Signs.

Review #2164: Signs.

Cast: 

Mel Gibson (Father Graham Hess), Joaquin Phoenix (Merrill Hess), Rory Culkin (Morgan Hess), Abigail Breslin (Bo Hess), Cherry Jones (Caroline Paski), M. Night Shyamalan (Ray Reddy), Patricia Kalember (Colleen Hess), Ted Sutton (SFC Cunningham), Merritt Wever (Tracey Abernathy), Lanny Flaherty (Carl Nathan), Marion McCorry (Mrs. Nathan), and Michael Showalter (Lionel Prichard) Written and Directed by M. Night Shyamalan (#039 - The Sixth Sense, #902 - Split, #1183 - Unbreakable, #1184 - Glass)

Review: 

 “I want to make a movie that is just joyous, and doesn’t have that lens of burden on it.” It can have a lot of conflict in it, but the voice, the angle, I wanted it to be inspired and childlike, almost. And so Signs was born that way."

It is interesting to see what one does as a director when their breakthrough film comes right as they are about to turn 30. The Sixth Sense (1999) was that particular moment for M. Night Shyamalan, who had made dozens of home movies before studying at New York University Tisch School of the Arts, with his first feature being a festival circuit favorite in Praying with Anger (1992). His second effort (director and writer) in Wide Awake (1998) didn't even get a big theatrical release. And yet, Sense became that kind of "oh" film, and Shyamalan had written the spec script for what became Unbreakable (2000) during post production. The film (an origin story for a hero that got marketed as a thriller) was another hit with audiences, and it may actually be more appreciated in the years that have followed since its release. It was in the aftermath of that film and its release (which he called a "very burdened movie") that he apparently got the idea to make a film distinct from what he had just made, which ended up combining two ideas he had: a crop circle found in the backyard and an end-of-the-world premised from the perspective of the house (like a certain Living Dead). The film was a general hit with audiences in that cycle of Shyamalan features with audience interest that was followed by The Village (2004).

Well, for a film called "signs", it probably should have dawned on me how the film was going to go as a whole. Honestly, it seems more of a film relying on the idea of faith and sentimentality rather than being lumped into the genres of sci-fi or horror, as if one was watching a more subdued version of The Birds (1963). In short, it is that scene in a sofa discussing the nature of miracles and what may or may not be watching us that makes the film what it is moreso than the curiosity of what lies beneath a bunch of crop circles. One is there paying attention to sounds that may or may not be there to go with the more evident family drama that comes in wavering faith. The film is best seen with as little to know about it as one can, particularly because its climax is more realization than anything, which ultimately does call to the idea of purpose even in turmoil. The kinship mostly comes through for 106 minutes in the way you might see from a end-result cheery film, or at least one that likes to dwell in close shots of people in faces. Gibson reflects that with a weary outlook of one who wants to believe but has found only people still seeing him in a different light (amusingly, Gibson was third in mind after Clint Eastwood couldn't do it and Paul Newman declined before the role was aged down). The perceptions one might have on the character might reflect on the perceptions of Gibson the actor (of the time), oddly enough. Where else do you get a film where he plays a scene of being told to swear and sound crazy for intruders outside in the most...uh...ex-reverend way possible? It must be my imagination, but Phoenix (cast due to Mark Ruffalo dropping out for surgery) being the on-screen brother of Gibson seems more surprising than anything in the film, and he does well in the growing imagination of being seeped into the buzz about circles and creatures. That one scene in particular where he is in the closet looking intently for what may be lurking in the sight of the media is probably the one standout scene. Breslin and Culkin make for fine segments to the international of the things around them (real or imagined) one sees as a kid. Ones might see terrible creatures of fear (at least, some do, if you go with tinfoil), or maybe they see explorers, or whatever. It was 2002, so think of it with a few less phones around to record beside the ones used for tapes (as per that very brief discussion of what to tape over when it comes to taping discussion of history). When it comes to the climax, I'm alright with it, in the sense that the structure to get there is better off than the one sticking effect in it. It might have served with either more vague notions of what might be out there or just a better executed look, but it works out more for the revelation of signs mattering rather than a big payoff. Facing the doubts and tribulations matter more when you have that idea spark in your head whether by sign or not. It doesn't beat you too over the head in sentiment, merely coating things over. As a whole, the movie is fine, one that is generally effective in a majority of the down-to-earth surroundings for a useful thriller with an edge towards hope among circumstance and signs that work for a solid feature of its time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Ah yes, the end of 2023. A good deal of productive reviews (original and reduxes) were done in this year, the 13th for Movie Night. We had a variety of new faces to see in directors that will surely be repeated in 2024, because New Directors Month looms in January. October had seen a record amount of productive reviews to go with a historic streak in July that made this year one the most productive in the last ten years. We'll see what happens with the months ahead in terms of looking for films to write home about. See you in 2024.

