Redux: The Exorcist.

Redux #037: The Exorcist.

Cast: 

Ellen Burstyn (Chris MacNeil), Max von Sydow (Father Lankester Merrin), Lee J. Cobb (Lieutenant William F. Kinderman), Kitty Winn (Sharon Spencer), Jack MacGowran (Burke Dennings), Jason Miller (Father / Dr. Damien Karras, S.J.), Linda Blair (Regan MacNeil; Eileen Dietz as stand-in), Father William O'Malley (Father Joseph Dyer), Barton Heyman (Dr. Samuel Klein), Peter Masterson (Dr. Barringer), with Rudolf Schündler (Karl, House Servant), and Mercedes McCambridge (The Voice of Pazuzu) Directed by William Friedkin.

Review: 

From my review on April 22, 2011: 

To be honest, I found this film to be a little underwhelming. The first hour is just talking, and building up to the Exorcism. It finally comes, and we do see the scariness in the Devil. I felt underwhelmed for the first half, but the second half helped. The acting is decent, with some scare from Regan and special effects that hold up to this day.

"When [William Peter Blatty] wrote this book he knew that I had a background in documentary films as well, and he wanted the story to be filmed as realistically as possible, and so did I. We did not want to make a scary horror film or a fantasy film. At that time as well as today, the public knows very little about exorcism, little to nothing. Everything that is known about it is sensationalized in the public, and certainly the film I made contributed to that; there is no question about it. Because people regarded it as a horror film. But I made the film as a believer." - William Friedkin.

Admittedly, there are a handful of reasons one could do to look back upon The Exorcist in 2023. For one thing, the film (released in late December) is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. Another thing is that 2023 is also the beckoning of a new "Exorcist film", specifically one that is serving as the first of a new trilogy that follows just the original film, complete with a returning cast member from before that makes its premiere on the very first Friday of October. Another is the fact that it seems appropriate to look back upon the career of its director William Friedkin, who passed away in August. But for me, I think the best reason of all is the fact that Movie Night's very first review of a film in the horror genre way back over a decade ago, was this very film. Granted, it wasn't the first horror film I ever saw, because in addition to those R-rated action films, I watched a few horror films before I was even 15, as one might do, but it certainly was a big film that one can hold up within the horror genre...and I guess I really set it up so highly in my head that it only seemed good enough for an 8/10 rating. The quantity and quality of the review is obvious, so here is a chance to re-write that wrong. The film is adapted from William Peter Blatty's 1971 novel of the same name, which was inspired by events that had allegedly been occurred in 1949 with a boy named only "Roland Doe". Blatty had heard about it when studying at Georgetown University (studying in English, which he also did for a master's degree at George Washington University), but what set him on the path to write it was seeing the film adaptation of Ira Levin's novel in Rosemary's Baby (1968), which pleased him right until the ending involving the resolution of the unborn child. Once a comic novelist and a screenwriter for comedies, the resulting success of the novel was tremendous, to put it lightly, and he got his wish to have William Friedkin serve as director with the success of The French Connection (1972). Friedkin was raised in the Jewish faith, but he found himself more welcoming of the teachings of Jesus as a declared agnostic. As such, when it came to influences, one film cited was Carl Theodor Dreyer's Ordet (1955). As such, Friedkin hired actual priests to appear in the film along with serve as technical advisors. Over four decades later, he would direct a documentary titled The Devil and Father Amorth (2017), which featured Father Gabriele Amorth, an exorcist for the Diocese of Rome that had mentioned Friedkin's film in his first book (An Exorcist Tells His Story). Friedkin worked closely with Blatty on the screenplay (the latter served as both screenwriter and producer). Blatty would write two further novels involving faith with The Ninth Configuration (1978) and Legion (1983), for which the latter served as the sequel to the aforementioned Exorcist; Blatty spearheaded the film adaptations of both novels as director in 1980 for Configuration and 1990 for the now retitled Exorcist III. Forty years after publishing the novel, Blatty did a revising of the novel that added a new chapter.

The original cut of the film lasted 122 minutes after Warner Bros. suggested cuts in order to fit more screenings, which Friedkin did. However, in 2000, a "The Version You've Never Seen" version was released that features a handful of cut sequences from before, most notably with the final scene that seems more in line with the book, which results in a runtime of 132 minutes. The mysteries that matter most to the film, true to Friedkin's word, are ones of faith, goodness, and the one of inexplicability. It is is a carefully built film on intense scale that is best enjoyed with great patience. Calling it the first of anything in horror is perhaps a too bit lofty to use, because of previous great horror films such as Psycho (1960), but I'm sure you can see the importance of a film like this beyond just calling it a film about possession, because it is a film of sacrifice and finding one's faith. The power of that comes with the cast to hold up such tremendous production values, for which I'm sure you would already guess. There were a variety of actors considered for key roles in terms of the desires of Warner Bros., such as asking Audrey Hepburn first about the leading role (she declined, as did a few others) or the late switching of Stacy Keach for Jason Miller (playwright of That Championship Season). Both Burstyn and Miller were big on doing these roles (the former was quoted as believing it to be destiny to play the role and the latter, who had studied for the priesthood, felt that he was Karras). Friedkin got his way with the casting of both actors and the rest eventually fell into place, which even included a critic of the book in O'Malley. Each of the core cast succeed in drawing a film of dread within atmosphere that is homed in realism as much as one can expect when seeing vomit or a cerebral angiography or whatever strikes a nerve in the realm of anxiety, moral or otherwise. The film is as much Miller's film as it is one of Burstyn & Blair when it comes to the driving point because of how he draws you with such intensity that comes from a great array of guilt and wavering spirit. Don't get me wrong though, Burstyn and Blair do just as well, with the former's sense of fear for her loved one shining through with the scattered innocence/corruption of Blair providing great terror. True, there is a certain voice quality in dubbing that can only come from an Academy Award winner in McCambridge and a minimal use of a double for intense scenes, but I think you know what I mean when I say that Blair went through the whirlwind and survived with a useful performance. Von Sydow and Cobb provide grizzled support that you greet for those familiar with those actors or voices (the former in aged makeup, of course). It is a film that builds in the terror of what enfold before you get to that exorcism, and it probably stands to reason that any film since this one involving exorcisms or possession has considerable ground to cover when it comes to trying to play distinct from this one. None have probably stokes half of the controversy that comes with its tone of haunting qualities or religious fervor, for better or worse. The sacrifice made at the end, now combined with the revised ending, makes it all the more involving as a film fit for its age and genre, a useful lesson for horror through and through.

In the end, what is about The Exorcist that makes it endure so vividly in reputation? There are a variety of factors, but the most important is that Friedkin and company had the faith required to craft a film as straight to the line as they wished to do that struck a nerve within the viewer of the time that works just as well now because it respected its viewer with patience and craftsmanship to make for a worthy unsettling time. It is probably hard to figure just which Friedkin film ranks among his best, but it is perhaps The Exorcist that endures most when it comes to the realm of looking forward to the season of horror or perhaps the time to look upon one's faith, and that is perhaps worth more than anything in the material sense.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Well, the clock is soon to strike 12 on October, so why not get a head start? October will be quite the showcase to show a wide variety of horror films from the past such as The Monster to the current year within The Exorcist: Believer. We shall see how many films get a spotlight here and what finds its way for the first week of November.

