Babylon.

Review #1948: Babylon.

Cast: 

Brad Pitt (Jack Conrad), Margot Robbie (Nellie LaRoy), Diego Calva (Manny Torres), Jean Smart (Elinor St. John), Jovan Adepo (Sidney Palmer), Li Jun Li (Lady Fay Zhu), P. J. Byrne (Max), Lukas Haas (George Munn), Olivia Hamilton (Ruth Adler), Max Minghella (Irving Thalberg), Rory Scovel (The Count), Katherine Waterston (Estelle Conrad), Tobey Maguire (James McKay), Flea (Bob Levine), Jeff Garlin (Don Wallach), Eric Roberts (Robert Roy), Ethan Suplee (Wilson), Samara Weaving (Constance Moore), Olivia Wilde (Ina Conrad), Spike Jonze (Otto), and Telvin Griffin (Reggie) Written and Directed by Damien Chazelle (#1146 - First Man and #1577 - La La Land)

Review: 

I am sure you remember this film, one released at the last month of the year that is already considered a massive flop with audiences as a "polarizing" movie. There have been quite a few films that are basically "moviemaking love letters", such as Singin' in the Rain, The Player, Boogie Nights, The Artist, or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Perhaps there is inspiration taken from Kenneth Anger's infamous 1959 book Hollywood Babylon, a book about alleged scandals of Hollywood stars from the silent era that is full of flat-out fallacies, myths, and exaggerations (most notably claiming that Clara Bow once had a night of relations with the entire USC football team). So yes, there are mostly fictional characters present in the film (that take inspiration from real-life folks such as Clara Bow) with a few real names such as William Randolph Hearst or James Wong Howe. One thing I can respect is the fact that Chazelle and company had the balls to actually release the film in theaters. Yes, it seems a bit silly for any studio to need $250 million to apparently break even with a film about a tale of over-ambition and excess in the early Hollywood era, but it is always worth it to see films like this in a theater, packed or not. Decadence and depravity never looked so good in a theater, and I was happy to see this tale of ridiculousness, albeit in an empty theater that meant I could loudly watch the movie on my own terms.

Obviously, any scholars of the silent era can attest to the accuracy of a film depicting a certain time and age. But since we are watching a film that is trying to have its cake and eating it too, how much does it matter? Is it really important that the rage of the time might have been more about morphine rather than cocaine? (Wallace Reid died from trying to kick the habit of it, incidentally). To me, the movie may be presented as a "comedy-drama", but to me it really serves as a twisted "Hollywood Horror" story. I don't think I have ever seen a film that has such a love and hatred of everything it wants to be about, one that practically is screaming for its own head to be cut off so they can eat themselves whole. What other movie shows has a litany of images such as elephant defecating on people, urination on people, projectile vomiting, and the uncomfortable truth that, well, anyone is disposable in the moviemaking world. It is as self-indulgent as you would expect for a film that is 189 minutes long that is clearly not for everyone. I respect Chazelle for daring to make movies that try to be distinct from each other, whether that involves overrated LA love-letters such as La La Land or calm biopics such as First Man. It is the craft of obsession that matters most for Chazelle - now, whether that means Babylon is anything more than a glorified campground for debauchery is another matter. I enjoyed the movie, but it is understandable that someone else won't be as big on it as a gonzo weirdo film to experience in all of its senses that it draws out for three hours. Watching a movie that takes inspiration from the stories of people such as John Gilbert, Clara Bow, and Dorothy Arzner isn't a terrible thing to waste. 

Robbie has manic energy and physical bravado that swallows the film whole in dazzling charm that is meant to emulate "it girls" such as Clara Bow (it is Bow who once stated that she just had to think about "home" when it came to crying on cue). Of course, her self-destruction isn't quite like Bow, but Robbie makes the role her own in ferocious edge that makes it an absorbing performance beyond just being a brash fighter from the ground up, which makes the resulting tragedy all the more interesting. The same goes for Pitt in all of his bravado and melancholy, representing the falling star with tremendous confidence in where he believes the role must go to make it that more poetic in how it ends up. These two may be weird and wild in their gusto, but they are still people that you can still find worth your attention. Calva is fine to act around them, with a semi-effective story of soul-stirring passion that isn't too far removed from the action or the bigger names that come and go. Smart provides worthy support in acid-tongued charm that would make Hedda Hopper blush. Adepo and Jun Li are neat in their own ways when it comes to filling an ensemble of a certain time and place with roles that aren't merely there for the sake of being there, whether that involves a cabaret act or a particularly somber scene of a man being convinced to darken his skin for the sake of "film". The best all-around sequence is one involving the depiction of a filming day that sees a variety of amusing mishaps on the way to movie magic. Of course, the sequence involving Robbie and company trying to get one successful take on a sound set is exquisite in all of the painful ways that make it both tragic and amusing. Pitt and his inevitable fall from the stars is a close second, but that scene with Smart involving how one could be immortal in a sense by what they did on celluloid is right on the spot.

Personally, the supporting cast members are far more interesting to see. Calva, Smart, Adepo, Jun Li, yeah sure. Forget Garlin and all of those other names, this is a movie where you can see actors like Eric Roberts and Ethan Suplee have little scenes to make their mark (the former drunkenly stumbles onto a snake fight and the latter spits a bunch, but still). Hell, Tobey Maguire and his makeup that reminds one of a ghoul going around trying to show a producer a subterranean gathering space for debauched party of the underground is splendid to view in a perverse sense. You haven't lived in the world of weird film-land until you see what the hell one does for "fun" with a pale druggie that could top a man eating a rat. The bottom line that comes from the film is that a movie takes plenty of hard-nosed circumstance and crap to work its way into something for the rest of the world to see, and that it sure was a party for those who got to be a part of it. Any good movie worth their salt will have splendid cinematography, which is the case here by Linus Sandgren, as this really is a movie that pops in all the right ways, while Justin Hurwitz provides worthwhile music. The only thing that may rankle anyone daring enough to see the film all the way through in the row of debauchery is the ending, since it is a film that wants to have the whole cake of running through the gamut in a montage of films that dawned after the silent era came and went (such as Singin' in the Rain or 2001: A Space Odyssey, for example). It just seems quite unnecessary to have the montage for what really could've just ended a bit shorter when it comes to the image of a man looking back at a long-gone era interpreted by the status quo of Hollywood and weeping. I guess it depends on how one feels about a movie all about the debauchery of people in Hollywood going from weird and wild in the 1920s to, well, sound and less wild in the sound era...ending with a "gee, look at what film became!". Maybe that shameless rug pull is supposed to be the point. So, is the film and the response it received from audience some sort of representation of the movie-making landscape in 2022 when it comes to the divide between streaming and theater-aimed features or between the divide of "blockbusters" versus "movies for adults"? Having seen the film for myself, I can only state this: who gives a shit? Either you will like this movie for its sheer audacity or not care for it, it does not get any simpler than that. I personally think it is a secret film in human horror that screams at the viewer as much as it screams at itself. I doubt I will return to seeing this film in the near future, but screw it, the film is pretty weird, pretty loud, and all around...pretty bold to do what it does in wild child style. The fate of the film and its plot may be inevitable, but that is where the fun is.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Another year, another time. This closes out Movie Night's twelfth year of operation (hence the end of using a particular twelve-sided shape in every title card, hint hint), which has seen a review ten times on New Years' Eve, and this is the third straight Eve to close out with a movie from the year that was. 2022 ended with 1,781 total reviews, which means I did 167 reviews for Season 12. This is the fifth busiest year in Movie Night history, but the best is yet to come. Review #2000 looms, but the big thing is the advent of theme months to start the first quarter of the year to spotlight plenty of new and familiar faces in cinema. With that in mind, Have a Happy New Year in 2023.