The Adventures of Ford Fairlane.

Review #2163: The Adventures of Ford Fairlane.

Cast: 

Andrew Dice Clay (Ford Fairlane), Wayne Newton (Julian Grendel), Priscilla Presley (Colleen Sutton), Lauren Holly (Jazz), Brandon Call (The Kid), Maddie Corman (Zuzu Petals), David Patrick Kelly (Sam the Sleaze Bag), Morris Day (Don Cleveland), Robert Englund (Smiley), Ed O'Neill (Lt. Amos), Gilbert Gottfried (Johnny Crunch), and Vince Neil (Bobby Black) Directed by Renny Harlin (#016 - Die Hard 2, #670 - Cliffhanger, #745 - A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master)

Review: 

"I just really commit to what I do as a performer. It's not about being misunderstood, I think my career took off at a time when the world was changing a lot. Women were really fighting for their rights, gays were coming out of the closet, so I was like a lightning rod for every group looking for publicity. And that's what really caused a lot of craziness in my life." - Andrew Dice Clay

Oh hell, I knew this was coming. When it comes to hearing about films with dubious reputations, one of the films that popped up every so often was this one, and perhaps for good reason. This was the first and perhaps only starring role for the one and only Andrew Dice Clay. Clay (who used his middle name for his stage name as opposed to "Silverstein") was born in Brooklyn and found a talent in entertaining from a young age.  He was actually a drummer when it came to entertaining as a teen before deciding to become a comedian, which saw him cite people such as Elvis Presley and Sylvester Stallone as influences. He went from impressions to a moniker known as, well, the "Diceman". This persona was known for his brash and raunchy sense of self (such as say, a performance at Rodney Dangerfield's club) that garnered attention and controversy. Raunchy nursery rhymes got him banned from MTV, for example. He did a handful of films and television during this time, most notably with supporting roles in Casual Sex? (1988) and Crime Story. Eventually he got his own HBO special, and it led to his own film here, which came in the wake of selling out Madison Square Garden in back-to-back nights. The film was based on characters as created by Rex Weiner, who had written a handful of stories published in serial form for New York Rocker and the LA Weekly. David Arnott, James Cappe, and Daniel Waters (remember Heathers? Or Hudson Hawk, which I should get back to someday...?) helped to write the film (evidently an early script exists here). Amidst all the fanfare and whatever you want to call controversy, the film was not a major hit with audiences. One year later, the concert film Dice Lives was released to little fanfare that comes from a NC-17 rating and a decision by Fox to not distribute the film because of their attempts to try and position Clay away from that aforementioned Diceman persona. He may never have become a big film presence, but Clay still plugs away at the comedy routine (older stuff had, well, nursery rhymes) with occasional appearances in film (A Star is Born (2018), for example). This film was directed by Renny Harlin, who was pretty busy as a director, because this film came out exactly one week after the release of his other effort for Fox in Die Hard 2, which apparently happened because Fox pushed the release date back (according to Waters, it was supposed to come out in May of 1990, as opposed to July, "to build Dice awareness…big mistake!" There probably is even more for one to discover about the film as a curiosity in the audio sense).

Do you yearn to know what lies beneath a film that name drops Art Mooney for a plot point to go with Clay narrating every now and then straight out of a silly noir and a koala puppet for some reason?  There is something there in this strange hodgepodge of a performance from Clay. Sure, the chunk of that is filled with obscenities, but I think it actually works out in his favor with such a loopy film that favors every tawdry cliche in the book. It is kind of amusing to watch this goof play around with clubs and chicks like they were clothes off the rack with a "playing hard to want" confidence. Outdated? Maybe, but it is that kind of outdatedness that seems strangely in-date when it comes to loud blowhards and even louder sense of self that reminds one of Elvis in the weirdest of ways (is it a coincidence that there is a Presley cast in the film?). His crudeness and reaction to some of his own one-liners amuse me in that weird way, what can I say? If anything, it should be even more over-the-top just to bash it over your head. Listening to a selection of material of Clay makes me realize that, well, some people really do just not know what "schtick" is (sure, there are things offensive to not let stick in conversation or in society, so good luck enforcing that beyond "mean words"). Shocking folks can't stay fresh forever, but good ol' ridiculous ideas in trying to make certain folks work as stars can never die out, you might say. Holly plays the "under-looked assistant presence" that you've seen in a few detective schlock, but she is game for the whole thing in patience (to a point), so that works out. Same with Corman in goofball antics. You know, I'm actually not surprised to see Newton as the main threat, because he was actually pretty conniving in License to Kill (1989). There is some sort of hokum with the ranging plot about "the industry", but it is serviceable as a counter to Clay in the idea of silly dumb noirs, particularly since he basically stumbles and fumbles around more than anything. Gottfried is actually under-utilized here, which is amusing in context because Howard Stern was considered for this small role, and I can say that Gottfried's ribbing of Clay is desperately needed more in the film, particularly since his final scene is him acting out getting electrocuted. I think any film that gives O'Neill and Englund time to be silly (one gets to sing terribly and the other gets to be goofily creepy) is at least worth spending a few brain cells with - I play favorites, what can I say? As a whole, the movie isn't exactly the kind of thing you can hang as the great underrated classic or something that needed a boatload of sequels, but I would at least say the quality was better than one would have you to believe, particularly for those with the patience to sit through a grab-bag of corny lines and cliches. It is a vanity project that is a lightning rod for people who didn't like who Clay was as a comedian or found something odd in the idea of trying to make him a presence in films. Three decades later, in a climate filled with even more attempts at vanity projects and varying levels of schtick from comedians (real or imagined), I would say this is at the very least a decent one to check out. Maybe not "cult classic", but "fine" works out just the same.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Dead Pool.

