff Rabin) Produced and Directed by Bryan Singer (#008 - X-Men, #010 - X2, #584 - X-Men: Days of Future Past, and #1077 - Superman Returns)

Review: 
"I believe that as a writer and a director, you're only providing the skeleton of a character, and you're hiring actors to fill it out."

It's easy to make a film people remember when you have assembled a script worth thinking about. Christopher McQuarrie spent his first few years out of high school (spent with classmate Singer) doing some traveling and work in a boarding school and a detective agency. His first foray into film came with Public Access (which he co-wrote with Singer) in 1993, which he co-wrote with Singer and Michael Feit Dougan. The film did win some attention from critics (such as with the Sundance Film Festival), but it ultimately did not find much of an audience to play to. The thing that sparked interest in writing the film came about from seeing a title of a Spy magazine column that was "The Usual Suspects" (which also happens to be a classic line from Casablanca), and a casual conversation about doing a film with that title led later on to Singer asking if he could write a film for him with that in mind (since there was interest by investors interested in their last work for a $3 million project). McQuarrie, working at a law firm at the time, found inspiration in a small white room that looked like one used for interrogation, with this springing to mind a character who talks too much; names for some of the characters would come from stuff revolving around McQuarrie in his workplace, such as the interrogator (named for a office manager at the firm) and even Keyser Söze (although the last name was changed from real life).

The most interesting parts of the film involve those little moments of interaction between the core cast that we follow along with in its story, more so in the first half than the second. It is Byrne who we gravitate to in terms of interest, one who just grabs at you with a flickering intensity that certain inspires a certain kind of imagination as to what he really is, since he is the figure we see in the midst of events that had started the film anyway. Baldwin follows along with useful pacing that is quick on the trigger in high-temperedness. Del Toro does fine with a share of eccentricity that lends curiosity for what really seems to be a plain character on paper. Pollak proves worthy of a few cheeky smiles in short fused-temperament, while Palminteri proves a worthy one to contrast against the core group of seediness with coarse charm. Spacey is the key to plenty in the film, since he is the one we are listening to and viewing within the background of the perspective, and he does a fairly decent job in unassuming nature, useful to the film is what it shows without seeming like an extra presence, verbalizing himself with effective weaving.

You know those movies that people say they would like for you to see in how it plays out? There are some films that people can really, really get into, ones that can lend plenty of discussion for how something "just works", something far more than what one could assume from a noir mystery and so on and so on. Honestly, the one sticking point for me when it comes to this film is that I wish it was better than I expected. What was there to expect? The climax at the end isn't exactly spoiler-free from pop culture, but it generally does help to not read too much into an ending for a film before you watch it anyway (look, either Keyser Söze will be revealed to us in the end as either someone already established or he won't be at all, it isn't exactly more than a binary choice). The film relies on this twist because of its perspective that it wants to tell within its confines of a story that perhaps works for numerous viewings, one might say (it has been described as Double Indemnity meets Rashomon). Well, that doesn't really work if you don't find its shaggy dog kind of storytelling that particularly highly to begin with, a big trick to play on the audiences. The cast ultimately plays into part of how this film falls into what I like to call the "five stages of movie classic disappointment" (in which one does when they are faced with a movie people like but you don't, which obviously differs from the inverse of normal movie disappointment, namely in paragraphs). In this never-tested method, they would represent denial, in that I am believing that because they do pretty well, I cling to the idea that this really will be a great film. Anger (or in this case, frustration, because who really gets mad at being tricked by a film?) presumably kicks in right around when the story starts to teeter a bit too long in making me keep caring to the inevitable stop. Bargaining comes around in the whiny voice of consciousness that argues that wants me to compromise (in other words, not just immediately say this film isn't quite right without a little bit of digging) and think of it as "good, but not quite perfect" because maybe the climax really will prove itself. This leads to that fourth stage of depression (disappointment), where I just sit through the motions of how it really chooses to go the way it goes and sighing all the way, with that fifth stage standing right there practically mocking me when I finish that last train of thought.

This isn't to say I hated the film, because I actually did find it okay in making a fair piece of curiosity with a few highlights within conventional folks made fair through the actors (such as the scene where they all have to say a line in a police lineup), but in my view its magic trick leaves me feeling indifferent rather than astonishment. Pull that tablecloth from under the table all you want, but that doesn't make it a cool trick if I can see the way you "did it" coming.  Conventional can seem old hat and tired, but you know what was better in its portrayal of details and chase in the same year that this came out? Coincidence or not, that film is Seven (1995), which also happened to feature Spacey in a key role. Why stop there? Why not just chuck along a better film in dealing with stringed-together storytelling in Reservoir Dogs (1992)? Look, sometimes a film just doesn't have the reaching power it thinks it does, and that just falls to the perspective of the person who just saw it, and I just thought it was okay. I can understand the accolades and praise it received from certain audiences (which included an Academy Award for its screenplay, beating films of that year such as Braveheart and Toy Story) while also reaching the final stage of movie-classic-disappointment-grief: Acceptance that it just isn't completely what I think of when I think of a classic, and I move on to the next one.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.