Alice (1988).

Review #1729: Alice.

Cast: 

Kristýna Kohoutová (Alice) Directed by Jan Švankmajer.

Review: 

"Animators tend to construct a closed world for themselves, like pigeon fanciers or rabbit breeders. I never call myself an animated filmmaker because I am interested not in animation techniques or creating a complete illusion, but in bringing life to everyday objects."

Truly, the time has come to introduce a bit of fresh perspective within filmmaking and animation, particularly with a man described by one of his Czech peers as "Disney plus Buñuel equals Švankmajer." Jan Švankmajer was born in Prague, Czechoslovakia in 1934; as a boy he had a small puppet theatre at home (which was quite common in the country), and he has stated that in a sense everything he does is essentially a puppet play. He studied at the School of Applied Arts in Prague from 1950 to 1954 before going to the Academy of the Performing Arts in the puppetry department; he also worked with a marionette theatre in the city that helped develop an interest in film. He would make his first film with The Last Trick (1964), a 12 minute short. Over a handful of shorts, he would continue to experiment with puppets, animation, and the avant-garde that have made him a distinct presence in filmmaking with the amount of things featured in his projects that can go from people to puppets to using sawdust. By the time Švankmajer retired from filmmaking in 2018, he had directed seven feature films, with Insects (2018) being his last effort. As one might already know, this is an adaptation of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, which was written in 1865 by Lewis Carroll. It was after he had done his short films Jabberwocky and Down to the Cellar that he dared to do a feature film, since he was thinking about it for quite some time while recognizing it as one of the most seminal works of civilization. One key thing to note is his vision of adapting the work as a dream, since he felt that was how Carroll wrote it; he felt that others who had made adaptations prior (and after) had presented it as a fairy tale, for which there was a fundamental difference (i.e. one has a moral and the other is the expression of the unconscious). This was a co-production between the countries of Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and West Germany.

He has favored animation as a way to give life to the inanimate, and one certainly can see this present with a movie with only one human presence in an oppressive and involving work. This is quite the astonishing adventure of curiosity, one that is excellent in its handling of animation that tells a classic story (that I'm sure we all know and have read before) in a refreshing and captivating manner. The interesting thing is to consider that this is the first and only film to feature Kristyna Kohoutova (dubbed by Camilla Power in the English-language version), and there aren't too many movies with just one presence that look like this one. She is the only voice we hear through the film, and we see and hear the story through her eyes in the proper dream format that the director wanted to do without feeling inauthentic. One just has to close their eyes and enjoy what they see, whether that involves taxidermized rabbits (complete with sawdust coming out of it) or china doll versions of oneself, and so on - the story is what you know from the novel without being a slave to it. The movie is a visual curiosity and testament for what a filmmaker can do in ingenuity, doing more with creating a creeping atmosphere with amoral dream-making than most directors try to do with supposedly more advanced graphics and techniques, and it also happens in a film that doesn't drown itself out in incessant noise or cliches. One can see for themselves what it means as a whole in its ending without loss of curiosity, because one is proud of the result generated on screen in the dream. It is a dark movie that I would recommend for all folks who are interested in fresh perspectives within animation and storytelling, where one can do plenty with a bit of organic curiosity to make a dream more than just a dream and all folks can get into what it reaches to say without having their hand held to get there or losing patience. I would say that makes this a most successful classic and one that merits recommendation for all to view within the lens of animation and world cinema.

Next Time: Bring on October, bring on the month that horror folks know and love. 

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Another 48 Hrs.

Review #1728: Another 48 Hrs. 

Cast: 

Eddie Murphy (Reggie Hammond), Nick Nolte (Inspector Jack Cates), Brion James (Inspector Ben Kehoe), Kevin Tighe (Lieutenant Blake Wilson), Ed O'Ross (Inspector Frank Cruise), David Anthony Marshall (Willie Hickok), Andrew Divoff (Richard "Cherry" Ganz), Bernie Casey (Kirkland Smith), Brent Jennings (Tyrone Burroughs), Ted Markland (Malcolm Price), and Tisha Campbell (Amy Smith) Directed by Walter Hill (#1072 - 48 Hrs, #1091 - Last Man Standing, #1139 - Supernova, #1625 - The Long Riders)

Review: 

I'm sure you remember 48 Hrs (1982). That movie was the brainchild of one Lawrence Gordon, at least in the original idea, which somehow involved a kidnapped daughter of the Governor of Louisiana within a team-up of a mean cop and the cellmate of the kidnapper. Somehow, over the course of a decade, it evolved into what you saw on screen, with the result being that four writers were credited (Roger Spottiswoode, Walter Hill, Larry Gross, Steven E. de Souza) for a movie once described by Hill in pre-production as a "a shaggy dog story. Defiant Ones plus chuckles." While it wasn't exactly the first buddy cop movie ever made, it certainly was the one that helped to popularize the genre, and the credit for success can go to its main pair in Nolte and Murphy (making his film debut after years on Saturday Night Live), who certainly play off each other well enough in terms of tense interest that made a worthy action comedy. Despite fears from folks at Paramount Pictures to the viability of the movie (including threats that Hill would never work there again)...you already know it was a success, because who else would try to make a sequel eight years later? Well, it turns out it was Murphy who lit the match to do a sequel, as it was he (under the "name" of Fred Braughton) who wrote the initial story while later approaching Hill to do the sequel under the idea of wanting to get the spirit of the first one with "a lot of street energy and the hard edges of the original" (as quoted by Hill); it also might be a coincidence that he was near the end of his contract obligations with Paramount Pictures for films. John Fasano, Jeb Stuart, and Larry Gross were tasked with writing the screenplay. With a budget of $50 million, the movie made around three times its budget back at the box office, although it was felt to be a disappointment; Murphy and Paramount ended up not being happy with each other in regard to how each promoted the film.