Puss in Boots: The Last Wish.

Review #1947: Puss in Boots: The Last Wish.

Cast: 

Antonio Banderas (Puss in Boots), Salma Hayek (Kitty Softpaws), Harvey Guillén (Perrito), Florence Pugh (Goldilocks), Olivia Colman (Mama Bear), Ray Winstone (Papa Bear), Samson Kayo (Baby Bear), John Mulaney ("Big" Jack Horner), Wagner Moura (Wolf / Death), Da'Vine Joy Randolph (Mama Luna), Anthony Mendez (Doctor), and Kevin McCann (the Talking Cricket) Directed by Joel Crawford and Januel Mercado.

Review: 

You may or may not remember that Puss in Boots (2011) was eleven years ago. That was the culmination of years of development because of how much interest there was by DreamWorks Animation to do a feature film based on the character inspired by the fairy tale character of the same name (the origin of the fairy tale character is rooted in Italy, but the film character is depicted as having Spanish origin - incidentally, Banderas is the voice for the Spanish and Italian dubs of the character). Puss first was introduced in Shrek 2 (2004). The influences for the character are pretty evident, ranging from Errol Flynn to Zorro to bits taken straight from the voice actor in Banderas. Appreciation for the character were enough to scuttle the original idea to make a direct-to-video movie and instead make a theatrical effort instead, one that continued the trend of amusing takes on fairy tale characters (such as Jack and Jill, for example). It was a pretty good movie, but I think you can forgive me for having a bit of a hazy memory and doubt that this would be anything too special. The success of the film led to plans for a second film pretty quickly, but development took a considerable amount of time (such as restructuring of the script by 2015); an entire animated television series ran from 2015 to 2018 in that eleven-year gap between films, just to make the point clear. It was production designer Nate Wragg that pushed the idea for the animation to resemble a fairy tale illustration. So yes, 3D animation combines with painterly textures that might make one think of Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018). The screenplay was done by Paul Fisher and Tommy Swerdlow, while Swerdlow co-wrote the story with Tom Wheeler (the screenwriter / story co-writer on the previous film). This is the third feature film for Joel Crawford, who debuted as a director with The Croods: A New Age (2020) after working with DreamWorks Animation in the story artist department since 2006 on numerous films, while this is the first feature effort for Januel Mercado (he serves as "co-director", which in my mind deserves recognition).

It dawned on me pretty early on that I have only seen three DreamWorks Animation films in a theater when they were new: Madagascar (2005), Shrek the Third (2007), and Shrek Forever After (2010). The funny thing is that this movie actually became better than any of those films by about the halfway point. It aims for something not seen much in the prior film or the Shrek films in the eye for a darker tone that isn't leaden with edgy humor but instead a celebration of adventure. How many animated films even think about the subject of one's mortality? It manages to improve on the original by cultivating an adventure and dynamic between its main group that doesn't hinge on being just like the first feature, which basically means aiming itself as a take on the Spaghetti Western. The opening sequence alone is worth watching for the dazzlement it inspires in re-introducing the character in all of his "rockstar glory" (if you will) before launching its key setup: facing Death. The fact that one gets to see just how one can lose eight lives in the blink of an eye is pitch-black amusing. It is interesting to see how Banderas has kept this role fresh and interesting beyond just playing a silly cat that happens to look a bit like Zorro. The mischievous charm present in his last four vocal performances as the character is still here, which is now tinged with fear that he handles with compelling edge required to make the stakes all the more important. We like the actor and character already, so it isn't too much of a leap here, but Banderas isn't merely on autopilot in terms of just playing schtick. Hayek is just as charming in allure (the only returning actor besides Banderas), still showing worthy chemistry with Banderas. In a way, it makes sense that Guillen is part of this key trio, since the last film did have a trio with Banderas and Hayek, albeit in a different manner when it came to a quest. Guillen is the comic relief that in a sense is also the spirit of the whole film: carefree and wandering on its own path, and I think that results in a pretty decent performance, one with decent chuckles that don't derail the proceedings (well, maybe the bit about trying to do cute eyes, but other than that...). Moura makes for a compelling figure to loom over the proceedings, since, well, he is playing Death (literally). Granted, it isn't as prolific in time on screen as Mulaney, but Moura still makes for a solid foil with the proper delivery one would hope to see. As for Mulaney, he makes a chuckler as the other key adversary looming over the proceedings that reminds me of another Western pastiche: Harvey Korman from Blazing Saddles. This is basically a compliment in terms of timing worth every moment seen on screen. The quartet of reimagined storybook characters in Pugh-Colman-Winstone-Kayo is a nice one in terms of silly wannabee heavies, ones with desires and quirks that are actually compelling and make for an interesting dynamic.

Whether there is another adventure involving this character or not (green-skinned ogre or not...), I would say that it proved to be a useful use of my time when it comes to seeing animation done right. It has an inevitable moral about the nature of figuring out what one really wants, but it handles that with general patience and weaving that doesn't make for any easy outs. The movie feels like a breeze at 102 minutes, managing to show plenty of interesting visuals (such as the climax in a star) that make for a generally involving time. When it comes to making arguments about animated movies not merely just for children, this is a pretty good indicator of an animated film that can work for anyone. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Stuart Little.

Review #1946: Stuart Little.

Cast: 

Michael J. Fox (Stuart Little), Geena Davis (Mrs. Eleanor Little), Hugh Laurie (Mr. Frederick Little), Jonathan Lipnicki (George Little), Nathan Lane (Snowbell), Chazz Palminteri (Smokey), Steve Zahn (Monty), Jim Doughan (Lucky / Officer Allen), David Alan Grier (Red), Bruno Kirby (Mr. Stout), Jennifer Tilly (Mrs. Stout), Stan Freberg (Race Announcer), Jeffrey Jones (Uncle Crenshaw), Connie Ray (Aunt Tina), Allyce Beasley (Aunt Beatrice), Brian Doyle-Murray (Cousin Edgar), Estelle Getty (Grandma Estelle), Harold Gould (Grandpa Spencer), Patrick Thomas O'Brien (Uncle Stretch), Julia Sweeney (Mrs. Keeper), Dabney Coleman (Dr. Beechwood), Miles Marsico (Anton), and Jon Polito (Officer Sherman) Directed by Rob Minkoff (#073 - The Lion King, #746 - The Haunted Mansion, #1125 - Mr. Peabody & Sherman)

Review: 

Sure, movies for children are a dime a dozen, but life is (probably) not too short to enjoy light fare every now and then. It also probably helps if you have familiar names as director or as the stars. This was the first solo directorial effort by Rob Minkoff, who had co-directed The Lion King (1994) with Roger Allers, which had culminated a decade of work at Walt Disney Productions (having studied at the California Institute of Arts that resulted in an internship). The film is based on the 1945 children's novel of the same name by E. B. White, who is also known for his subsequent 1952 novel Charlotte's Web, which has had numerous film adaptations. The screenplay was written by M. Night Shyamalan and Greg Brooker (the latter wrote this and did re-writes for She's All That while honing a script for what became The Sixth Sense - all three films were released in 1999). White had been inspired by a dream he had while riding in a railway sleeping car about a tiny boy who acted like a rat. The advent of digital effects with Sony Pictures Imageworks, along with visual effects by various people alongside supervision by John Dysktra, made the possibility of the film possible that wouldn't been the case before 1999.