The Creator (2023).

Review #2092: The Creator.

Cast: 

John David Washington (Joshua), Madeleine Yuna Voyles (Alpha-Omega "Alphie"), Gemma Chan (Maya Fey), Ken Watanabe (Harun), Sturgill Simpson (Drew), Allison Janney (Colonel Howell), Ralph Ineson (General Andrews), Marc Menchaca (General McBride), and Veronica Ngo (Kami) Directed by Gareth Edwards (#582 - Godzilla (2014) and #888 - Rogue One)

Review: 

I had to remind myself that Gareth Edwards had not been behind a film for the past seven years (Rogue One was indeed released in 2016). Granted, the director isn't the biggest focus of any film discussion point (particularly for sci-fi), but it did lend a hand in checking out a film to close out the decidedly-non spooky month of September out (you might think, hey, it's got this person in the cast, but I find that only works for older films). Contrary to the usual big-budget gorgonzola films, there is actually an attempt here to make a sci-fi film with a semblance of design work to it. As stated by Edwards, the crew shot the film in a wide variety of locations that resembled certain images that they wanted before the editing process would see these frames painted, effectively doing a runaround on expectations of green screen or extensive spending (as opposed to spending) before the effects would be headlined by Industrial Light & Magic. What better year to release a film that happens to talk about AI than 2023, one supposes. Edwards has cited various films as inspiration for his film (which he co-wrote with Chris Weitz) such as Apocalypse Now (1979), Baraka (1992), Blade Runner (1982), Akira (1988), Rain Man (1988), The Hit (1984), E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) and Paper Moon (1973); this is the fourth feature film by Edwards.

It may seem a familiar film, and perhaps it may have a view that you can see arising before the end of its 133-minute runtime, but I enjoyed what I saw and felt from the film, and that is essentially what one is hoping to see from a sci-fi film that is obviously crafted with the audience in mind. I wouldn't exactly call it a pro-AI film, because really the heart of the film is one of redemption. Yes, it does push at times for the idea of making a real attempt at co-existence, but really the only way to create a new phase of living is to break apart the old system (this does not involve talky sequence, of course, but I'm sure you can read what that means). That might as well make it a modern-day parable, one that examines the moral quandaries that exist within the similarities that really do seem to lie within humans and the AI that they had crafted, particularly when it comes to crafting a living in the hardest of times. The grip of the military-industrial complex cannot have their boot firmly in place on the oppressed when they find a way to dig out (oh sure, painting humanity in a weird light seems odd, but, well, have you seen the dregs of humanity at times?). With that in mind, the scope of the film works best within its effects. I love the look of Nomad, spaceship that is the focus for the climax that resembles a bird of prey with those particular features in its looming nature. It is the kind of future you make for useful scare in one's mind when it comes to the human element and what really is real. Washington proves a useful lead presence in that search for humanity on the road that makes for quality desperation once the passiveness is shed away. This works with Voyles for a suitable pairing, one that shows the bounds of what it means to be around someone beyond crafting a name and feeling to one that did not have it before. The rest do fine but are mostly just players being moved around the board in the senses of interaction, which is mostly consisted of mercenaries on either side. The action sequences are pretty entertaining, mostly because it doesn't come off as sludge to accompany green screen sludge but instead manages to seem like a blockbuster made in a better time that actually seems to care about creating something interesting even if at times it nearly reaches the plodding-off point at times. The film closes itself with a feeling of peace that does not feel the need to bait for further blockbuster spelunking, which is totally fine with me, because sometimes a good feature really can just end right where it is and leave it up to the viewer more than looking up a screen. There are worse ways to spend time with a film that builds a world more than a big story when you can have the imagination to let it ride.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Looking to the past in order to set the future for October. You'll see. 

Miami Vice.

Review #2091: Miami Vice.

Cast: 

Colin Farrell (Sonny Crockett), Jamie Foxx (Ricardo Tubbs), Gong Li (Isabella), Naomie Harris (Trudy Joplin), Ciarán Hinds (FBI Agent Fujima), Justin Theroux (Detective Larry Zito), Barry Shabaka Henley (Castillo), Luis Tosar (Montoya), John Ortiz (Jose Yero), Elizabeth Rodriguez (Gina Calabrese), Domenick Lombardozzi (Detective Stan Switek), Eddie Marsan (Nicholas), Isaach De Bankolé (Neptune), John Hawkes (Alonzo Stevens), Tom Towles (Coleman), and Mario Ernesto Sánchez (El Tiburon) Written and Directed by Michael Mann (#1531 - Ali, #1631 - The Last of the Mohicans, and #1713 - Manhunter)

Review: 

"I don't know how I feel about it. I know the ambition behind it, but it didn't fulfill that ambition for me because we couldn't shoot the real ending. But whole parts of the film are very evocative to me still, especially when it comes to the romance. It was about how far somebody goes when they’re undercover, and what that really means because, ultimately, who you become is yourself on steroids, manifested out there in the real world."

Believe it or not, I had been waiting for the right to do this film, because I actually had watched the television show for the curiosity roughly a year ago. Honestly, the curiosity was not so much for the perceived "style" but for the odds and ends that come with trying to wedge in certain guest stars and situations to fit the procedural. Show creator Anthony Yerkovich claimed his inspiration was hearing about asset forfeiture when it comes to confiscating drug dealer properties for use, but I think you can see how the rumor that it came from a memo that said "MTV cops" endures. He had wrote over two dozen scripts for the serial procedural Hill Street Blues, but he has been quoted as saying that he actually had collected info on the city of Miami when working on Blues, even calling it a "sort of modern-day American Casablanca" while noting the wide variety of people that lived there to go along with the service industries for the drug trade. Undeniably though, it was probably the performances of its two leads in Don Johnson and Philip Michael Thomas that probably made the show endure as well as it did to run from 1984 all the way to the very first few weeks of 1990. Yerkovich created the show and had executive duties for the first few episodes before leaving to leave it in the hands of Michael Mann (creator of Vegas (1978) and a couple of films) as executive producer, which he would do for most of the run. A great deal of expense was taken to do an episode of the show, whether that involved fancy cars, song licensing, or painting exterior walls to film in Miami. There are a handful of episodes one could probably mention to talk about to describe the cliches (favorable or not) that came with the show, but "No Exit" (guest starring a pre-Die Hard Bruce Willis) is probably the best example of the show in its prime. Evidently, the basis for making a feature film adaptation came because Foxx, who had starred in Mann's Ali (2001), suggested the idea. Perhaps it is irony that the production of what is considered one of Mann's average films eventually led to the creation of his most polarizing films. A "director's cut" version of the film takes the 132-minute runtime of the original to include a few contextual sequences along with trimming certain bits to make a 139-minute cut (probably the most noted thing is that Nonpoint's 2004 cover of Phil Collins's "In the Air Tonight" plays more clearly). Of course, nothing can erase the fact that the departure of Foxx from filming abroad (because of an incident in the Dominican Republic) led to the curtailing of the planned ending (which evidently would have been filmed in Paraguay) for a rewritten one.