Would you believe this film was a hack-job? Somehow, the original workprint was 145 minutes long, and even more strangely the original cut was 120 minutes long. Undeniably, that version might seem a bit long, but it also might seem a bit interesting...instead the film was cut again right before release to 95 minutes, apparently to make for a faster paced action comedy (Brion James was quoted as saying that most of his scenes were left on the cutting room floor). I do wonder what is more prevalent: sequels with the same star and director that end up just as good as the original or ones that prove to be a disappointment. This is one clearly on the latter side, one that hobbles all the way through in attempts at honing memories from what we saw the first time around without having the charm to back it up. Hill may be an interesting director, but this certainly is not his finest hour, unless one counts shooting a few decent action scenes a worthy distraction. Now, perhaps that is unfair, because it is the script that seems to have failed the movie most, one that is built on coincidences and clichés: outlaw bikers, guys going as "The Iceman", an Internal Affairs story that I'm sure you've heard before, and a sequence past the middle put there solely to explain what is going on. If one wanted to watch 48 Hrs again, they would simply do better just watching that movie instead of a sequel that just tries to coast on the fumes of before. Nolte and Murphy are fine here, but they seem privy to just going through the motions of what we saw from before, which involves grousing and charm under the idea of being loopier than before (of course, there's also a scene where one of them points out the clichés of a fight at a bar right before it happens, so...). The editing clearly has effected James, since one might not even remember he was in the last film too, and he only shows up from time to time before the clichés creep in; Marshall and Divoff have little to work with besides shooting and screaming, and it doesn't help matters if one has taken a guess as to who the real threat is early to go with Jennings seeming more interesting in a bemused state (i.e. one who wants to see a simple hitjob done right) with even less time. Tighe smirks through a thankless role, while Casey gets to grouse at Murphy and explain the plot at one point, so there's that. As a whole, one wonders why they even bothered to make this movie at all, since it seems more like an obligation rather than something done for fun and excitement. It is a very average movie that proves for disappointment for anyone looking for something fresh or interesting within the lines of a director and its lead stars that should know better. If one wants to see more of the same from what happened before with 48 Hrs, I guess this would work. Or, perhaps, one could just watch the first film instead. A decent duo and director do not, in the end, mean a good sequel.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Munster, Go Home!

Review #1727: Munster, Go Home! 

Cast: 

Fred Gwynne (Herman Munster), Yvonne De Carlo (Lily Munster), Al Lewis (Grandpa), Butch Patrick (Eddie Munster), Debbie Watson (Marilyn Munster), Terry-Thomas (Freddie Munster), Hermione Gingold (Lady Effigie Munster), Robert Pine (Roger Moresby), John Carradine (Cruikshank), Bernard Fox (Squire Lester Moresby), and Richard Dawson (Joey) Directed by Earl Bellamy.

Review: 

To crib from cliché, remember The Munsters? Oh, I'm sure at least one of you is familiar with the television show, one that premiered (and ended) over a half century ago. But hey, a recap wouldn't hurt, particularly from someone who found themselves watching each of the 70 episodes of the show a year ago. The show ran from September 24, 1964 to May 12, 1966 on CBS. It was created by Allan Burns and Chris Hayward (who each had served as writers on The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show), who had submitted the idea to Universal Studios; Norm Liebman and Ed Haas were then tasked to write a pilot script, while Joe Connelly and Bob Mosher (creators of Leave It To Beaver) were producers. Perhaps it was a coincidence that a sitcom with tinges of the macabre aired right at the same time as another sitcom involving a family with the macabre aired with The Addams Family. Of course, this is a show involving ordinary folks in suburban life that just happen to look like monsters, so who knows in a decade that had plenty of interesting premises. In any case, right around the time of the second season, plans for a film were begun by Universal, who undoubtedly wanted to cash in on introducing the characters to a wider audience (i.e. folks outside the States that had not watched it yet - by the time the series ended its second and final season there were 70 episodes); production for the film began shortly after the end of the production of the series, and it was shot over the course of a month in Hollywood, complete in Technicolor (perhaps it is ironic that one factor attributed to the end of the show was the arrival of a campy competitor series in Technicolor with Batman). Tasked to write the film was Joe Connelly, Bob Mosher, George Tibbles, and Earl Bellamy (the latter three had written several episodes on the show while the latter directed seven episodes). 

The movie was not a major success at the time, but at least it can be said that the series managed to live on in syndication, and a reunion film and sequel series came about in the 1980s; attempts at re-booting the Munsters has persisted for over a decade (with the latest attempt being one directed by Rob Zombie). Honestly, I have mixed feelings about the show (one that attracted my interest because, well, how many TV shows think to do a sitcom with monster makeup?), one that was mildly effective with its attempts at, well, being a sitcom with campy values that had a bunch of puns and gags that came and went (one involving the only non-monster character being thought of as the ugly ducking, haha, huh?). Honestly, the middling quality of the film is not a surprise to those who had watched the show, as if the only difference is not having a laugh track to help with chuckles. Perhaps comparing it to Batman '66 is unfair, but honestly that show seemed to do better with generating good natured humor in regards to how it took its situations with tongue-in-cheek nature, with its theatrical adaptation being just as interesting to watch on the big screen as it was on TV. To me, this is a thin plot that just happens to be 96 minutes long (weirdly enough, its failure influenced the makers behind Get Smart to not do a feature, instead turning the script into a three part episode). Of course, this is like criticizing a tree for having a few dead branches  - the tree does what it does, and it takes a fair eye to appreciate it. To its credit, one knows that the main group does their finest with keeping things on level, mostly with Gwynne (good natured despite plenty of makeup), De Carlo (the tying force), and Lewis (basically playing himself). There isn't a moment where they seem bored with what they are doing, and they each share little interesting moments that will draw a smile for those familiar with these folks (incidentally, they would reprise their roles one more time together with the TV film The Munsters Revenge 15 years later); the sequence between Gwynne and Lewis bumbling around the house looking for the supposed secret of the house is probably the best part of the film, complete with a quiet De Carlo sharing time with a bucket. Patrick has less to do than usual for the film, unless one counts "sleeping in the cupboard " and tomatoes, while Watson (replacing Pat Priest in a move felt to boost the then teenaged actress with the studio) is okay, mostly because the role is quite ordinary to begin with, sharing time with Pine with very okay qualities. Terry-Thomas does fine as the key new face, making his cad presence known for fair chuckles to go with Gingold. Carradine (who, in a habit of being in anything, had actually appeared on the show a few times before) rounds out the cast with his usual lumbering presence within a face full of makeup that I'm sure folks familiar with him will appreciate in their own way. As a whole, my quibbles on the show should not affect the curiosity one can have with the film as a whole, since anyone who cares for the show will find a worthy time to spend here, one that has a few chuckles with a familiar group of folks that makes for a curious sight. There is just enough to sneak by without too many eye rolls (intentionally, anyway), and I suppose that should be just enough for those who are with what the movie wants to do in simple chuckle times with folks who look like creatures.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars. 