It is a movie about earnest people adopting a mouse that talks, you know. The level of enjoyment you get from the film may very well depend on how seriously you take the film, honestly. It seems about as whimsical as one might expect from a children's film adaptation without becoming an explosion of weirdo cuteness. This happens mostly because it tries to play a bit of adventure with a pint-sized lead that gets to deal with the danger of being left without a family along with the danger of cats thinking about lunch. Fox had plenty of voice experience with films such as the Homeward Bound features (1993, 1996), so it isn't too surprising to see him here as the lead voice, which he handles with warm charisma. Sure, the role might be packed with schmaltz, but Fox handles it amiably to where we appreciate seeing him carrying things around. Laurie and Davis make for earnest parental figures that don't oversell the level of enthusiasm needed to make this seem warm enough to take seriously on an "okay, sure" level (i.e., being parents to a child and a mouse adoptee at least seems fine). Lipnicki is at least what you would expect from a kid actor (so yes, the kid from Jerry Maguire is fine). There is absolutely nothing surprising in seeing Lane here, which inspires a few chuckles as the foil to Fox that is followed by attempts at kid-friendly heavies played by folks like Palminteri, which is neat. There is a wide variety of name actors that pop in from Dabney Coleman to Jon Polito that come and go just as quickly with one-bit lines that work fine for folks already comfortable with what they are watching. You get to see a boat race along with what passes for a "car chase" to go with a story path that you would probably foresee coming midway through. It's a family movie that doesn't dawdle too much or go overboard in bits with animals. The film inspired a sequel three years later, which retained Minkoff and a handful of actors from the first film. As a whole, it is a cheery little movie that has enough decent notes that it hits within semi-adventure and a few chuckles that does exactly what you would expect without strain or irritation.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Double Life of Veronique.

Review #1945: The Double Life of Veronique.

Cast: 

Irène Jacob (Weronika / Véronique), Halina Gryglaszewska (The Aunt), Kalina Jędrusik (The Gaudy Woman), Aleksander Bardini (The Orchestra Conductor), Władysław Kowalski (Weronika's father), Guillaume De Tonquédec (Serge), Jerzy Gudejko (Antek), Philippe Volter (Alexandre Fabbri), Sandrine Dumas (Catherine), Janusz Sterninski (The Lawyer), Louis Ducreux (The Professor), and Claude Duneton (Véronique's father) Directed by Krzysztof Kieślowski (#601 - Three Colours: Blue, #602 - Three Colours: White, #603 - Three Colours: Red)

Review: 

"I have one good characteristic. I am a pessimist. I always imagine the worst. To me the future is a black hole."

Admittedly, no world cinema discussion can omit Krzysztof Kieślowski, although I certainly did not intend for the Three Colours trilogy to be the only films of his that I saw for eight years. They were three of four films he made that were not directly made in his native Poland, where he made a variety of features, documentaries, TV films, and shorts from 1966 until 1994, with varying levels of reach in his homeland due to the Communist regime that encompassed most of his life. He once made a series of ten films for television called Dekalog that were inspired by the Ten Commandments, and two of those entries inspired film extensions (all of these films were directed and released in 1988). The Double Life of Veronique was his first co-production, as it was a French-Polish-Norway production. As it had been since No End (1985), Kieślowski wrote the film with Krzysztof Piesiewicz, a lawyer who had defended political cases in Poland (specifically opponents of the Communist regime). Kieślowski brought in Sławomir Idziak (a regular on countless films of his) to do the cinematography, which results in a film that looks quite unworldly at times within its use of color and filters.

There is something quite incandescent about a film like this, a 98-minute feature that is bolstered by a tremendous acting performance that anyone would kill to have the chance for. The daughter of a physicist and psychologist, Jacob had her breakout role in this feature after years of stage work and a handful of feature appearances. She described her appearances in a Kieślowski feature (she lated starred in Red) as one where the camera was like a microscope, albeit without much time to talk about a character role (rather wanting her to follow her instincts). She proves quite magnificent here, providing emotional turmoil within two distinct spirits seen here (please note that the opening involving the Polish Weronika is actually voiced by Anna Gornostaj). Her observation about where her path has taken herself becomes our observation and our feeling. Volter is the puppeteer of fate and romance for what proves to be a charming match for Jacob in the anxious game of pursuit in life. It has often been called a film involving identity, love, and human intuition. Apparently, Kieślowski once noted that he was approached by a French girl about how much she was moved by the film, which made him realize it was worth all of the sacrifice so that one "should realize that she has a soul." This certainly will fit well within the curious people familiar with metaphysics when it comes to studying the fundamental natures of reality, whether that involves wondering what is out there...and what that "there" is like. Of course, folks less familiar in the realm of philosophy will at least see the intrinsic qualities that Kieślowski conveys in a movie dedicated as one of feeling rather than deep plotting. At least, that's how it seems to fit within the basic statements about what the film is: ever feel like there is someone that resembles you in spirit? Hell, there have been various stories about doppelgangers before and after this film, but there is something quite poetic about where the film wanders within its intertwined path of choice and sense. Kieślowski is essentially the master of his puppets, as reflected by a line in the film involving a puppeteer. Is it not fate to have an actor play a puppeteer (author too, but still) only to have the puppeteering scenes played by a different person? (Bruce Schwartz). Does one feel like they are in control of their life, or is there some sort of spirit that has the wheel? And how would one feel if they found out the truth about that? The movie is not one to lend answers to any sort of questions you may find from a film of feeling because it is a film built on existing to let you explore it yourself. Is one a man or is one merely a puppet to serve as some sort of cog in the game of infinite choices? The only answer may very well be found among the strings of choices and time.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

One Hundred and One Dalmatians.

Review #1944: One Hundred and One Dalmatians.

Cast: 

Rod Taylor (Pongo), Lisa Daniels and Cate Bauer (Perdita), Betty Lou Gerson (Cruella de Vil / Miss Birdwell), Ben Wright (Roger Radcliffe), Lisa Davis (Anita Radcliffe), Frederick Worlock (Horace Baddun / Inspector Graves), J. Pat O'Malley (Jasper Baddun / Colonel), Martha Wentworth (Nanny / Queenie / Lucy the White Goose), Thurl Ravenscroft (Captain), David Frankham (Sergeant Tibbs), Mimi Gibson (Lucky), Barbara Beaird (Rolly), Mickey Maga (Patch), Sandra Abbott (Penny), Tudor Owen (Old Towser), George Pelling (Danny), and Junius Matthews (Scottie) Directed by Wolfgang Reitherman (#250 - The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, #598 - The Rescuers, #660 - Sleeping Beauty), Clyde Geronimi (#178 - Peter Pan, #373 - Cinderella, #511 - The Three Caballeros, #660, and #683 - Alice in Wonderland) and Hamilton Luske (#178, #373, #683)

Review: 

By the 1950s, Walt Disney and his film studio would enter a time of transition. The animation studio had done six package films from 1942 to 1949 before returning with Cinderella (1950). That same year, Disney would get behind their first live-action effort with Treasure Island, having experimented with a mix of live-action and animation with previous features such as Song of the South (1946). Disney had further ideas beyond films, such as the theme park built in Anaheim, California, a park that bears his name opened to the public in 1955. Sleeping Beauty (1959) was the first animated film in Super Technirama 70 widescreen. The high costs of the film did not help make it a success on release, and Disney had thoughts about closing down the animation department due to costs (the aforementioned Beauty film was made for $6 million, while the resulting Dalmatian film was made for $3.6 million). The movie is an adaptation of The Hundred and One Dalmatians, a 1956 children's novel by Dodie Smith. Disney had bought the rights to doing a film on the novel in 1957 (Smith, a Dalmatian owner, had apparently wrote the book with a secret hope that Disney would make a film of it, as noted in correspondences to Disney). Bill Peet was tasked to write the story for the film. Peet had been involved in the story department for several Disney films since Pinocchio (1940), having started his work at the Disney studio as an "in-betweener" in making up frames of drawings on animated shorts. He was also involved in the character development stage for what became Cruella de Vil along with developing all of the storyboards for the film (when generally an animated film had numerous storyboard artists) while directing the recording of the voices. There was one method to cut costs. This was the first film to be made entirely with a copying technology utilized by the Xerox Corporation. So yes, one took a Xerox camera to get drawings by animators directly to animation cels without needing to do the inking process (no drawings needed to be painted over); the Xerox process had been done in a few small scenes prior to this film. Ken Anderson, a fellow loyal employee of Disney for decades, was art director and production designer on this film. This was the 17th animated film by Disney and the first of three released in the 1960s, aided by the success seen by this film with audiences. A live-action remake was done in 1996, which in turn inspired a sequel four years later and a live-action "prequel" in 2021.