This was the ninth feature film for Mann, and it was a mild success with audiences at the time. The reputation of the film has certainly lent to interesting perspectives with the passage of over a decade since its release, which has softened the middle-ground view of the time. The style and aesthetics of the film certainly lends plenty of credit for a film that really verges itself on the passion of not really trying to pay attention to its attempt at a "ripped from the headlines" story that has the pacing of a hamster on a deflated ball. The show had a main character who lived in a boat with an alligator, the film basically is just two guys who might as well be named Man A and Man B. That doesn't mean I dislike the film, because it is still fairly interesting as a curiosity when it comes to ideas about flawed men trying to live flawless lives of deception and enterprise. It meanders, but it means well. Going into it with minimal knowledge of the show probably works out better for all involved. Whether because of the curtailed ending or not, Foxx somehow suffers in comparison to Farrell when it comes to trying to grasp a useful performance that isn't just "adequate". Strangely enough, Farrell is the one most prevalent in saying his displeasure with the film, stating it as some sort of "missed opportunity" when it came to the friendship meant to be portrayed between the two characters (of course, the fact that he went to rehab right after production probably doesn't help). manages the look of a man who is truly conscious of just what it means to be alive in that game of trust that seems to enjoy the rush of it but also looks like he is being eaten on the inside because of the grind that comes with those moments of where the truth lies. The romance between him and Gong. They may not look like the ideal pairing, but that's the point, its like a crash of waves that only a surfer could want to take no matter the highs and lows that come with it. Foxx, well, hmm, yea, maybe he really should have thought twice about wanting a Vice film. It's not so much that he doesn't really capture the tone of the original (as set by Thomas), it just seems that he is in autopilot, as if the only thing that mattered was to simply be there to say a few lines and boom, there's a partnership of deception (the dynamic between him and Harris doesn't even me blink, but then again I barely remember that there is supposed to be a supporting cast around Crockett and Tubbs 25% of the time in the actual show). Both of the leads seem a bit distant in that regard, but I think you can let it pass if you let the movie pass through. If not, try another buddy film. So yes, it isn't really a straight-line show adaptation, because if that were the case, the one-note capture of folks (in relation to show counterparts) such as Henley would bother me more. At least Ortiz makes a suitable adversary when it comes to players and aggressors of trust. In the end, "time is luck", and that means a film that tries to hold itself to the vibes of the moment for interesting style and a few useful action cues to cover what is neither a masterpiece or a bad time but is instead just fine. If you really care about the intricate vibes that make style and culture to walk over a mild storyline and mid acting, well, then you have quite the curiosity here. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Munsters (2022).

Review #2090: The Munsters.

Cast: 

Sheri Moon Zombie (Lily; Donna Doomley), Jeff Daniel Phillips (Herman; Shecky Von Rathbone; Zombo), Daniel Roebuck (The Count; Ezra Mosher), Richard Brake (Dr. Wolfgang; Orlock), Jorge Garcia (Floop), Sylvester McCoy (Igor), Catherine Schell (Zoya Krupp), Cassandra Peterson (Barbara Carr), and Tomas Boykin (Lester) Written and Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007), #1590 - House of 1000 Corpses, #1751 - Halloween II (2009), #1756 - The Devil's Rejects, #1920 - 3 from Hell)

Review: 

“The Munsters’ was exhausting. That was an exhausting movie to make. It took almost five years of non-stop pushing. And then, being in a foreign country during the height of COVID was not as much fun as you would think! So the whole experience was very draining.”

As surely mentioned at least one person familiar from old television in your life, The Munsters was the show to go when it came to horror makeup on a sitcom as created by Allan Burns and Chris Hayward (with development by Norm Liebman and Ed Haas). Well, when you come from folks that had been involved with The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends (while being produced by the duo that had created Leave It to Beaver), I'm sure you can understand what the show generally felt like, and, well, yes, it was fine for the time. And yes, it is the kind of show that once had a quote about the only thing that "matters is the size of your heart and the strength of your character." Anyway, here we are with a Universal film with Rob Zombie...well, I take that back. It isn't so much a Universal Pictures project as it is a co-roject of Universal 1440 Entertainment (known for such vaunted films as Bobbleheads: The Movie) and Spookshow International Films, complete with select filming in Budapest that had a release of both Netflix (you know the reaction I have) and on video, but it falls just over the line from the direct-to-video stuff you'd see in the 2000s...barely. Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised Rob Zombie directed the film, because he once did a song called "Dragula" (as named for the dragster car in the show) that had a music video mimicking a car ride by the Munsters. It is the first theatrical film involving the show since Munster, Go Home! (1966), after a handful of television movies and one TV remake. The story of the film, if you didn't already guess, is really more a prequel than an adaptation of the series, since, well, there's no child Munster involved here. The film was mandated to be filmed in color rather than black-and-white like the show (aside from the closing sequence), so Zombie elected to shoot in vibrant color, citing it as seeming like a "live action cartoon". Zombie has stated his plan to not make another Munsters film, citing the rough production. 

Honestly, the film isn't even as good as Munster, Go Home!, which I'm sure you remember as the only other time that the Munsters have been featured in a theatrical format. If the original series was like a piece of candy corn that was sweet if not just a tad bit light, the film is essentially that same corn but made with cotton candy to hide the fact that there is less of the candy to go around. It is a strange film to mark in Zombie's line of work because it is the only one as of now that you could show to your children, because the rest of his stuff is, well, not PG-rated fluff. I can see the energy present in why he would want to make a movie based on a show that he seems to really love, but I also see that the film exists as an example for people to hold against him as something he either shouldn't have undertaken or wrote by himself. It seems to be a case where the cast and crew seem to be having more fun than the person watching it. Simply put: for a film full of corny jokes and a bit of spiffy makeup, you would think there was an actual body full of life in there, and yet it all comes out stiff. I understand the desire for having it focus on the core three members (Phillips, S.Zombie, Roebuck), but the general story around them doesn't make for a whole film when the jokes are not as funny as the source material that it tries to play tribute to. Of those three, it is only Roebuck that seems to get a grasp at the character as originally played by Al Lewis. He has that conniving but warm spirit that inspires a good deal of the actual chuckles generated from the film. You might wonder the fairness of trying to compare actors playing a role once inhabited by people from a half-century ago, but, well, Yvonne De Carlo and Fred Gwynne were solid picks in 1966 but Phillips and S.Zombie probably wouldn't have made for good second choices in 1966. Simply put, they don't make great presences in roles that should feel familiar and they don't really make a solid presence for a newcomer to see for laughs anyway. Phillips plays it too much like a ham, chomping at the bit to raise the voice for what ends up seeming like a video parody while S.Zombie somehow seems anywhere other than where she should be. It is that kind of bland haughty spirit that seems ripe for (wait for it) parody rather than an interpretation of familiar ground. Lewis and Gwynne were just so good together in comedic chemistry back then, and Phillips and Roebuck here don't even get to attempt to try and be funny together. The fact that McCoy may be the most interesting supporting presence before being turned into a bat is probably the punchline said on the burial of this coffin. I can't even fathom why the film has a whole plot about a castle takeover, unless they were so confident that scenes in Translyvania were more interesting than actually getting along to the familiar looking mansion from the show (spoiler: if you can cut the fat, why not do so?). Brake and Garcia seem like fine folk, but you could cut them and Schell and possibly not lose much in the way of chuckles for what seems too long at 110 minutes already. The film at least does use its color choices for useful effect to make amusement in tacky quality (again, the overall film is tacky, but the look is better than the jokes).