The Son of the Sheik.

Review #1726: The Son of the Sheik.

Cast: 

Rudolph Valentino (Ahmed / The Sheik), Vilma Bánky (Yasmin), George Fawcett (Andre), Montagu Love (Ghabah), Karl Dane (Ramadan), Bull Montana (Ali the Mountebank), Bynunsky Hyman (Pincher the Mountebank), and Agnes Ayres (Diana, The Sheik's Wife) Directed by George Fitzmaurice.

Review:  

“Women are not in love with me but with the picture of me on the screen. I am merely the canvas on which women paint their dreams.”

It is interesting to consider the lasting legacy that comes from a film like this, one with numerous aspects to consider. For one thing, it is one of the earliest examples of something that seems quite common now: the sequel. Believe it or not, folks did not exactly yearn for franchises and endless adventures with the same folks back in the silent era. Of course, this isn't to say that sequels were entirely void in that time, since there were quite a few novel sequels to various works (Tarzan, the Oz series, you get the idea); by the time of the mid 1920s, the movie industry had a glut of demand for features from audiences that producers were at a task to re-produce with formulas to keep the folks entertained (one producer once compared turning out films to being like a frozen custard machine). One must consider how this relates to Valentino, of course. All knowledgeable folks of film know Valentino came to prominence from the shadows of menial jobs (like dancing) and bit parts with The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (1921), and the release of The Sheik (based on the novel of the same name by E. M. Hull) that same year cemented his lover image into the eyes of many viewers. Fame, as one might expect, does not mean long lasting success, obviously. Valentino soon developed a hatred of the sheik image (one that women loved but men hated, go figure), and he found himself unhappy in his own love life (which included a bigamy charge) that crashed right with having troubles with Famous Players-Lasky that included a strike and lingering debts (which meant that he did not do a film in 1923). At any rate, Valentino may have hated the image that made him the "Latin lover" icon, but he needed to work. What better way to do a comeback for United Artists than to make a film that touched upon his earlier success? After falling out with Lasky, he landed with UA and starred in The Eagle (1925), which was a fair hit. Besides, Hull had already written a second Sheik book (The Sons of the Sheik, written in 1925), so UA had to just task Frances Marion (one of the most prominent female screenwriters of the 20th century) and Frédérique De Grésac (a French librettist, playwright and screenwriter) with adapting it to a film, while George Marion Jr was tasked with titles (Paul Gerard Smith was left un-credited). At the helm as director was Frenchman George Fitzmaurice, who went from being a set designer to director by the time of 1914, and he would direct dozens of features until his death in 1940. 

Of course, the other thing to talk about is the fact that this was the last film to star Valentino. The film was ready for showing in the big cities by July of 1926, and he soon went on a tour across the country to promote the film. On August 15, however, he collapsed in his hotel room; eight days later, having had surgery for a perforated ulcer that led to peritonitis after surgery, he died, at the age of 31). When the film was finally released nationwide, it became a huge hit, riding on the outpouring of grief shown by saddened followers of Valentino (which ranged from riots to hysterics to a fake honor guard for his funeral). Sudden deaths of stars isn't exactly uncommon, but there certainly weren't many that inspired this kind of reaction from folks. It was filmed in Hollywood and Arizona with sweltering heat and production design from William Cameron Menzies. With this, one can at least say that Valentino went out with a film worthy of his lasting image of being the dashing man to dazzle curiosity that was more than the sum of the parts that inhibited his prior Sheik effort. It is no better or worse than what had happened five years prior, mostly because the one difference really is the fact that he plays dual roles. He liked the art of movie-making and he even provided a few costumes to use along with doing his own stunts with this feature, one that certainly doesn't play on as many stereotypes as the original had (namely because the original work was already controversial with its depiction of rape) while being shorter to sit through at 68 minutes. The only other actor to return for this film was Ayres (who by this point had been cutting down on film roles in favor of stock holdings and married life), who has a few brief moments to share with Valentino (looking fairly well with the aged makeup, at least) while he gets to be paired with Banky (whom he had starred with in his previous effort with UA). He might not have liked the role, but he certainly fit well with what was needed for the sensibility of the time with drawing romance without having to do too much (or speak) to get it. He draws one in with plenty of glare and energy required to keep interest for a movie that isn't particularly interested in anything other than a cursory romance/adventure. Sure, him and Banky do seem to have a fair rapport with each other, but this is a case of fair returns of getting what you expect rather than anything more than "diverting" - it may seem goofy, it may seem a bit off-kilter, but it ticks all the boxes of serviceability without fuss or any embarrassment. It is a romp, pure and simple, but it is a likeable one that moves on each plot point with a fair beat and no dull lulls (which includes fair work from Menzies, who made an involving set with desert that doesn't seem entirely phoned in) that works with what Valentino did best in allure. It isn't his greatest feature, but it is certainly one that served as a worthy capstone for a man made for the time and place of the silent era.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

THX 1138.

Review #1725: THX 1138.