Honestly, the reason I hadn't covered many Disney films over the past few years is because I wanted to make it seem quite special to do one from the studio, which has released 61 animated feature films since 1937. One Hundred and One Dalmatians isn't the best film released by the Disney studio of its era, but it clearly is a charmer. It certainly has conventional techniques in its storytelling that make its 79 minute runtime an interesting presence in the Disney lexicon. Disney did not care much for the look of the film in art because he thought it lost the "fantasy" element, since the line drawings were now being printed on a separate animation cel right before it was laid over the background. But it makes sense for what needs to happen here, with smooth movement that is generally warm and inviting in a story about kidnapping pets to turn into coats. The voice talent is mostly for the animals than the humans, probably because the casting wanted deep voices for the former to begin with. Taylor had one notable film credit with The Time Machine (1960), although he had prior extensive experience in radio work in his native Australia. He makes a solid presence as the leader of the dog bunch that makes for a few chuckles. Daniels and Bauer split the voice role because Daniels had left production months into voicing - honestly, I couldn't quite tell the difference, but each do fine in grace to match with Taylor. Wright and Davis make decent human focuses to go with the proceedings, but obviously Gerson is the general highlight, utilizing a choice of voice that was meant to be a "phony theatrical voice, someone who's set sail from New York but hasn't quite reached England"- this works well in over-the-top villainy that is distinct and worth remembering, while Worlock and O'Malley make neat comic relief. The other voices are used for moments from time to time involving general animal amusement, such as communicating great distances with barks or cows giving milk to hungry dogs. This was the last directorial effort for Luske, a Disney mainstay for two decades who had one more highlight with his work on Mary Poppins (1964), which saw him direct the animated sequence that saw him awarded an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects; Luske died at the age of 64 in 1968. This was also the final directorial effort by Geronimi, who had left Disney for UPA and television in 1959. Reitherman, who directed his first film with Sleeping Beauty (1959), would direct a handful of Disney features for the next 15 years. As a whole, it is a nice and light feature, packed with fair adventure and charm that one would hope from a film like this, one that shows landscapes with vast curiosity just as much as it shows neat adventure with dogs in contemporary times. It's a cute little good movie, and that makes it something special even after six decades.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, folks. With this 163rd review, I have matched 2021 in the amount of films spotlighted on Movie Night. For the sixth time in the history of Movie Night (12/20/2010-present, 4,387 days if you want to be precise), there was over 150 reviews in one year, and this doesn't even include the Redux Reviews, for which there were sixteen of them. The next couple of months will be interesting ones, seeing the second rendition of New Directors Month in January along with the third editions of Black History Month (February) and Women's History Month (March). Oh, and a certain milestone is coming. We'll see a few more reviews over the final week of 2022; there has been a certain pattern with these reviews to cover a few names neglected over the past few years, so we shall see what is next...

The Rock.

Review #1943: The Rock.

Cast: 

Sean Connery (SAS Captain John Patrick Mason), Nicolas Cage (FBI Special Agent Dr. Stanley Goodspeed), Ed Harris (Brigadier General Francis X. "Frank" Hummel), John Spencer (FBI Director Jim Womack), David Morse (Major Tom Baxter), William Forsythe (FBI Special Agent-in-Charge Ernest Paxton), Michael Biehn (Commander Charles Anderson), Vanessa Marcil (Carla Pestalozzi), John C. McGinley (Captain Hendrix), Gregory Sporleder (Captain Frye), Tony Todd (Captain Darrow), Bokeem Woodbine (Gunnery Sergeant Crisp), Jim Maniaci (Private Scarpetti), and Greg Collins (Private Gamble) Directed by Michael Bay (#057 - Transformers, #058 - Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and #129 - The Island)

Review: 

“They make up words like Bayos and Bayhem and all this crap.” 

It was never intentional to miss out on watching films directed by Michael Bay for so long, which reached a decade this year. I suppose it is hard to find time for every director, polarizing or not. The Rock was his second feature film as a director, which like Bad Boys (1995) was produced by Jerry Bruckheimer and Don Simpson (in their final production together) who had noticed his success in directing music videos. Bruckheimer would serve as a producer on Bay's first five films (Simpson died five months before the release of The Rock). The original script had been done by David Weisberg and Douglas Cook. Mark Rosner contributed work to the screenplay, but there were various writers who did work on the script that did not receive credit, such as Jonathan Hensleigh (who Bay felt deserved credit), Aaron Sorkin, and Quentin Tarantino; the result is a script that had little humorous moments, with Cage ad-libbing a good chunk of his dialogue. Admittedly, the premise might seem cobbled from other action films: it is a siege film, one set on Alcatraz Island where the choice is either a payout (for families of forgotten veterans) or gas-loaded rocket destruction. Of course, things aren't quite what they seem in a film that pairs a chemist, a talented escape artist, and a SEAL team together, and that is part of the fun.

The key to the film working as it does beyond the usual action expenditures is the engaging ensemble cast. Oh yes, Connery and Cage are enjoyable together, but the whole film has pretty good character presences within its three sides: the beleaguered pairing of our heroes, the indignation shown by Forsythe and Spencer at the whole proceeding, and the wavering villainy that goes from Harris to Todd. In other words: the people prove enjoyable to watch on screen just as much as the action sequences, which means that the stakes mean just as much as they would in a generic movie. Its funny that this was the first big action film for Cage, fresh off an Academy Award performance in Leaving Las Vegas (1995) alongside a wide variety of films that had included Moonstruck (1987) and... well, stuff like Fire Birds (1990). But The Rock was the first of a variety of mainstream entertainment (or whatever you might call it), and it is pretty clear to see his appeal. Here, he plays the angle of comic relief alongside action hero to worthy compromise, showing plenty of timing within his facial expressions and mannerisms that makes for an engaging presence, particularly when matched against Connery, the king of relaxed charm even in his late sixties. The amusing little theory that has been passed around over the years is that Connery is really playing an older James Bond, and while I can't really endorse it, it probably does work within explaining how Connery proves so effective in his measured charisma that comes through all of the action beats. Connery and Cage have a nice, weird chemistry together that serves as the ideal match of established names that doesn't see either overshadow the other. Harris is the ideal adversary in that he isn't merely there to shout banal dialogue, and the film actually spends a bit of time giving him depth beyond the usual siege film: a man fed up with higher-ups failing the paragon of virtue he has tried to live up to (so in a way, Harris and his performance might remind one of the Rambo films). He is a natural leader that makes the ideal villain: one with a point that they firmly believe in. Sporleder and Todd make worthy adversaries when it comes to representing both heavies and the ideals of what it takes to be a sellout. Spencer and Forsythe each make capable foils to our leads in indignation, whether that involves one being held on a rooftop or the latter trying to tolerate the whole proceedings as the semi-tough guy, who like any good tough guy generates a smile. There are a number of folks that are meant to fall by the wayside such as Biehn or Morse, which they handle like character pros. It is an over-the-top film, but it is a roaringly fun film that justifies its 136-minute run-time. His filmmaking style may be called "Bayhem", but it only serves as a useful compliment when one sees his craftsmanship (and theories about the government) on display. It balances its two halves neatly: you get a car chase in one half and careful pacing of action with the latter half. Bay lives for what James Cameron calls "the big train set", which basically means one huge production with all the trappings of non-compromise. So yes, thinking of Bay and Cameron as similar filmmakers may sound weird, but give it a bit of thought sometime. As a whole, The Rock is an enjoyable film, serving as the most respected film of Michael Bay because of the display of craftsmanship that is put firmly on display with no sense of compromise or false note within its engaging ensemble cast. It pulls most of the strings correctly in ways that any director would be proud of.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Avatar: The Way of Water.