How is it that you can't make a more compelling adaptation of an show than the two Addams Family films (1991, 1993)? Not to veer too off-topic, but those films took a subject (neat little family looks strange to outsiders) already familiar to audiences with them from a decades-old show and newcomers to make for interesting entertainment. Here I just find a middling film that doesn't seem to really have a grasp of what the show really seems to be about. Yes, it was a sitcom, and yes, it had a few (?) corny jokes, but it also had a strong core cast and also a strong grasp of fun for family entertainment that emphasized just how cool it was to be around these cheerful folks despite the odd things that came from the folks who reacted around them. The film may be bright and it may look nice at times, but it doesn't gel well to justify anything other than a rental for those who need to fill time with something light. I can't give it a positive recommendation, because simply watching the show would be the best way to start one's autumn than doing so with a movie not worth your time.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Tropic Thunder.

Review #2089: Tropic Thunder.

Cast: 

Ben Stiller (Tugg Speedman), Jack Black (Jeff Portnoy), Robert Downey Jr (Kirk Lazarus as Lincoln Osiris), Nick Nolte (Four Leaf Tayback), Steve Coogan (Damien Cockburn), Jay Baruchel (Kevin Sandusky), Danny McBride (Cody Underwood), Brandon T. Jackson (Alpa Chino), Bill Hader (Studio Executive Rob Slolom), Brandon Soo Hoo (Tran), Trieu Tran (Tru), Matthew McConaughey (Rick "The Pecker" Peck), and Tom Cruise (Les Grossman) Directed by Ben Stiller.

Review: 

''I was trying to push it as far as you can within reality. I had no idea how people would respond to it.'' 

Ben Stiller spent a couple of years making an idea involving actors filming a war movie. He would know, because this idea came about when he had appeared in a small part in Empire of the Sun (1987). He had seen a number of his friends undergo boot camp training for their roles that found them talking like they had become part of a real military unit that seemed like a "sort of self-important, self-involved thing". He kicked around ideas while getting his turn in television such as The Ben Stiller Show and directing with Reality Bites (1994) and The Cable Guy (1996) before appearing in There's Something About Mary (1998) made him a more name presence. At any rate, the script for what became this film was developed by Stiller and Justin Theroux while Etan Cohen helped them write the screenplay. Oddly enough, Stiller intended to cast Keanu Reeves in the lead role and himself as the agent, but when this did not come to pass, he instead took over the lead role. There also is a bit of improvisation present when it came to parts of the storyboard that didn't have scripted dialogue. Spoof, satire, parody, I think you get the idea of what you have with a film that seems right at home with others such as Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse (1991), the documentary that detailed the "rough" time in the production of Apocalypse Now (1979). It sure must have been a surprise that the film attracted minor controversy (something involving disabilities or "blackface", but 2008 crowds had their own standards of ignoring that), because Stiller was even quoted as saying once it has "always been a controversial movie" while noting it as one he is proud of it.

I vaguely remember watching this film about over a decade ago, and I thought it was decent back then before somehow forgetting about it. I wondered a bit how the film was going to look now that it was past the 15-year mark. Hell, I should have realized it was going to be a good time, because, well, it is a fine time to spend in the art of making light of war moviemaking. It makes a solid 107-minute ensemble with plenty of fun spent making light of the excesses that come in moviemaking for those in front of the camera and behind it. The array of spoofs starts right from the get-go with the faux trailers that begin the film by showing four degrees of a star, whether that involves method acting, has-been action stars, Chris Farley models, or, well, rappers trying to be actors. Stiller proves pretty well with the insecure has-been that comes with flailing in the face of rising and dying stars in Hollywood, which includes trying to veer in "Oscar bait" for worthwhile silly insecurity. The best way to describe Downey Jr's performance is, well "dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude." He is so absorbed in playing someone so different from himself (both in appearance and, well, personality) that is quite amusing in the fact he is all in for trying to trigger emotions like a man pressing buttons on a conveyor. You could make the argument that the actor he really seems to hone is not so much Daniel Day-Lewis (method acting and all) but in fact Peter Sellars (hey, The Party (1968) has its own debate over playing race versus playing comedy). Black succeeds fairly well in pathetic addiction, at least when compared to the moments of film acting for the fart-based trailer or those moments in the "war film", I mean. Jackson and Baruchel round out the cast with their own lingering flailing at the insecurities that infringe all of them in the jungle (technically Baruchel is the straight man, but the only different quality for Jackson is a punchline but stay with me on this). The adversaries presented are pretty one note, unless you try to posit that war movies sometimes have their own one-dimensional outlook, but one thing that is delightfully one note in the best way is Nolte, because his gruff outlook in the face of lies is endearing (particularly since he contrasts McBride). Cruise seems to be enjoying himself in the loudest and most obvious cliche (name me one benevolent studio head), which I was surprised to realize actually involved prosthetic hands, and it works out to a few decent jokes (I don't actually believe that a spinoff film would've been the best idea though, but you do you). As a whole, the gags work out pretty well for silly enjoyment over how much insecurity one can have with actors with a biting pace and tone that holds its own in all of the right ways. 15 years hasn't made the humor lessen in impact for those who are up for it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Strange Brew.

Review #2088: Strange Brew.

Cast: 

Dave Thomas (Doug McKenzie), Rick Moranis (Bob McKenzie), Max von Sydow (Brewmeister Smith), Lynne Griffin (Pam Elsinore), Angus MacInnes (Jean "Rosie" LeRose), Paul Dooley (Uncle Claude), Brian McConnachie (Ted), Mel Blanc (Father McKenzie), Tom Harvey (The Inspector), and Douglas Campbell (Henry Green) Directed by Dave Thomas and Rick Moranis.