Cast: 

Robert Duvall (THX 1138), Donald Pleasence (SEN 5241), Maggie McOmie (LUH 3417), Don Pedro Colley (SRT 5752), Ian Wolfe (PTO), Marshall Efron (TWA), Sid Haig (NCH), John Pearce (DWY), and James Wheaton (Voice of OMM 0000) Directed by George Lucas (#113 - Star Wars, #141 - American Graffiti, #142 - Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace, #143 - Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones, and #144 - Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith)

Review: 

A half century later, there are quite a few things to unpack with this particular movie. For one, it was the feature film debut for George Lucas. As one must remember, the California native grew up with an appreciation for comics and science fiction (take note of the clips shown in the opening of the film), and this would serve him quite well when he entered the University of Southern California and its school of Cinematic Arts; he cited educators Lester Novros and Slavko Vorkapich (chair of the school) as influences on Lucas, who made numerous short movies as a filmmaker that were fairly abstract (ranging from a minute to seven, with only one having a narrative). He graduated with a bachelor's degree in fine arts in 1967, but his time spent with USC did not end there, as he went back as a graduate student in film production, with one of his duties being to teach students of the United States Navy that were studying documentary cinematography and working under Verna Fields in editing movies for the United States Information Agency (Fields would later edit a number of features for fellow USC filmmakers as a pioneer in her own right). In total, Lucas made nine short features from 1965 to 1968; the one that matters most to this discussion is his sixth in Electronic Labyrinth: THX 1138 4EB, made in the course of 12 weeks in 1967. He had an idea for a future film with existing stuff utilized for said future, and he tasked his friend (and fellow USC student) Matthew Robbins to write a brief outline involving the THX character and a chase scene. He utilized the Navy connection to helpful effect, since Navy folks served as crew for the movie while helping him get access for various locations to shoot. The result was a movie that won 1st prize at the National Student Film Festival in the Dramatic category. Later on, Francis Ford Coppola (fresh off Finian's Rainbow) helped Lucas with a deal to make a feature film with Warner Bros.-Seven Arts (co-produced with American Zoetrope, which Coppola and Lucas founded in 1969), and Lucas made the feature over the course of five weeks in the fall of 1969. A year was then spent in the editing room by Lucas and Walter Murch (who each wrote the movie). If you can believe it, studio executives did not appreciate what they saw of the final workprint, and they requested an edit to be done within the studio, which took out four minutes from the final edit. Made on a budget of $777,777, the movie was a mild success on initial release (making its budget back plus $122K).

I'm sure you are aware of the story that comes from a movie dedicated to the illusions of safety and order within a closed-off society filled with restrictions and watchful eyes everywhere. In fact, I know you have, because there have been a handful of books and movies that have run on similar lines for decades, such as George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, for example. Of course, we are talking about a movie with Chapperell race cars modified to look like jet cars. We are also talking about a movie that seems quite curious to talk about when thinking about Lucas as a filmmaker given what would come later in the decade, and yet it is the key piece in trying to understand what he aspired to do as a maverick filmmaker in terms of visual storytelling (along with his intent to not have studios try to control the production of his movies). Perhaps it was fate that a bleak movie involving the pitfalls of consumerism and conformity took its own path to reaching audiences. It likely seems more fitting of its decade than with the next two films Lucas directed, that might be for sure, which might seem a bit off-putting for those who come in completely cold for this sci-fi movie. Of course this isn't quite a movie one watches for acting chops; in an interview, Colley noted that Lucas seemed to not be too comfortable around actors, treating the production as like one of his student films (perhaps ironically, an actor in one his future movies would say something fairly similar years later); certainly it is an interesting sight to see a group of shaved actors amidst a crowd of other voices, and Duvall certainly does fine a role that requires a bit of a blank slate sparked into breaking out of obedience into ordinariness. Pleasance, gripping in confined obedience that drips of pathetic ooze within certain pieces of dialogue, matches fine with what is required from someone dealing in the middle of a society without any choices, where fear of the unknown can be a powerful deterrent (and easily identifiable). McOmie (in her one and only film as star) is used for poignant moments with attempts at breaking free with a sense of emotion that can be construed as fear with a bit of warmth waiting to break free. Colley proves curious in those moments seen on screen within the prison sequence, one in the middle between comfort and curiosity in the angle of finding a way out. The movie relies on visual interest within a dystopia where prisons have no walls, kids have IV lines for economics in their veins, and people like to take substances to curb their emotions as they work under jobs that are terribly dangerous (factories even announce the death tolls of the period in an attempt to promote safety); when not working, people just buy things without much thought while watching odd holograms. The robot policeman are the only visual adversary one sees, since you never actually see just who is in control, knowing only that set budgets are set for the capture of anyone who tries to escape. It is mostly a visual movie, which is interesting to see when most of the stuff is white (clothing, bald hair, et cetera) but certainly not the easiest film to sit through in its versions; the movie was restored in 1977 with an 86 minute run-time that restored the four cut minutes on the original release that was later put out on VHS and LaserDisc, while a Director's Cut was supervised by Lucas in 2004 that restored the film on an audio/video level while adding a few bits of computer generated imagery (along with adding detail to certain sequences) that resulted in a run-time of 88 minutes (in fact, one can apparently watch it with just the sound effects and score present with no dialogue, if one is into that sort of thing). Perhaps the easiest parallel in terms of a student film being turned into a movie for effect is Dark Star (released three years later...by sheer coincidence, it was made by a USC alum and included a reference to this movie), where it might have reached better as just a student film; regardless, I thought this movie was interesting in the right parts to work in generating a curious bleak world in imagery that leaves more for thought rather than thrills. It isn't a great achievement in originality with its story, but it does prove diverting in visual nature with the right kind of curiosity to make it worthwhile to overcome its shortfalls and work out fine, one that certainly merits attention as a cult classic, one that is just odd enough and interesting enough to win out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.

Review #1724: Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.