Review #1942: Avatar: The Way of Water.

Cast: 

Sam Worthington (Jake Sully), Zoe Saldana (Neytiri), Sigourney Weaver (Kiri / Dr. Grace Augustine), Stephen Lang (Colonel Miles Quaritch), Kate Winslet (Ronal), Cliff Curtis (Tonowari), Joel David Moore (Norm), CCH Pounder (Mo'at), Edie Falco (General Ardmore), Brendan Cowell (Scoresby), Jemaine Clement (Dr. Garvin), Jamie Flatters (Neteyam), Britain Dalton (Lo'ak), Trinity Jo-Li Bliss (Tuk), Jack Champion (Spider), Bailey Bass (Tsireya), Filip Geljo (Aonung), Duane Evans Jr. (Rotxo), and Giovanni Ribisi (Selfridge) Directed by James Cameron (#001 - Terminator 2: Judgement Day, #063 - The Terminator, #388 - Avatar, #574 - Aliens, #606 - True Lies, #1515 - Titanic)

Review: 

 "It will be a natural extension of all the themes, and the characters, and the spiritual undercurrents. Basically, if you loved the first movie, you're gonna love these movies, and if you hated it, you're probably gonna hate these. If you loved it at the time, and you said later you hated it, you're probably gonna love these."

Honestly, I hadn't thought of Avatar (2009) too much since I saw it the one time in 2013. Aside for the countless jokes about it being a blue version of Dances with Wolves or being like Ferngully: The Last Rainforest, I didn't really anticipate a sequel coming out that would elevate what I felt was pretty average fare. It can be granted that it was a movie that succeeded on the goals of presenting an old-fashioned jungle adventure with some sort of environmental conscience that basically took inspiration from countless adventure and science fiction books that made a basic setup in order to show some really pretty special effects (if you saw it in 3D, well, that probably went double). Cameron initially stated that the success of Avatar would guarantee two sequels. In 2016 (two years after Cameron had stated there would be sequels released in 2014 and 2015), Cameron stated that there would be four sequels, all shot simultaneously (with this film being done for a budget over $350 million), for which the sequels would have sperate stories that "have an overall arc inclusive of the first film." Here is a fun writing listing: the story was done by Cameron, Rick Jaffa, and Amanda Silver, while the screenplay was done by Cameron, Jaffa, Silver, and Josh Friedman and Shane Salerno. Nine of the original cast members from the first film return for this film, which had started shooting in 2017. Trying to do performance capture underwater ended up taking over a year to do because a whole process had to be invented for it (keep in mind, actors had to undergo training to be able to breathe longer than what you might expect, and a record for longest breath held during filming of an underwater scene was set...at seven minutes).

I will give this much credit: the best way to see the film is the way all films should be seen...in a theater. Granted, as much as I don't particularly care for 3D, it was a pretty interesting experience to immerse oneself. So yes, if you want a film that has turned Avatar into a generational family saga that happens to dabble with themes of environmentalism and colonization with a runtime of 192 minutes, here you are. Would you be surprised to know that the movie is a great visual experience but only just an average epic besides that element? It manages to be both diverting and amusing in all of the weird ways that I had anticipated, one that plays off many interesting viewing moments to go along with dialogue that is either family cliche or flat-out odd cliche (hearing "cuz", for example). Yes, a movie made in 2022 looks pretty, big shock. It is pretty good, although I would hope for more when it comes to the next film. It lingers on said imagery at times, whether that involves certain moments of higher frame rate or images from the sea or...you get the idea. 192 minutes means one viewing will either prove fair for the theater experience or daunting. Eh, it was fine. Oh, right, there is acting in the film. Worthington technically does fine in the morph to "family man", albeit with voiceover lines that basically states the obvious. Saldana is the other side of the family coin of, well, doing things. Technically this is a case of the story moving over to the offspring, but I surely remember her having more to do in the first film. Lang is the highlight for me, one who is abrasive as ever but still engaging enough to see where one could at least see how people would rally behind him. Besides, him playing the exposition of just how he returns is at least interesting when coming from him (and yay, he gets to come back for more, so I can only hope he gets to do more cartoonish things - maybe he'll shoot a space whale and make it dignified). Winslet and Curtis make fairly decent new people to do the schtick of "welcome to the sea, fellow blue-ish people". I admire Weaver taking a role where she has to play a blue teenager - granted it is a decent performance, but hey, I guess it needed to be Weaver when acting with actual teens playing blue teenagers. Of course, Champion is meant to stick out like a sore thumb as the wild child among blue people, but yea, he did start to get on my nerves after time.

By the first hour, the film has established the change from pursuit of "unobtanium" to basically trying to make a new Earth for the humans while the on-screen "Na'vi Family Robinson" makes their trip to the sea (look, I know they are called "Na'vi", but forgive me if I end up saying blue people). At least you get to see the return of Lang as the villain, if only because nobody wants to see a whole trip to the deep blue sea without some sort of weirdo new blue villain. The middle hour is pretty eventful: you get to see Avatar's version of whales with the "tulkun", the spiritual blood brothers that was reminding me to wonder just how familiar it might be to something like Free Willy (1993). So yes, space whales. Take a guess what happens with the space whales when there is one outcast among them. At any rate, don't forget about the weird conflicts between the reef people (i.e. green people) and the blue folks. I'll be honest, I did find it amusingly tiresome to remember that there are three siblings to this Na'vi family alongside two adoptees. When it finally labors itself past the 120-minute mark, now you get to see a battle to save the space whales from having their stuff sucked out for anti-aging serum (yes) and being drawn out by the villain. At least the crab-mecha thing (the time for getting proper names for things is long past) is fun, because god knows the action in the last act is probably the most interesting the film gets beyond showing images in the water. At any rate, by the time you finish this mix of school movies, animal flicks, and possibly The Poseidon Adventure, you probably will be interested in just what the hell James Cameron wants to do in this "family saga", where it will continue to push the elements of where special effects can go to go alongside wondering just how self-serious this story will go. I dug the movie, but any good movie has clear elements that could have gone down with the ship with lesser hands, and this is most evident here. This was a movie about family being everything along with the message that the environment (specifically water) will kick your ass if you try to mess with it...I think. Will there be material present in the further sequels that make this even more of a true epic, or will it be something that you could lightly make fun of it (probably while doing certain substances beforehand) while looking at the pretty images? Time will tell for the third film, set for release in 2024.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

Redux Review #001: Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

Cast:
Arnold Schwarzenegger (The Terminator), Linda Hamilton (Sarah Connor), Edward Furlong (John Connor), Robert Patrick (T-1000), Earl Boen (Dr. Silberman), Joe Morton (Miles Dyson), S. Epatha Merkerson (Tarissa Dyson), Castulo Guerra (Enrique Salceda), Danny Cooksey (Tim), Jenette Goldstein (Janelle Voight), and Xander Berkeley (Todd Voight) Produced and Directed by James Cameron.