Review: 

There is something fascinating about watching an adaptation of TV material into a feature film, if you think about it. But there is something really fascinating about watching a film based on material that was originally created as a mockery that initially was a two-minute sketch. No, really. In 1980, Second City Television (SCTV), a TV show with a handful of members of the Toronto Second City troupe, was making its return to television for its third season after a momentary hiatus that saw it broadcast nationwide in Canada on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (with select syndication in America). In light of the fact that the Canadian rendition of the series would be two minutes longer due to less commercial content than the American rendition, the CBC requested that those two minutes be allocated to Canadian content material." When SCTV cast members Dave Thomas and Rick Moranis heard this, they asked, "Well what do you want us to do, put up a map of Canada and sit in front of it wearing toques and parkas and cook back-bacon and 'Talk like dis, eh'?" The answer was essentially, yes. As related by Thomas, these sketches would be done at the end of a production day with a minimal crew of three to basically try and get a couple of two-minute stuff they could improvise out of a filming hour, which they called "all very low key and stupid". To get a gauge on the segments, one of them involved "Twist-off Tops". Oddly enough, the segments first gained popularity within the American edition first, particularly when NBC picked up the show for network airing on Fridays in 1981. The result of "Bob and Doug" resulted in a comedy album (The Great White North) and this film, which essentially served as their finale. Of course, the two have reprised the roles for a handful of commercials (such as one against beer taxes in 2023), a "Two-Four Anniversary", and a loose inspiration (yes, in moose form) in the Brother Bear films (2003, 2006). Such is the popularity of the two is that they have their own statue in Edmonton (where a good chunk of SCTV was filmed).

The success of the album, combined with seeing John Candy get an offer to do a film (Going Berserk) inspired them to think about doing a film, which saw them hire Steve De Jarnatt to do a first draft, complete with asking him to use Hamlet as a "sort of springboard". The result was a script that went from agents to a deal with MGM in a flash despite the fact that Thomas and Moranis felt was going to need tinkering from them to make it more of their own voice. Jack Grossberg gave the two guidance as executive producer when the duo was unexpectedly asked to direct the film as well as star and write it. As a whole, you can see the efforts done by the two to make a goofy feature that seems just about at home with other films of its ilk in sketch-turned-films such as the earlier The Blues Brothers (1980) or the subsequent Wayne's World (1992). As someone who went on a lark to pick this one out for a spotlight (for a film that happened to turn 40 last month), I can say it is a lovingly silly feature that makes the most of two goofball leads packed into a story wrapped in the amount of foliage you would expect to hold up a number of gags that come around. Of course, I have to admit my surprise that Hamlet was the loose thread to build around, if only because we are talking about a film that involves mind control beer, heroic flying dogs, and ghosts that possess electrical outlets. The 90-minute runtime sees a good deal of rambling and entertainment from Moranis and Thomas, who seem to squeeze any and every trick in the book of bits to mine together for chuckles, which manages to give them both time to shine without seeing a crack in the jovially dense characterizations that stick in your head in inane interest. Of course, it helps to have a game supporting cast, for which von Sydow and Dooley make dependable heavies to go along with the proceedings that seemingly reward those already quite familiar with their presence (the former was a surprise recruitment because Thomas and Moranis didn't actually think MGM could get him and the latter is Paul Dooley, what more do you need?). Griffin and MacInnes round out the general cast with good balance to accompany the bumblers with mostly straight-man routine (of note is among the rest of the cast is one scene spent with the famed voice actor Mel Blanc). At any rate, the film holds its own with a jovial pace that has two distinct halves, one involving the duo showing a poorly received film before they come up with "this mouse was in my beer bottle" and the other one involving them stumbling onto a brewery going into the world domination business (and yes, a dead uncle intervention) that results in a good deal of offbeat amusement. It is a casually enjoyable Canadian film through and through for all the folks (and hosers) at home. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

if....

Review #2087: If....

Cast: 

Malcolm McDowell (Michael Arnold "Mick" Travis), Richard Warwick (Wallace), Christine Noonan (The Girl), David Wood (Johnny Knightly), Rupert Webster (Bobby Philips), Robert Swann (Rowntree), Peter Jeffrey (Headmaster), Arthur Lowe (Mr. Kemp, Housemaster), Mona Washbourne (Matron), Ben Aris (John Thomas, Undermaster), Robin Askwith (Keating), Robin Davies (Machin), and Hugh Thomas (Denson) Directed by Lindsay Anderson (#1792 - This Sporting Life)

Review: 

Five years after The Sporting Life (1963), Lindsay Anderson followed up his feature debut (after a decade of documentary film work) with if...(1968). Well, actually, there was one other film in between with The White Bus (1967), a collaboration with playwright Shelagh Delaney that was meant to be part of a three-segment anthology film called "Red, White and Zero", but only Anderson's film had received release. At any rate, the film came about after years of development, since David Sherwin wrote the story with John Howlett by the early 1960s as shaped by their experiences at Tonbridge School in Kent. They had tried to approach filmmakers such as Seth Holt and Nicholas Ray to direct, but this did not come to pass; Anderson (a fellow with his own memories of boarding schools such as Cheltenham College) was introduced to Sherwin by Holt and the rest is history. Anderson has acknowledged Jean Vigo's French classic Zéro de conduite (1933) as an influence on the film, particularly with the climax. Malcolm McDowell made his debut as an actor in film with this one, but only because he was deleted from the final cut of Ken Loach's Poor Cow (1967). It just so happened that a couple of months into filming in 1968, Paris had a series of demonstrations from youths that led to civil unrest for a month. Anderson, McDowell, and Sherwin would do two further films together in a triad of films with "Mick Travis" in O Lucky Man! (1973, involving a coffee salesman-turned-star) and Britannia Hospital (1982, involving a critique of the National Health Service), although they aren't "sequels" in any sort of sense.

It never kills for a good satire about the education system, particularly ones of places filled with just boys and people that call themselves men. When taken literally beyond the mix of color and black-and-white images, it is easy to see how the film could have generated some controversy, particularly since it was given an X certificate by the British Board of Film Classification. Well, that and the idea that the only pure acts may very well involve "violence and revolution", which results in a fairly incendiary feature that relies on reputation more so than a definitive piece of great entertainment. It may be violent, but, well, only in its own time when not busy looking upon the differences that come with the terrors of hierarchies in boarding schools (no, not exactly Lord of the Flies, despite what impulse might think first). One supposes that life is a bit cloudy to see in the facets of color when it comes to viewing the absurdities that comes among the age groups with "school tradition" (well, actually the color changes related to the lighting of the school chapel before Anderson liked how it gave texture, but I think you get my inference). The distance between student and teacher seems pretty apparent when it comes to understanding who they are talking to in a changing environment of ravenous energy. It seems more of a casual stink bomb lobbed at the establishment rather than something with great fiery depth that just happens to be carried by an entertaining performance by its lead actor. McDowell has a conniving charisma to him that just draws one in, a figure of devilish delight. Incidentally, the performance done by McDowell led to Stanley Kubrick to cast him in A Clockwork Orange (1971), but the performance that he delivered in that ensuing film was helped by a phone call with Anderson that talked about an "ironic smile" he gave in the earlier film. He handles the crash of amusement that comes in a cast that handles carefully-cut satire with some ease, although for the life of the me the scene that best sticks in my head is probably, well, the climax involving the idea of terror that gets that one perceived blow of chaos through the illusion of order. As a whole, I wish I really liked the film for what it is rather than just considering what it meant at the time of filming, because really it is a pretty good second feature for Anderson, who seems to have loved and loathed British society all in one, which compares fairly (but not mostly) to his previous This Sporting Life. But, as a showing of the potential of its lead man in McDowell, it is one you can't really miss.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Satanic Hispanics.