Cast: 

Johnny Depp (Jack Sparrow), Geoffrey Rush (Barbossa), Orlando Bloom (Will Turner), Keira Knightley (Elizabeth Swann), Jack Davenport (Norrington), Jonathan Pryce (Governor Weatherby Swann), Kevin R. McNally (Joshamee Gibbs), Lee Arenberg (Pintel), Mackenzie Crook (Ragetti), Zoe Saldana (Anamaria), David Bailie (Cotton), and Greg Ellis (Officer) Directed by Gore Verbinski (#140 - The Ring (2002) and #1557 - Rango)

Review: 

The movie is based on the theme park ride of the same name (which had originated at the original Disneyland in Anaheim in 1967). It was the second theatrical movie to be made by Disney based on one of their rides, which they started with Mission to Mars (2000) that was followed by films such as The Country Bears (2002); of course, while Pirates is the only one of these theme parks to have more than one feature, Disney has continued to mine the depths for further attempts, judging by the release of Jungle Cruise this year. Perhaps it seems strange that folks in the film industry thought this would be a flop on release. Pirate movies were not exactly high in demand at the time, since there had not been a wildly successful pirate film since the 1950s, and not even Disney was entirely confident in having Depp as its star, because one supposes that his reputation was more suited for cult favorites (which amuses me greatly); incidentally, Depp's desire to work with Disney was actually because he wanted to star in one of their animated features. At any rate, Disney at one point in time had to convince themselves to not simply make the film as a direct-to-video product (imagine the title pirate being played by Christopher Walken...or Cary Elwes!). However, producer Jerry Bruckheimer (known for various blockbuster films such as Top Gun) stayed firm with making a big budget movie that could compete with all of those other blockbusters (well, this was 2003), and it was his persistence to keep on with keeping the concept art going that convinced Michael Eisner (the CEO of the Walt Disney Company at the time) to not cancel the project after seeing said designs; he was grousing about the idea of spending so much money (to which Bruckheimer stated that his competitors were spending $150 million), although Eisner did have one other point in trying to eliminate more ties to the park-ride. Of course, there were plenty of casting ideas. Can one really imagine Robert De Niro as the lead? The original story idea came from three executives at the company (Brigham Taylor, Michael Haynes and Josh Harmon); Jay Wolpert was brought in to write a script based on the ride in 2001, while Stuart Beattie would be brought in the following year for the piracy angle in re-writes (to add on to the lead discussion, Beattie wrote the script with Hugh Jackman in mind). Bringing in Jerry Bruckheimer to produce the movie certainly helped, because he did not want a straight pirate movie. Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio (best known for their contributions to film scripts such as Aladdin (1992) and Shrek (2001)) were brought in to provide re-writes, since they had an interest in providing a supernatural angle to a pirate film; Wolpert, Beattie, Elliott, and Rossio each received a story credit, with the latter two receiving credit for the screenplay. 

What can I say that hasn't been said? It is a blockbuster, one that is wrapped to the gills in adventure and interest that proved to be the big ship movie for its year and ultimately its era (with apologies to Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, which is a better overall movie, but each are pretty good to spend time with). Who better to see a 18th century pirate and think the best parallel to said figure is a rock star? The movie has its edges of camp with eventful performances without becoming a silly parody or one that loses the plot, making a fine homage to the classic adventure flicks of the past while managing to stay relevant in the art of not seeming like an overt bland copy (albeit with the modern habits of trying to stuff oneself with fights on fights, or at least it seems like the modern choice for it, if you know what I mean). It is Depp that dominates the movie in curiosity, as one has already guessed. He has a daring spirit that coasts through the film with tremendous timing and swagger that certainly seems to have all the charisma the film needs (amusingly, Eisner actually thought upon seeing rushes that he was drunk); there just wasn't a pirate like the one that Depp brought onto the screen. Rush delivers well as the other piratical presence, broad and fun with needs to happen in those moments spent playing against either Knightley or Depp, having it what it takes to make a worthy adversarial presence that keeps attention without bluster. Bloom and Knightley aren't lost in the proceedings, however. For one thing, Bloom has what it takes to play the pent-up angle without looking lost (i.e. channeling a tiny bit of the Errol Flynn spirit), and this of course includes the time spent with a sword, naturally. Knightley partakes in the curiosity with spry athleticism and worthy enough timing to keep up that proves for a worthy result. Davenport and Pryce play the straight angle (wigs and all), and for the most part that works out for a few little moments of dry interest, which works fine when it comes to scenes spent either on wood or other things. There are quite a few worthy character presences here that keep the film light on its toes for useful interest, mostly in the case of McNally. As a whole, it proves interesting in its attempts to make a by-the-blows adventure ride of a film, which work out well for the most part.  Of course, it does prove a bit packed at 143 minutes (which is somehow longer than the aforementioned Master film), but one can at least see where all the adventure can lead to, whether that ranges from CG undead pirates to various other moments. It doesn't raise the bar for adventure movies or even CGI spectacles, but it at least serves its purpose well, and it does indeed make the curiosity grow for just where one can go with a curious lead actor and a hodgepodge of folks to engage in piratical spectacle.

 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Los Olvidados.

Review #1723: Los Olvidados.

Cast: 

Stella Inda (Pedro's mother), Miguel Inclán (Don Carmelo), Alfonso Mejía (Pedro), Roberto Cobo ("El Jaibo"), Alma Delia Fuentes (Meche), Francisco Jambrina (The principal of the rural school), Jesús Navarro (Julián's father), Efraín Arauz ("Cacarizo"), Jorge Pérez ("Pelón"), Javier Amézcua (Julián), Mário Ramírez ("Ojitos"), and Ernesto Alonso (Narrator) Directed by Luis Buñuel (#1383 - Él)

Review: 

“[The cinema] is an instrument of poetry, with all that that word can imply of the sense of liberation, of subversion of reality, of the threshold of the marvelous world of the subconscious, of nonconformity with the limited society that surrounds us.”