Review: 

A long time ago, I got the idea to review movies and write about them. I was fourteen and a pretty average viewer of action movies. The reviews weren't particularly good, but they generally still reflect my opinions on movies even after twelve years. In fact, I had originally planned to go back to the beginning and re-review this film way back in 2017. December 20, 2010 actually had eleven published reviews when I originally did them on a website called Star Pirates, which went like this: Terminator 2: Judgement Day, RoboCop, Rocky, RoboCop 2, Get Shorty, RoboCop 3, Looney Tunes: Back in Action, X-Men, Star Trek (2009), X2, and Fantastic Four. Four of those eleven actually have Redux Reviews already published, but I figured the best way to commemorate the 12-year anniversary of Movie Night is to make a loop from one James Cameron film to another. Enjoy.

From December 20, 2010:

Well, this film is a nice piece of work at 2 and a half hours long, and the Science Fiction is really put in first, along with the drama. The cast does an excellent job, especially Schwarzenegger and Patrick. This film has good use of CGI and great scenes that make you laugh and cry, as it qualifies for one of the best sci-fi films of all time. This film is probably the best sequel of any film as it does a great job.

"Even if we win the fight for our existence against the rise of machines, how do we define ourselves? Now it’s a real thing and a real concern and a real philosophical, existential question for the human race." - James Cameron

The Terminator (1984) is one of the best science fiction action films of its time. You already know that. Sure, Hemdale and Orion Pictures probably screwed up in promoting the film beyond what it clearly was: a classic in various genres. Of course, James Cameron became a prime name in directing because of the film, which he came up with the initial idea that eventually became fleshed out into what you saw. However, he did not actually feel that a sequel was particularly warranted - he went on to do films such as Aliens (1986) and The Abyss (1989), while the main star of the Terminator film in Arnold Schwarzenegger was always interested in making a sequel while continuing to become a film star on films such as Total Recall (1990). That film was funded by Carolco Pictures, and Schwarzenegger got the owners of the studio to try and negotiate with Hemsdale to buy the rights (they had half of the rights, while Gale Anne Hurd had the other half, since Cameron sold it to her for $1 as part of the deal for Hurd to advocate for Cameron). In 1990, Cameron agreed to join in, complete with asking William Wisher to help write the screenplay with him, for which they tasked to write it in six to seven weeks (because the release date was already set - July 1991). In the long run, it was one of the most expensive films of its time, made for roughly $94 million to $102 million. Interestingly, the idea of a liquid metal Terminator had actually been considered for the first film, as the original film had planned to have two Terminators sent by Skynet. Of course, trying to do a clay-animation Terminator in 1984 did not strike Cameron as effectively possible. It should be mentioned that this idea of two Terminators would find one key change: it wouldn't be a fight between two Terminators that happened to look just like Schwarzenegger (because Wisher thought it sounded like a boring idea). The idea of a Terminator that could take any shape it wants and strike from nowhere was originally intended in the first film, as you already might know. The fact that computer generated imagery (CGI) had managed to come along enough to actually be part of a film for longer than a few seconds surely helped this scenario (as evidenced by Cameron's previous effort in The Abyss). As such, the effects were done in various segments: Industrial Light and Magic (with Dennis Muren as supervisor) for the CGI effects, Stan Winston Studio for prosthetics and animatronics, Fantasy II Film Effects for miniatures and optical effects, and 4-Ward Productions and Pacific Data Images and Video Image for additional elements (such as a nuclear explosion effect). Muren has been quoted as saying that getting a convincing shot of a walking character that looks like it was made of chrome that had weight to it took months. Keep in mind, Cameron had to make sure the live-action shots matched with the effects that were being done by ILM, which meant plenty of takes needed to get the actors to hit their mark, and the final shots involving molten steel came down to the wire in getting them to render properly to reach the intended release date. In the end, the movie was a massive hit, receiving accolades for several members of its crew (such as Winston and Muren winning an Academy Award alongside Gene Warren Jr and Robert Skotak to go with wins for the makeup, sound and sound effects editing crew).

Sure, it is a sci-fi action film just like its predecessor from seven years ago, but it is a successor that hits every mark that you would expect from a film of its kind, sequel or not. It isn't executed in the style of a slasher film as before, instead reaching for new heights of thrills in action and drama that shows both a profound sense of entertainment along with profound sense of humanity. Cameron has called the relationship between the characters of John Connor and the T-800 as the heart of the film, equating it to the Wizard of Oz with the Tin Man getting a heart. If the first film was considered to be bleak within its depiction of a cyborg that would stop at nothing to strike at one of the future keys of humanity, there is a strike of hope within this film, where the progressive humanity shown by the T-800 alongside the resurgence of humanity with Sarah Connor is what drives everything together. Cameron has called it as the "world's most violent anti-war movie", and he does have a pretty good point there, if only because he has made a diverting movie that shows just how far one could possibly go with the basic urge of violence without becoming a movie simply for the thrill hounds (not that there's anything wrong with that, unless you are a pedantic critic – hell, did they not see how violent the first film was?). 

Hamilton clearly was ready for the assignment of playing a character now ravaged by post traumatic stress, which means a role that requires great timing in aggressive behavior and wavering humanity. Her paranoia is our paranoia, and it makes for a lean and effective evolution from her vulnerability all those years ago. Schwarzenegger says quite a few more sentences as before, but it is the progressive humanity seen through his scenes with Furlong that make the movie work as well it does when it isn't just about the action, and he shows his habit for making the audience smile in his expressions without needing to strain credibility. Furlong had never acted in a film before this film. He is the surly key in finalizing this offbeat, fractured family that we see for the film. It is natural honesty that never seems to grate on one's nerves in false notes. His scenes with Schwarzenegger when it comes to bonding with each other, whether that involves promising not to kill (instead going around throwing folks or kneecapping them) or trying to teach him to smile or their last scene together in the mill, which is definitely the most striking. Did you know that Cameron had Billy Idol in mind for the villain role? Well, his "look and presence" made him a brief favorite, but a motorcycle accident ended up opening the door for a mostly unknown actor. Interestingly enough, the one chosen to do the film after successful auditions was Robert Patrick, who had acted in a couple of Roger Corman movies (and even did his own stunts). He basically honed his performance in the film on what he did in the audition from what the casting directors were telling him, which basically was "You’re sense-aware. You’re tracking.” In fact, it was his idea to have the character run around with his fingers outstretched, which goes well with his physicality that reminds one of a snake, one who slithers through the film with worthy distinction. You would think the fact that Schwarzenegger is present during the film would make it distracting for Patrick to be a worthy title threat for the sequel, but he manages to hold his own, and this is in a movie where a good chunk of screen time has him away from the action, but he always makes his impression count. Morton is the one key supporting presence needed, playing an accidental Dr. Frankenstein with shock that makes a useful impression to sell the tragic part of this modern sort of fable when it comes to seeing where one's curiosity with machines can lead, regardless of the intent.