Review #2086: Satanic Hispanics.

Cast: 

"The Traveler" segment: Efren Ramirez (The Traveler), Greg Grunberg (Detective Arden), and Sonya Eddy (Detective Gibbons) Directed by Mike Mendez. "También Lo Vi” segment: Demian Salomon (Gustavo) Directed by Demián Rugna. “El Vampiro” segment: Hemky Madera (El Vampiro) and Patricia Velasquez (Maribel) Directed by Eduardo Sánchez (#1294 - The Blair Witch Project). “Nahuales” segment: Ari Gallegos (De La Cruz) Directed by Gigi Saul Guerrero. “The Hammer of Zanzibar” segment: Jonah Ray (Malcolm), Jacob Vargas (El Jefe) and Morgana Ignis (King Zombie) Directed by Alejandro Brugues.

Review: 

Admittedly, the title gets your attention. Latino or not, I'm sure we all appreciate an attempt at giving you a bunch of stories for the price of one. The film was originally shown on the festival circuit in the fall of 2022, but it is only now that one can have a chance (if in certain areas, obviously) to see it in a theater, which I had the chance to do on a late Thursday night. There are three writers credited in Pete Barnstrom, Alejandro Mendez, and Lino K. Villa. Viewers that like to delve into even more films than the usual standard may recognize at least one of the five filmmakers present here, whether that involves the obvious one in Eduardo Sanchez (director of the original The Blair Witch Project), or perhaps Mike Mendez (with the aptly titled Big Ass Spider!) or Alejandro Brugues and his Cuban-Spanish zombie production Juan of the Dead (2010), Gigi Saul Guerrero (Bingo Hell) or with the Argentian Demián Rugna (Terrified). 

The first segment is really just the wraparound in between segments, unless you really want to consider the story beyond two bland detectives trying to pay attention to what an alleged immortal is telling them. The film is 105 minutes (credits included), but for the sake of my amusement, I elected to give you a minute count for each little segment. Technically, it is the longest segment, since it has its own climax (involving San La Muerte) and structure (swat team finding a guy cutting his hand leading to a detective meeting before eventually getting to who that figure is going after and you get it) that make it run about 30 minutes when you add it up, but I'll be damned if I can say anything positive about the parts around its title character. Ramirez actually is quite effective, ice cold in mystery that really does seem the type of person who has things beyond the usual comprehension that we humans have. Granted, it is communicated with a number of cliches, but he holds his ground. The same can't be said for his two counterparts (Grunberg and Eddy), who make the whole proceeding seem nearly pointless in even having a wraparound segment, as if Tales from the Crypt (1972) wasn't an ideal way to just do a wraparound segment to "tie it together". It depends on what you think should matter most in an anthology film, a wraparound trying to make a loose connection to the stories to come...or just having a bunch of stories and getting on with it. Any way you put it, "The Traveler" is okay but probably would've been just as fine in a trimmer form.

The second segment ("También Lo Vi") runs at 22 minutes. It involves a prodigy that likes to deal with Rubik's cubes in a really fast manner and (for whatever reason) dabble between Spanish and English within conversation. It ends up being framed as a semi-solid ghost story that plays the one setting it has (a haunted house) to the trimmings you would expect without skimping on those moments of gore (you can say it for the segments minus the Traveler, but hey). The ending is perhaps a bit convenient, but as the title goes, one really can see it too in wondering just what lies beneath puzzles and eyesight. The third segment (“El Vampiro”) runs at 19 minutes. Your milage may vary on the segment, since it is the goofiest of the four that Sanchez has stated was influenced in comedy by letting his star in Madera be himself. Those who find vampire comedies such as, say, Vampira (1974) or Love at First Bite (1979) to beyond their funny bone tastes will probably roll their eyes a bit. However, the jokes that come from a paunchy vampire trying to fiddle his way out of a city amused me with its campy energy, and Madera makes a solid presence of an old fool who finds that beneath all of the cheap thrill of blood is a thrill for being with the blood that has tied him for years. Eh, it isn't exactly the best segment for the horror kicks, but, well, it tickled my interest, so that works out.

 

The fourth segment ("Nahuales") runs at 19 minutes and is probably the most infused in folklore to go with its effects for the eventual climax. The effects stand out the best here in a snarling and violent feature involving spirit beings within ancient Mexican lore. As such, it asks just where the real monster lies beneath the surface. So yes, that is the segment that probably could linger in your head moreso than the others, although it is hard to say just which segment really fits the overall film title more than this one, but this one might have been the best one to fit its own film. The final segment (“The Hammer of Zanzibar”) runs for 19 minutes that deals with trying to deal with a demon after a mishap involving recordings and folks falling into the hand of death, with a mild performance from Ray. Admittedly, one can find it a bit odd that the middle of the segment finds time to spend on a cock-and-bull story about just what a "hammer of Zanzibar" really is that involves a joke that comes and goes and comes and goes and you get the idea. Eh, I do appreciate jokes run into the ground when it seems dumb enough to do so for bad taste, but I won't exactly make fun of someone who thinks of it as something to cringe at and not cringe with. At any rate, it is decently executed when it comes to the overall result, albeit with a lasting twist that perhaps isn't the best punchline possible (there is a line said right after the story ends that is funny, but if you have a hammer that looks like a certain shape, how could you not use said shape for the obvious joke?). As a whole, one will probably find something to appreciate within the attempt to play on Hispanic culture for a meaningful film for those who want something with roots that seem right at home. It is a mediocre anthology film in the manner that you can see in various other examples, one that has a few highs and no true low points to make a passable recommendation for those who linger inward at the sight of the title rather than smirking away. Whether you are the type to say Hispanic on a silly survey question or not (or be the odd man "Other"), this mixed bag of tales may or may not fit the bill in getting a start in the great fall season of spooks and scares. The best saying for the film is that you get "más y menos" of what you hope for at least one tolerable viewing experience.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Sorcerer.

Review #2085: Sorcerer.

Cast: 

Roy Scheider (Jackie Scanlon / Juan Dominguez), Bruno Cremer (Victor Manzon / Serrano), Francisco Rabal (Nilo), Amidou (Kassem / Martinez), Ramon Bieri (Corlette), Karl John (Marquez), Peter Capell (Lartigue), Anne-Marie Deschodt (Blanche), and Friedrich von Ledebur (Carlos) Produced and Directed by William Friedkin (#037 - The Exorcist, #1438 - The French Connection, #1477 - To Live and Die in L.A.)

Review: 

"It occurred to me at that time, this was in the middle ’70s, when America had just come through a national nervous breakdown, after the assassinations, the Vietnam war, and it seemed to me—I guess it’s always ever thus—that the world was full of strangers who hated one another, but if they didn’t cooperate, if they didn’t work together in some way, they would blow up. And this film seemed to me to be a metaphor for that idea, which I thought was a valid theme then, and now. I think it’s possibly worse now, with so many countries have weapons of mass destruction. And so, it was the theme that attracted me."