If you think about it, no one really wants to see the truth displayed on the film screen. Sure, we can proclaim much as we want about our desire to see real life come out in film with no lingering artifice. Of course, it is also possible that this could apply to Luis Buñuel when it refers to which of his films have endured most in international perspectives. Most know of his shocking debut with the surrealist short Un Chien Andalou (1929), but just as important to mention is L'Age d'Or (1930), his feature debut that generated umbrage and curiosity over its place within surrealist cinema (a classic. After this, he made a pseudo-documentary with Land Without Bread [Las Hurdes: Tierra Sin Pan] (1933), which generated a few years of furor upon release in Spain for its "defamation" (of course, asking certain folks from Las Hurdes wouldn't generate universal praise). After this, he worked a few years at Filmófono as an executive director in Spain's attempts at commercial filmmaking, which resulted in four features before the Spanish Civil War began in 1936. He moved to the United States before the war ended in 1939, but he could not make a mark in the Hollywood system despite his intense attraction to "American naturalness and sociability"; he worked instead in dubbing while also working with the Museum of Modern Art. The seeds to his return came because an old friend wanted to adapt a play into a film in Paris, with a stopover in Mexico City; the play adaptation went by the wayside, but they attracted interest to make a feature in the country, which was in the throes of what is referred to (the Golden Age in its cinema. At any rate, Buñuel made his return with Gran Casino (1947). Of course, we are not here to talk about that feature, because it isn't particularly remembered (his most notable feature done in Mexico. Los Olvidados (which translates to The Forgotten Ones, but it was known in the States as The Young and the Damned) is undoubtedly the most famous of the films he made in the country along with being the first film he did in his busiest decade as a director (he would make fourteen films in Mexico before he found opportunities to make films abroad in 1954 and 1956, although he did make a few more films in the country until 1965). Although he found his previous feature (El Gran Calavera, released the previous year) banal, its success meant that Buñuel was sought out exclusively by producer Oscar Dancigers. Buñuel first thought of a film about a lottery ticket seller kid, but Dancigers aimed to seek a more realistic depiction of struggling children living in the slums of Mexico City. Luis Alcoriza and Bunuel were credited with the screenplay, while dialogue collaborators left un-credited included Max Aub, Juan Larrea, and Pedro de Urdimalas; sure, one could think about neorealism when it comes to this film, because Bunuel was noted for his admiration of Vittorio De Sica's Shoeshine [Sciuscià] (1946).

Did I mention that this film did not receive immediate acceptance at the time? It didn't even take a week for the producer to pull the film, which received negativity because...yeah, I suppose one really can't just watch a movie about poverty without a little bit of fantasy. Imagine stoking the anger of not only the public but also the government as well, because having a narrator say that behind every beautiful city are poor children is probably too honest, as if country morale is going to decrease because of a movie. I guess having a character throw an egg at the camera is just too shocking to go alongside a slo-mo nightmare and a gut-punching finale (of course, there was an alternative ending shot, but it was lost for a few decades). Of course, when the film was shown at the Cannes Film Festival, it received better notices, to where Buñuel won the festival prize for directing; awards really do seem to improve reputations (as opposed to the inverse effect), and the film is quite respected in its native country now. There are no moments to mount a sermon for easy solutions to preach here, which I suppose some could interpret as uncompromising. But that is the point, and it is the fact that we can still recognize the depravity that humanity can go when hope has flickered away like a dying wind that makes the film so striking and so memorable today. We may not like to see it, but we can still find someone like the folks depicted in this film, one that has endured for seven decades because of how it exposes the depravity that comes from the bottom without a plug to contain it, as if growing progress will always somehow leave someone behind. Rot is the center of what we see in the characters, played by a mix of actors and others that proves harrowing. Mejia and Cobo each lead the film with their own degree of rot that seems quite shocking when you see it from a child, which obviously means that it is quite effective, since you can see the distinct differences and similarities between them in how they face the dark world at large (i.e whether to try and run with the wave or to try and not become swept up by it). Inda represents rotted love of the most heartbreaking kind: a mother and her son; it reflects on society and its easy response to a cycle of depravity in which rejection is easier than confronting the afflicted. No one is spared in the cycle of poverty and rot, extending all the way down to Inclan and his portrayal of a blind man (of course, the actor was noted for his villainous roles within the country, so perhaps this wasn't as much a surprise), or a withering Fuentes, encased in the rot of youths. For a 76 minute film, it moves quite well for itself in maintaining its perspective on what it shows about poverty without becoming just a movie that says things about poverty, one that confronts the viewer without turning any blatant tricks, keeping the nightmare firmly on check - realism never looked so haunting with actors like these. Buñuel would have likely smirked at the idea of this being termed a comeback movie, but he certainly dared to keep making movies in his own distinct image because of the success that came from this one, which had their own varying levels of surreal or satirical edges that made him a true curiosity for the world stage.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Predators.

Review #1722: Predators.

Cast: 

Adrien Brody (Royce), Alice Braga (Isabelle), Topher Grace (Edwin), Walton Goggins (Stans), Oleg Taktarov (Nikolai), Louis Ozawa Changchien (Hanzo), Mahershala Ali (Mombasa), Danny Trejo (Cuchillo), Laurence Fishburne (Ronald Noland), with Derek Mears, Carey Jones, and Brian Steele (the Predators) Directed by Nimród Antal.

Review: 

Well, I suppose the Predator series needed to do something again to maintain relevancy. Robert Rodriguez had a script in mind for a film in the franchise since 1994, right around the time he was developing Desperado (1995), which he described as just a writing assignment (i.e. one that was designed to try to entice Arnold Schwarzenegger, albiet with no budgetary limitations); 20th Century Fox didn't have interest for fifteen years, and while the treatment wasn't actually used, Rodriguez did serve as producer (using his company Troublemaker Studios). Alex Litvak and Michael Finch served as writers for the film, while Hungarian-American director Nimrod Antal found his way through to serve as director; he was best known for his feature debut Kontroll (2003), which recieved international notice. Honestly, the movie sure has a thing for killing off the most interesting seeming people. On one side, you have a wacko Fishburne and his imaginary friend in a glorified 15-minute cameo, then on another side you have a guy with three fingers that can still use a sword that doesn't talk much, and another side you have Danny Trejo playing Danny Trejo. But sure, go ahead with Topher Grace as the totally innocent one among these weirdos. I think you can take three guesses who ends up persisting through to at least the climax, and the only curiosity is to see exactly how predicatable it can get. That isn't to say that Brody is the wrong choice for what is needed, because the filmmakers wanted to hone in reference points in from the first film without having a burly lead, which I can get behind. Technically speaking, the only memorable film involving the title creature is the first one, so that is a slight point. Of course, by trying to hone so many nods and references to the film from 23 years prior, the actual movie one finds is just incredibly average in comparison. 