Brad Fiedel returns to do the musical score, which is quite fantastic in its usage of several sounds (organic and acoustic) that he had done through recently available technology, whether that means real air moving in a room in order to generate a sound. Any appreciator of the synth sound of the original will be satisfied with how Fiedel has managed to elevate his sound here. It is a great looking movie, one that is expertly edited (by three people) along with being expertly handled in its effects that have managed to still look quite effective in the art of being cutting-edge without seeming in-organic. It set the stage for future visual blockbusters such as Jurassic Park, that is a testament to the staying power of this film, There are two alternate versions of the film. The original version of the movie runs at 137 minutes long. The "Special Edition" is fifteen minutes longer and includes several scenes not used in the original cut, such as a sequence with Kyle Reese (Cameron prefers the theatrical releases while calling the extended versions just opportunities to see depth restored that couldn't be done with the current runtime). There also exists an "Extended Cut" that includes a scene of the T-1000 inspecting a room along with an alternate ending where an elderly Sarah Connor is watching her grown-up son, now a United States Senator. I ended up watching the Special Edition, primarily because of my memory being with that particular Reese scene (since who doesn’t love to see a little more Michael Biehn), but I imagine that the original cut will be just fine regardless of that fact. There are plenty of scenes one could highlight, but it always ends up being the fact that the movie has multiple potential climaxes (building explosion, the nitrogen chase, and the steel mill), which it handles with precision to where nothing seems dragged beyond comprehension. 

As a whole, Terminator 2: Judgement Day is a prime example of how to hone one’s craft in elevated storytelling, weaving a sci-fi action parable of humanity with expert filmmaking that has endured as a key moment for both effects work and for its time after over three decades since its release. The debate over which Terminator film ends up with the same result: you can't go wrong with either classic to pick.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Redux: The Terminator.

Redux #063: The Terminator.

Cast: 

Arnold Schwarzenegger (the Terminator), Michael Biehn (Kyle Reese), Linda Hamilton (Sarah Connor), Paul Winfield (Ed Traxler), Lance Henriksen (Vukovich), Bess Motta (Ginger), Rick Rossovich (Matt), Earl Boen (Dr. Silberman), Shawn Schepps (Nancy), and Dick Miller (Clerk) Directed by James Cameron.

Review: 

From my review on July 30, 2011:

This film is in a word a classic. It has good acting for the most part, a good film noir, (which will be referred to as TechNoir) and a great plot. Good effects especially at the end. Good action and also good direction with a young Cameron at the wheel.

"The Terminator themes had been important to me since high school. Those apocalyptic visions, ideas about our love/hate relationship with technology, our tendency as a species to move in a direction that might ultimately destroy us, and a central faith in the resourcefulness of humanity." - James Cameron

In 1981, James Cameron was trying to become a feature film director when he was hired to do Piranha II: The Spawning, rising from special effects director to the main job due to creative differences with the producer (Cameron had become interested in films due to reading about special effects while in school, if you remember). The movie was not a pleasant experience for him (namely because he got fired days into the film), but it was during a moment spent in Rome after being fired that proved important for Cameron. One night, wracked with a fever, he had a fever dream of a metallic man with knives that dragged itself from an explosion. Taking inspiration from John Carpenter (once described by Cameron as his idol) and how he made Halloween for less than $100,000 as a stylish horror film, it helped serve as a launching pad for what became the initial script of The Terminator. Cameron did have help in the script, for the most part. William Wisher, Jr helped turn Cameron's draft into a script, such as writing scenes involving the police or early scenes with Sarah Connor (he got an "additional dialogue" credit); Gale Anne Hurd, who suggested edits to the scripts, was given screenwriting credit to go along with serving as producer, as both Hurd and Cameron had worked under Roger Corman at New World Pictures (Orion Pictures, who distributed the film, had two ex-Corman associates on staff). Cameron even did concept art for trying to sell the idea to prospective filmmakers (such as Hemdale Film Corporation), to the point where Lance Henriksen was the likeness for the drawing along with being brought in to spook the staff in boots and leather, which worked out well in a deal with Hemdale and Cameron. Admittedly, any mention of The Terminator (1984) might bring a reminder that Harlan Ellison is listed with an acknowledgement in the credits. He loved the movie, but he thought it seemed familiar to his script for "Soldier", written for the TV program The Outer Limits in the 1960s. The filmmakers decided to settle and give him a credit in later prints of the film, much to the chagrin of Cameron.

Roger Corman has one hell of a filmmaking tree when it comes to people he employed who ended up becoming directors, and James Cameron essentially had his first major film success come with a production that he treated like a Corman film, complete with filming at night with guerilla-style shots done on a small(ish) budget; the fact that the film runs at 107 minutes is a testament to making a lean but effective piece of entertainment without any sort of element that seems unnecessary. I know I have said the movie is a classic, but the movie has only gotten better with age and further viewings, in my view. Every so often you have to remember that this is basically a slasher movie when you consider the body count. Aside from failing to take his main target, the Terminator takes down over two dozen folks, probably doing so with more efficiency than slasher villains of the time ever did. Hell, Biehn and Schwarzenegger have only one moment together where they are even in the same frame, consider that. Stan Winston and his studio had the task of doing a "flesh-covered endoskeleton", i.e., not just a man in a robot suit. They clearly made a great result, one that menaces the screen and achieves the art of seeming quite real to the audience without distraction. A creature that can't be reasoned with that manages to come after you even when it is shed of its humanoid skin, that is one hell of a concoction for a film that veers into horror, science-fiction, and yes, even noir territory.

Schwarzenegger had one key film credit to his name with Conan the Barbarian (1982), and it should be noted that he actually speaks less lines in this film than the prior movie. The funny thing is that he was actually thought by Orion for the film not as the title character but for the Reese character. This was contrary to Cameron's expectations of using low-key actors to do a cheap film, since he figured that he would have Henriksen play the Terminator, since it was meant to be a character that could blend in a crowd (go figure, Orion had O. J. Simpson in mind for the title role). A meeting between the two made it apparent to Cameron and Schwarzenegger that he would probably be better suited for the Terminator role, which clearly was the right decision. He sells the role in ways that one could only dream they could do in a role with little to say beyond having to act like a machine. Aside from a few television appearances, Hamilton had one prominent film credit before this film: Children of the Corn (1984), which was released a few months before this film. Hamilton is given the task of playing both relative innocence and hidden strength in a variation of the "Final Girl" trope in horror, which she handles expertly. Her terror at the situation she is thrust into becomes one we feel is thrust onto us. Biehn was actually cast because of his role in The Fan (1981), a movie that Cameron saw where Biehn plays a nice-looking guy who ends up being a killer stalker. For a good part of the film (at least for those who haven't seen it once), Biehn is effective in that mindset before he enters the picture as the would-be protector, which he handles quite well without having to strain to make the dialogue (consisting mostly of reacting to the Terminator or to Hamilton) work as well as it does. Henriksen may not have a big role, but the fact that he was effective in helping the film gain some interest with the whole "dressing up like the Terminator" stunt makes him an unforgettable part of how The Terminator became what it was. Winfield is the other part of the supporting cast that is basically cosigned to police beat elements, which works out pretty well for what is needed. It really is a lean movie, one that wraps itself quite tightly in efficient storytelling that shows just enough of the future landscape in perspective to make the drama occurring back in the present seem even more thrilling, particularly when it comes to the last sequence within a factory setting, where a machine stripped to its core is still on the chase and even still a menace with diminished legs. The synthesizer soundtrack by Brad Fiedel only adds to the level of terror in ways I hadn't really appreciated until listening to it once again, one that doesn't come off as dated (not to say that synthesizer music is dated, just that the use of it can have consequences in lesser hands). 

As a whole, the real crime is that the film was not even more successful. Sure, it did strike well with audiences, but Orion did not have as much faith for such a great movie as one would expect, doing little promotion (owing to wanting to elevate some of its other features of the time, such as Amadeus, the eventual Academy Award winner for Best Picture that year). At any rate, Schwarzenegger was clearly interested in making a sequel more so than Cameron, but a sequel wasn't commissioned until the film right were purchased back from Hemdale and Hurd. At any rate, with a story idea cribbed from the first film and a bigger budget, Terminator 2: Judgement Day was released in 1991. Four sequels would follow in the next three decades, with varying reception made worse by the fact that T2 is generally thought to be one of the greatest sequels ever made. At any rate, The Terminator is the film that made James Cameron a name to be reckoned with as a filmmaker and Arnold Schwarzenegger a true star, and it is a grand achievement for all involved as a science fiction action masterpiece.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Liliom (1930).