In 1950, French writer Georges Arnaud wrote Le Salaire de la peur. Three years later, it was adapted into The Wages of Fear by director Henri-Georges Clouzot, a multi-language production that starred Yves Montand (this is reflected with Sorcerer, which features subtitles for its non-English vignettes that start the film). After the release of The Exorcist in 1973, William Friedkin was thinking about what he should do next, and he came along with doing a new version of the Arnaud novel (i.e. not a remake), but he approached Clouzot by saying that he would "only use the basic premise and your theme" (which he felt was really a theme of brotherhood) while noting that he tried to get the older film re-released in theaters but no one bought on to it. He then asked Arnaud for the rights to the novel, which were accepted (after Arnaud noted that he actually didn't like Clouzot's film). Friedkin brought in Walon Green (most notably the writer of The Wild Bunch) to serve as writer; creating the outline together, the script by Green was done in a number of months. Believe it or not, the script was written for Steve McQueen. However, Friedkin balked at the idea of writing a role for McQueen's new wife Ali MacGraw (or even making her an associate producer rather than giving her a part) and filming it in America (as opposed to the primary location in the Dominican Republic). The failure of the film distressed Friedkin, which he later called "the only film I've made that I can still watch" while also musing that looking back, he would've probably done what he would have had to do to land McQueen for the lead role. While the film did have a bit of a video release, Friedkin sued Paramount and Universal, who had each claimed they didn't know who owned the film when he asked about it when the former had made a new print for a showing (they had formed a joint corporation to do the aforementioned film that folded long ago, as related by Friedkin in interviews such as this) when it came to wanting to restore a print that could be put on DVD and Blu-ray. Friedkin got his wish and served as one of the supervisors on a restored print (as financed by Warner Bros. with distinctly split distribution rights between Paramount, Warner, and Universal) that came out in 2014. His films afterwards were of varying quality that nevertheless were quite watchable, as evidenced by stuff such as Cruising (1980), To Live and Die in L.A. (1985), and Bug (2006); Friedkin died in August of 2023, just a month before the festival premiere of his last feature with The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (2023).

It is easy to see where the end of the line came for films like this came with its release on June 24, 1977...because of the film that came out just a month before (well, you may know it in Star Wars, and the irony is that Friedkin was handed the script when it was making the studio rounds of rejection and he had doubts about it being made). In the end, no one is just anything, and the sorcerer for this film is (as Friedkin put it) fate. It is undoubtedly a wonderful film in tension, filled with such rough and tumble characters that fits now more than ever with such gritty passion. It is captured with the feeling of a documentary, one that happens to have Tangerine Dream (a German electronic band) compose the music to worthwhile effect for a film that is more than just a trail through the jungle with nitroglycerin on the mind. These four people that we are entrusted to view in the prism of the jungle that they inhabit might as well serve as hell. Schneider seemingly reflects the ideas that Green wanted to show in a "desperately human" role, which namely involves a roughly-shaped face and voice that you believe could be your mirror image in the bounds of viewing hell itself. The other players in the games (an assassin, a Palestinian militant, a former banker, and an Irish mobster) that play in fate prove just as well interesting in serving as pawns to toil in the passages of wages and fear. Undoubtedly, the bridge sequence is the showstopper to focus on, not because it serves as the climax or anything, but because of how wonderfully executed and tense it is (the events of how the bridge sequence was staged, which included moving the bridge set piece to Mexico and weird production stories about getting the whole thing done in a matter of months can be found here). It is a sequence that lasts just a bit over ten minutes in an already grimy two-hour runtime but by God does it dominate your attention. If there was any sequence you had to show of the film to try and get someone to at least consider the film, showing even two minutes of it would be more than enough. The sequence right after it, involving a seemingly too tall tree and a good laugh makes for a solid second in the array of interesting sequences of human terror. By the time the film closes off its delirium, you have found a film that has justified its entire reason for being as one filled with edge and style about the dangers that can come with fractured brotherhood on a ticking clock that can fall prey to the whims of fate that reflects how they had set people to their own fate before they reached their reckoning in Columbia. One can only see and hear the ending for what it reflects in what fate means to those who have to endure the choices made (and not made) by oneself. Whether one has seen The Wages of Fear or not when it comes to adaptations of the novel, Sorcerer is a gem you have to experience for yourself with a deep breath and deep admiration for the craftsmanship that is readily apparent in a year that had plenty to go around.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

High Noon.

Review #2083: High Noon.

Cast: 

Gary Cooper (Marshal Will Kane), Thomas Mitchell (Mayor Jonas Henderson), Lloyd Bridges (Deputy Marshal Harvey Pell), Katy Jurado (Helen Ramírez), Grace Kelly (Amy Fowler Kane), Otto Kruger (Judge Percy Mettrick), Lon Chaney Jr (Martin Howe), Harry Morgan (Sam Fuller), Ian MacDonald (Frank Miller), Eve McVeagh (Mildred Fuller), Morgan Farley (Dr. Mahin), Harry Shannon (Cooper), Lee Van Cleef (Jack Colby), Robert J. Wilke (Jim Pierce), and Sheb Wooley (Ben Miller) Directed by Fred Zinnemann (#1377 - The Men)

Review: 

"Sheriffs are people and no two people are alike. The story of High Noon takes place in the Old West but it is really a story about a man's conflict of conscience. In this sense it is a cousin to A Man for All Seasons. In any event, respect for the Western hero has not been diminished by High Noon."

It is never a bad time for a Western, particularly ones with interesting stories beyond the camera. The film is based on the short story "The Tin Star", as seen in 1947 in Collier's magazine that was done by John W. Cunningham. Carl Foreman (the credited screenwriter of the film) claimed later that he had written an outline that apparently seemed similar to Cunningham's story, which led to him buying the rights to the story. However, Richard Fleischer claimed in his autobiography (written decades after the fact) that he had helped Foreman develop the story while they had been working together in The Clay Pigeon (1949). Anyway, let's talk about Foreman for a bit. He had studied at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign as a teenager, dropped out to seek out Hollywood, went back to Illinois to study at the John J. Marshall School of Law, and then dropped out of there to work a variety of jobs (writer, reporter, and even carnival barker) before eventually returning back to Hollywood by the late 1930s; during that time, he became a member of the Communist Party, which he left by the dawn of World War II, which saw him serve with the U.S. Army Signal Corps. Foreman had done his first writing in film with the 1941 film Bowery Blitzkrieg in an uncredited manner, but he got onto a more regular pattern of work with story/writing credits for Dakota (1945) and So This Is New York (1948) - the latter was the first Foreman made in association with Stanley Kramer (who he met when they both were serving in World War II). There would be a handful of films that Foreman made as a writer for Kramer's company, which included The Men (1950), as directed by Fred Zinnemann. At any rate, Foreman's career took a beating due to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAAC), who labeled him as an unfriendly witness after he admitted to being a party member but did not want to name names. He later called the film a parable against blacklisting, one that seems apt when considering that Kramer essentially shortchanged him when it came to having him sell his share in the company and even tried to get him booted off the production prior to the meeting with the HUAAC (because he feared he would be implicated by Foreman, assocation or not). Living mostly in London for the rest of his days, Foreman was given the cold shoulder from Hollywood for the rest of the 1950s that saw him either work on the side away from Hollywood or with modified credit that ranged from The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957); he also did a hand of producing in addition to writing for films such as Mackenna's Gold (1969); Foreman died in 1984 at the age of 69.