To be fair, the movie has interest to generate, mostly with the fact that there are a few predators to look for that don't look like CGI abominations. Besides, I find they are more interesting than the ensemble cast turns out in the overall endgame, mostly because one wonders how much of a movie could be done with just the feuds between the predators as a whole. Ah, but one needs things to seem just a bit familiar to make sure you aren't watching something that dares to not sequel-bait itself. I don't even think Alien vs. Predator managed to bait itself as much as this one did, but then again it is amusing to think of one movie trying to ignore the other that really are more alike than they think (in terms of overall energy, not so much in plot). The actors are okay, but the script gives them the bare minimum to work with when it comes to anything besides cursory moments (and swearing, but that is probably expected and/or easy to see coming). As such, Brody is okay with the strong silent type that comes from a lead role intending to be a stark difference from the usual leads in the series, but really it just means that one is begging for someone with a bit more charisma than just wry disposition (i.e. dry), where grunts and gravel voices go about as far as a heavy weight put into a kiddie pool. Braga plays the peacemaker to these cardboard figures, and that is basically more of a shrug than a compliment from me. Grace is the odd duck for a movie that thinks it is going to really be clever with using him for the climax. This works about as well as you think: not very well. He isn't a bad actor, but it is such an obvious role. Goggins is kind of interesting, in that one could probably make more out of the fact that a guy playing a killer/rapist is the most interesting presence in a film like this. Taktarov and Ozawa are there to say a few words, but the latter at least gets to have an interesting sword fight. This was actually an early role for Ali in a decade that soon saw him turn into a star; naturally, this means he plays someone with the bare minimum personality slated to vanish (ditto for Trejo). Honestly,  Fishburne and his one note weirdo role is more interesting in the span of nearly 10 minutes than anything else in the film- and it isn't even that drawn out! The movie runs at 107 minutes, which is a fair pace despite my middling feelings on the matter. By the time the movie tries to bait a further adventure into the middling lives of gravel voiced elite killers, I was pretty checked out. I didn't hate what I saw, but honestly, there just isn't anything here that really stuck with me. It may be better than previous features with the Predator, but that isn't saying much. To me, this is barely better than if someone had just remade the original movie, but at that point one might just stay home. Green blood may look gooey, but that isn't enough to make a proper gore film. Well, the film was fairly successful upon release (making three times its budget, which was $40 million), and yet the next film in the series (The Predator, I am not joking) followed along different lines in its story, and it probably doesn't help that only two actors have ever been in more than one Predator film. Honestly, the only thing this will inspire is the argument that one could just stick with the original feature and not lose a beat. Having an admiration of the original film is a nice ambition, but it does not ultimately make for a nice effort.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Star Trek Beyond.

Review #1721: Star Trek Beyond.

Cast: 

Chris Pine (Captain James T. Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Commander Spock), Karl Urban (Lieutenant Commander Leonard McCoy), Zoe Saldana (Lieutenant Nyota Uhura), Simon Pegg (Lieutenant Commander Montgomery Scott), John Cho (Lieutenant Hikaru Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Ensign Pavel Chekov), Idris Elba (Captain Balthazar Edison / Krall), Sofia Boutella (Jaylah), Joe Taslim (Anderson Le / Manas), Lydia Wilson (Jessica Wolff / Kalara), Deep Roy (Keenser), Melissa Roxburgh (Ensign Syl), and Shohreh Aghdashloo (Commodore Paris) Directed by Justin Lin.

Review:

I'm sure you remember the interest generated from a new version of Star Trek. J. J. Abrams directed the first of what is generally known as the "Kelvin timeline" features, doing so in 2009 that was written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (who had gotten their start in television with Hercules: The Legendary Journeys). They managed to bring the series back to the silver screen with a reboot that tried to honor established continuity in the original 1966 series while staying fresh with current perspective. In that sense, I think it did a fine job. Four years later, a sequel followed with the same collaborators (albeit with Damon Lindelof as co-writer). The funny thing about that movie is that it is the most profitable of all the Star Trek movies, and yet it reeks of something that would be made purely to squeeze as many hack ideas as possible for such an average movie, complete with trying to pawn ideas from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan but with no sense of actual stakes. Three years later, the idea was to have Orci as director (his planned first feature), since Abrams was now slated to direct for another certain space feature, but somehow it went awry, leading to a different direction. Justin Lin started as a director while attending UCLA Film School with Shopping for Fangs (1997), although his most notable contributions are to The Fast and the Furious film series, as he has directed five of the films in the series. At any rate, Simon Pegg and Doug Jung (a duo in which each wrote mostly for television) were tasked to write the script. 

Technically speaking, it is a worthy successor to the last two films. Of course, it is also as of this year the last one to be made, because somehow making a big-budget movie doesn't always result in a certain amount of money bags (of course, paying the actors is tough, too), and it is only now that plans are starting to move for a film in 2023. Perhaps it is a coincidence that Star Trek only returned to television after the release of this film (albeit in streaming form, the most pathetic of broadcasting methods). It continues the trend of trying to aim Star Trek for a crowd that is interested in special effects and action with a sliver of plot, which I suppose makes it essentially a shinier version of when filmmakers did so with Star Trek: First Contact (1996), just with certain choices of music included. I suppose every incarnation of the series in film form also has to show the Enterprise take a beating just so one can build it all up again, so there is that. Of course, the important part is that one has a good time with the adventure, and I believe there is an interesting one to see here, despite the fact that it is the main cast that really shines more so than the villain (again though, how many times is that not the case?). This is a movie that seems quite a bit familiar with its themes of finding one's meaning in continued exploration (i.e. instead of a mid-life crisis about being old, it is now a young-life crisis about seeing the stars again and again). As such, the movie feels the best way to do that is to split the crew into their own little pairs (i.e. Pine with Yelchin, Quinto with McCoy, Cho with Saldana, and Pegg with Boutella). In that sense, some of those pairs work out better than others, depending on how much effects are present. In that sense, Pine is easily the most effective, having molded fully into the role with confidence (without as much of the hammy "curiosity" from William Shatner, if you will) that maneuvers well with resourceful charm that has evolved well from seven years prior. Urban was always quite interesting as McCoy, and he generates a few interesting moments when paired with Quinto in terms of snappy banter that isn't just a familiar re-hash. Quinto might not have as much to really do, but his little scenes involving reckoning his fate as now being the one living Spock is interesting at least. Saldana suffers the most from the split, in that being paired with a bunch of scenes involving the villain doing vague dealings about his motivations isn't really that interesting for the former and barely interesting for the latter (again, the familiarity with these characters go to a certain point when compared to when the movie tries plot for a few minutes). Elba gets to be caked in a whole bunch of makeup while having an okay motivation that honestly could do with better material beyond a twist that could probably be seen coming with a reasoned guess-maker at the hand watching. Maybe he was meant to be a second side of the whole "I have nothing better to do with my time in space" coin with Kirk, I guess. Boutella is okay in terms of curiosity within accompanying makeup and action shots, but since this film already scrounged up introducing an interesting secondary character to play off one of the castmates for more than one film (i.e. Alice Eve not being in this one), why bother? 