Review #1941: Liliom (1930).

Cast: 

Charles Farrell (Liliom), Rose Hobart (Julie), Estelle Taylor (Madame Muscat), H. B. Warner (Chief Magistrate), Lee Tracy (The Buzzard), Walter Abel (Carpenter), Mildred Van Dorn (Marie), Guinn "Big Boy" Williams (Hollinger), Lillian Elliott (Aunt Hulda), Anne Shirley (Louise), and Bert Roach (Wolf) Directed by Frank Borzage (#1611 - A Farewell to Arms and #1863 - History Is Made at Night)

Review: 

The movie is an adaptation of the 1909 play of the same name by Ferenc Molnár. The original play actually didn't become a success until the English translation happened on Broadway in 1921, which was followed by a number of a revivals before a musical adaptation was created by Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II with Carousel in 1945, which also had its own film adaptation released in 1956. The original play is the one with the sadder ending, let's just get that out of the way. S. N. Behrman and Sonya Levien served as the screenwriters for the movie adaptation, which was the second released adaptation, with the first being A Trip to Paradise (1921). The next adaptation was not too far off, being released in 1934 as a French production by Fritz Lang. Both the 1930 and 1934 versions were distributed by Fox Film Corporation. Since this was a movie released before the Film Code, you get to see the lead characters have a child out of wedlock. At the helm was Frank Borzage, who had joined the sound revolution in features such as Song o' My Heart (1930) that made him quite a prolific presence in romances with distinct visual sense at his peak. Like the original play, it is set in Budapest.

It is an odd little movie, packed with odd imagery within its artificiality, complete with shadows and a romance between two people who can't articulate their emotional feelings for each other beyond a spiritual connection. A grouping of two insecure people probably didn't seem like the kind of film to be an audience hit (and not with anyone who has opinions to say about how the film handles the afterlife, particularly in those days), and it was the kind of movie that for years wasn't even on DVD. But one can now experience a film with a climax that delves a bit into fairytale expressionism before having a few "interesting" words to say about hitting people and the nature of love. It does this despite being more of a film for Hobart and her wonderous eyes that you see shot by Chester A. Lyons. This was one of the first sound movies for Farrell, who you might recognize for his starring roles in silent romances such as 7th Heaven (1927) or City Girl (1930). The high pitch voice was apparently a surprise to some when it came to release, but I'm alright with the withering confidence meant to come out in this odd role that could have been just pathetic for a lesser presence. Hobart was making her feature movie debut, having come in from the theater to the shock of probably no one. The two actors enunciate their lines the way you would expect from a film made in the first few years of sound movies, which means one is watching a pretty stagy movie. Their romance is shaky, but you at least get why they would find themselves in this situation without trying to leave the other in the gutter, complete with their last scene together. It all rests on how the material sits with you once it reaches the train (via rear projection, which was quite new at the time, used by Fox in this and Just Imagine) bringing someone to talk about why they need one more moment among the living. If you can get through that, then it falls down to the climax to hold it all together for one fateful decision that will either strike one as somehow fitting the material well or off-putting. The two characters have about as much chance at moving forward without each other as a carousel has a chance of rotating in a non-circular path, and I guess it means that one really does have to put enough into love when the other partner isn't quite up to putting all the work to match them. As a whole, it definitely isn't the best effort for Borzage when it comes to his prior work, but it is at least a dour curiosity worth a watch for those who want to see a deliberately paced romance go through with a few visual interests for 94 minutes. It makes a suitable bittersweet tale. Laborious for some, but curious for others who choose to seek it out is probably the best way to describe the whole affair.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Bodyguard (1992).

Review #1940: The Bodyguard.

Cast: 

Kevin Costner (Frank Farmer), Whitney Houston (Rachel Marron), Gary Kemp (Sy Spector), Bill Cobbs (Bill Devaney), Ralph Waite (Herb Farmer), Tomas Arana (Greg Portman), Michele Lamar Richards (Nicki Marron), Mike Starr (Tony Scipelli), Christopher Birt (Henry Adams), DeVaughn Nixon (Fletcher Marron), and Gerry Bamman (Ray Court) Directed by Mick Jackson (#202 - Volcano and #1630 - L.A. Story)

Review: 

Well, even the popular entertainment has a shelf life worth looking into. Three decades have only kept the attention for the second-biggest hit of the year in the discussion, if only because of the even more popular soundtrack with Whitney Houston. The Newark native was after all a major singer with a string of hits since the late 1980s, and her performance and production made the best selling album for a soundtrack...ever. All of this happened for a film that had seeds of creation first planted a decade earlier. It probably should surprise you that the film was originally written with Steve McQueen and Diana Ross in mind. Yes, in the mid 1970s, this was pitched as a film, and yes, it was apparently rejected for being "too controversial". An attempt to do the film a few years later with Ryan O'Neal as the lead stalled because of strained relations between O'Neal and Ross. The film was written by Lawrence Kasdan (who had written the initial script in 1975), who you might recognize as writer of films such as The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and director of films such as The Big Chill (1983). Attempted revisions to the script apparently made it dark enough to where Mick Jackson insisted on just returning to the original concept. This was the third feature film for British native Mick Jackson, who was fresh off his success in directing L.A. Story (1991).

This is a confused movie, one that somehow is too silly and contrived to be taken seriously for anybody thinking this might be a thriller along with being too stoic in the art of going beyond first gear for what is meant to be called romance. It is also way too ordinary to run for 129 minutes. The only thing the movie has going for it is the songs, because yea, who can resist "I Will Always Love You" (sung by Houston as a cover, since the original song was done by Dolly Parton). It isn't even a case of being paint-by-the-numbers, because even other movies would know when to get on with the show. Costner probably was quite proud of himself for getting do a film where he also served as producer (just like previous efforts in Dances with Wolves) and could cut his hair like McQueen to try and hone his presence. He certainly acts like a bored McQueen would have likely been if this had been done in the 1970s, that much is sure. If you want to watch the film to make fun of it, you might have a ball looking at how understated his performance ends up being, as if he was replaced by discount Costner. The only scene that has any impact is one where he has a scuffle with Starr which ends with him throwing a knife right near him to close out a silent fight where he shows just how good he is. Houston had never acted in a film before this one, and, well, that is pretty evident early on, which results in a very mild case of "well, natural acting is technically a thing" that is then followed with "she can sing, just get her better material". She acted in three further films before her death in 2012. The movie doesn't even bother to have a middling attempt at a threat, since there is never one moment where the tension rises to any sort of interesting level. You would think a movie that has its climax during an Academy Awards ceremony would bring out some sort of curiosity to things. Nope. Kemp was one of the musicians for Spandau Ballet. That is pretty much all one can say about his performance. Cobbs and Waite are practically standing there begging for more substantial lines, but nope, this patchy romance is totally stable enough.

I kid you not, there was almost a sequel to this film. Apparently, Costner wanted to do another film with a different famous name, one who was a friend of his. The friend was Diana, Princess of Wales, but her death in 1997 put an end to it in predevelopment. A musical adaptation was done in London in 2012, and there are apparently plans for a film remake (heaven forbid they make a film that might actually show some depth - well, a man can dream, can't he?). As a whole, the best way to approach the film is to close one's eyes and just think really hard about what the hell they are watching. It might be the only movie where shutting everything but the music off might be a better experience than this overlong average movie. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.