Fans of the Western know that Howard Hawks made Rio Bravo (1959) as a response to what he thought about this film that he felt didn't make much of a good Western, which naturally starred John Wayne (incidentally, he called High Noon "un-American", which is probably the silliest thing ever said by Wayne in the 1950s). Of course, Zinnemann years later responded by saying he wished Hawks would leave his films alone, so there's that. It seems only apt to have Cooper here, since the film that made him a key presence for bigger things in film was The Virginian (1929), which incidentally was a film that dealt with a man recently finding love in the West having to deal with the ramifications of an old foe coming into town for revenge in a shootout. The amusing point in all of this is that the two films are basically the same in quality anyways, ones that serve as being pretty good for what they are with distinct human qualities that make for a useful Western. The anguish and fear shown in its lead character (with credit going to Zinnemann and cinematographer Floyd Crosby) make a resounding effort to make a panicky piece of entertainment that makes a suitable morality tale that also is a sharp real-time thriller of conscience. In the end, a town may be a town, but it is nothing if there are no good people willing to stand side by side with folks in need of help, whether that involves men bound to their duty and honor or not. It is the kind of film that enforces the idea that beyond the one person bound to serve and protect folks sees them exposed for who they are (cowardice, resentment, jealousy, or bad timing) when the cards are down, which isn't always the easiest thing to confront when seeing human nature that leads to a man needing to make a decision (in Zinnemann's words) "according to his conscience." Cooper makes the ideal lead to make this grand quandary worth watching, which works pretty well when presented with a collection of various recognizable presences that make the lineup of human frailty (well, aside from the Quaker and an assertive presence of who stands by their man most) that even overshadow the outlaws (a quartet led by MacDonald), which somehow seems right. Kelly makes a decent pacifist in the middle, but really the most suitable presence to counter Cooper in pursuit is Bridges or Jurado, who each show the side of just what past loyalties mean when it comes to pride. The climax proves worthwhile in showing the chase of just how much pride and devotion mean when staring at a frontier where guns are in the picture rather than the idea of safety. As such, High Noon is a worthwhile effort in showing the nature of man and pride in a story that is distinct from the general Western tales and myths that arise from gunslingers and towns of man and dirt. Analyze all you want about just where the best Western lies, but this one is a pretty good one to go along with no matter where you encounter it in your travels.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem.

Review #2083: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem.

Cast: 

Micah Abbey (Donatello), Shamon Brown Jr (Michelangelo), Nicolas Cantu (Leonardo), Brady Noon (Raphael), Ayo Edebiri (April O'Neil), Jackie Chan (Splinter), Ice Cube (Superfly), Maya Rudolph (Cynthia Utrom), John Cena (Rocksteady), Seth Rogen (Bebop), Rose Byrne (Leatherhead), Natasia Demetriou (Wingnut), Giancarlo Esposito (Baxter Stockman), and Paul Rudd (Mondo Gecko) Directed by Jeff Rowe and Kyler Spears.

Review: 

“The first tentpole we planted in the ground was authenticity. We wanted it to be a real coming-of-age teenage movie. Past versions of the Turtles have been muscular and ripped, and few teenagers are as jacked as many of the Ninja Turtles have been. They need to look like real teens. Lanky. Awkward. Maybe not comfortable in their bodies yet.”

Admittedly, my familiarity with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is pretty limited in the art of actually watching it. I vaguely remember viewing the two first live-action films in 2011 and 2013 and that is essentially it. As you may already know, it all started as a comic created by Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird in 1983 with the original idea of doing a one-off parody of comics of the time, which happened to involve teenage mutants, animals that talk, and, well, ninjas; they self-published the comic, to shocking success. There have been a handful of television shows (yes, one for pretty much each decade of adolescent) and now seven feature films. Interestingly enough, this is only the second animated film, with the only other one being TMNT (2007), which also featured a handful of name actors in supporting roles...but this is the first one of any of these to feature a primary cast of teenage actors for the lead four characters. The film had five credited writers: Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg, Jeff Rowe, Dan Hernandez, and Benji Samit (of note is that while each did the screenplay, the latter of the five was not responsible for the story); it is Rowe who has noted that the script required a good deal of re-working when it came to the structure of the main characters being in high school at a certain point. You may or may not recognize Rowe as the co-director behind The Mitchells vs. the Machines (2021), having previously done work on Gravity Falls and Disenchantment; as for Spears, this is his feature directorial debut. The inspiration for the film was multi-layered, with the evident one being to find their "North Star comic book look" (as described about what made Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) so successful), which led to plenty of inspiration from sketches that one would make as a teen that led to a result involving fiddling with the frame rate and other ideas that were meant to look like it was done on purpose. 

Perhaps there is no better reference material to show clips of Internet videos about martial arts training to go alongside clips of Jackie Chan kung fu films. Admittedly, coming-of-age stories are a dime a dozen, but it never hurts to have one that tries to cut a message involving acceptance that makes for a solid film for those who know exactly what to look for within entertaining animation and a few decent jokes and action sequences. I appreciate the heart the film has, one that manages to show an interesting quartet of youths that will likely please people already quite familiar with turtles in a half shell while also seeming interesting enough for those less familiar (ones who aren't "green with envy", you might say). The credit for the film can go to the filmmakers first or second, but the fact that the leads (Abbey-Brown-Cantu-Noon) make fun with improv and charm as raw youths (who want to be high schoolers, go figure) that makes me chortle rather than bristle, but I suppose one has their own varying milage when it comes to cliche patience. Besides, they make a good grouping with Chan, who basically reflects with Cube when it comes to the presentation of "our makeshift family vs. the world", and on that note, Cube makes a solid threat in hardened scorn that isn't just a goofy threat (well, Superfly is only a name). The rest of the cast is generally fine in not being just a noted goofy voice, as noted by folks such as Edebiri that keep the film on the level (for all I ragged Rogen on for The Super Mario Bros Movie, he is fine here). The action is done with clear energy that doesn't lose itself in murky staging, and the city landscape sure does look pretty well here, particularly when it comes to the final fight with its big freaky monster (involving horses). 100 minutes is a desirable length to spend with a serviceably executed film that plays it well with maintaining something to care about in youthful folks to go in a familiar story that is high energy silly fun. It's the kind of thing to switch on for those looking for a bit of mayhem with neat animation that will make ideas of seeking further adventures seem like a shell of a good time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.