Honestly, the movie almost plays itself too corny with certain sequences near the end without having as many stakes as it could have - do I really need to have "Sabotage" in the background for an action shot? Its testing about the villain isnt even that clever, really, since the last one also had a Starfleet adversary that liked things better when it was militarized. As a whole, it definitely keeps interest on a moderate level when it comes to action (credit to hiring a car chase director for this, huh?) and most of its acting chemistry, since these folks have done well with capturing a majority of the charm from the old cast. However, it begs for more to explore than just cursory stakes, and I just cant see myself giving generous praise for being just fine. It needs something more than a few pretty sequences to really soar farther than just average, particularly when this is the 13th of these features; being in the top half of that list is fine, but when it is because it is the middle of quality, one could certainly make improvement. 

On that note, the anniversary of Star Trek is upon us again. Live long and prosper. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Airport '77.

Review #1720: Airport '77.

Cast: 

Jack Lemmon (Capt. Don Gallagher), Lee Grant (Karen Wallace), Brenda Vaccaro (Eve Clayton), Joseph Cotten (Nicholas St. Downs III), Olivia de Havilland (Emily Livingston), James Stewart (Philip Stevens), George Kennedy (Joseph "Joe" Patroni), Darren McGavin (Stan Buchek), Christopher Lee (Martin Wallace), Robert Foxworth (Chambers), Robert Hooks (Eddie), and M. Emmet Walsh (Dr. Williams) Directed by Jerry Jameson (#1195 - Raise the Titanic)

Review: 

See, one knows they are dealing with a product movie, because what other movie have the year titled on it? Of course, by this point, the Airport films (1970, 1975) have now evolved past even having an airport involved in the actual plot, since now it deals with the Navy helping to find a fancy plane that crashed near the Bermuda Triangle. The true star is Albert J. Whitlock, who provides the special effects within matte paintings, which is probably the most interesting part of the film (besides having scenes shot in a water tank in Florida, I suppose). By this point, the Airport series has managed to ditch the attempt at thrills, really. You know what you are getting into if you've decided to pick the third film of a series dedicated to making planes and flying as boring as humanely possible. Exposition is the true terror of the sky when it comes to stuff like this, and it is probably not surprising that four writers (Michael Scheff, David Spector, H. A. L. Craig, Charles Kuenstle) were hired to do the film. Jameson may have been more of a TV director than a feature film man, but at least he fitted the occasion of helming disaster-fare (such as TV movies involving hurricanes and elevators in trouble). Even The Poseidon Adventure (1972) managed to evoke some sort of interest within trouble in the waters with a sinking ship, mostly because there is more gusto given by the actors along with better time spent in the water.

Apparently, Lemmon took the role because of he thought it would be fun to do a "blatantly commercial cartoon" (of course, he also was coming off a failure with Alex & the Gypsy and apparently told his agent to accept the next high-paying offer, so...). Eh, he is technically better as a pilot in the acting scale than Heston or Martin, in that he isn't beholden to hammy overtones like the others were - him and Vacarro at least look like they want to be there and act together with believability. Of course, Lee accepted his supporting role because he wanted to work with Lemmon. They do get to share a scene together at least, so one can at least consider the contrast of tastes for certain acting presences over others (i.e. I am always curious to see a movie with Lee in it). This is mostly apparent because he shares most of his segmented time paired with Grant, who gets to play the jealous spouse that also gets to panic the most when disaster strikes - yeah, I don't get it either (apparently, the television version adds more of her, so there's that). At least you get to see her get hysterical and be punched out after trying to open a hatch? Why exactly was Kennedy in this movie? He spends about two minutes in the movie, and he also is the only actor to actually spend any screen-time with Stewart, who might as well have filmed his stages in a box. One can't quite tell which actor is phoning it in more, but I imagine Stewart was quite comfortable with making a movie where he didn't have to speak much and could make a check worthy for his grandchildren to enjoy - this was his fifth-to-last role on film, after all. Cotten and de Havilland are okay, but one isn't really here to see traditional actors if McGavin is jawing exposition right in front of you, right? Honestly, although the film doesn't have as much to generate in weirdo character stuff, at least one can appreciate the small role done by Walsh, who actually had been appearing in a handful of films in bit parts for almost a decade (with this being right before better stuff such as Blood Simple).

At least you can say the Navy wouldn't be embarrassed by participating in this film. The credits even list that the rescue operations are actually utilized by the Navy in similar emergencies, so one can at least appreciate seeing the USS Cayuga being used for something that isn't a waste of time (granted, scenes filmed in water isn't exactly the most interesting thing to watch but your mileage may vary). Look, the movie is no better and no worse than the previous two features in terms of mediocrity. Sure, there are probably a few more things to make fun of here, but it is the same kind of blah movie from before that made money in a time where people were ripe for seeing these kind of movies (making over $90 million on a $6 million dollar budget). Naturally, Airport had to continue with The Concorde ... Airport '79 (1979), so one can only wonder where the adventure of mediocrity can go from there.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.