Review #2162: The Dead Pool.

Cast: 

Clint Eastwood (Inspector Harry Callahan), Patricia Clarkson (Samantha Walker), Liam Neeson (Peter Swan), Evan C. Kim (Inspector Al Quan), David Hunt (Harlan Rook), Michael Currie (Captain Donnelly), Michael Goodwin (Lieutenant Ackerman), Jim Carrey (Johnny Squares), Anthony Charnota (Lou Janero), and Ronnie Claire Edwards (Molly Fisher) Directed by Buddy Van Horn.

Review: 

Sure, there might be something to say about how the Dirty Harry series managed to end at probably the right time. This was the fifth and final film with Eastwood in the series as originally devised in the previous decade of the 1970s by Harry Julian Fink and R.M. Fink. Say what you will about how the film is in some sort of manner of "politics", the film was a popular one of its time and of now because, well, people do go to watch handily crafted films of action and suspense done right. Magnum Force (1973), The Enforcer (1976) and Sudden Impact (1983) were all adequate sequels to the original, even if they had their varying qualities of definition that ranged to a middling climatic punch to headline-drawing confrontations with smart remarks or heightened contrasts in the pursuit of "justice". I'm just more surprised I didn't turn cynical with any of the sequels, but it probably has something to do with the slap-bang touch that comes with that passiveness of Eastwood as the one constant, because even the directors aren't the same through and through. This was the second of three films directed by Buddy Van Horn, who had served as a second unit director on Magnum Force (1973) and had directed Eastwood in Any Which Way You Can (1980) among other various things; Van Horn's third and final effort was with Eastwood in Pink Cadillac (1989), the action-comedy flop. The screenplay (written entirely by people who never wrote a film again) was done by Steve Sharon while the story was done by Sharon, Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw. The latter two had served as scientific advisors on Eastwood's Firefox (1982) and consultants on Brainstorm (1983) but are perhaps best known for their book on life extension and smart drug movements in Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach.

It probably is a bit tough to seek out a ranking of where the sequel films lie when compared to each other, but one can at least say this one was decent enough for Eastwood to not think about going for another one. You have time to dwell on Guns N' Roses appearing in music and literal form to go with toy car bombs, a young Neeson and Carrey (one going around saying "luv" for dialogue at time and it isn't the comedian saying it) and you get the idea. Getting to 58 and still seeming at home with quips and general dry ways of handling the material is not a bad place to be if you are Clint Eastwood. It wouldn't be his last one of the action genre or the buddy stuff, because he would do variations on it with films such as The Rookie two years later. And yet, well, he is still the professional you usually see in his films (directed or what have you), which is that particular type of dryness that cares about the facts over fluff of the moment. Clarkson does fine in the rapport of media with cops that at least isn't too much of patronizing schtick. Not to spoil anything, but one really might be disappointed in just who the villain is when it comes to presence, but this isn't that new when talking about Dirty Harry sequels, but at least the climax gives some useful cat-and-mouse trickery. I sure could have had more Neeson when it comes to trying to deal in spectacle and obsession in scuzzyness. I suppose seeing nuts that want to be on television or take down folks in delusion sounds about right. The chase sequence involving little dialogue and one particular idea of dealing with explosives does the job without becoming silly. Granted, the film doesn't exactly have the best way of handling its threat to our hero, particularly with a runtime of just 91 minutes, but it all still comes together. The people that dig films like this when it comes to fun slam-bang films (with some sort of message this time around involving the media doing things like you'd see coming from the media) will be fine here while the ones who probably weren't too big on Eastwood as a whole know exactly what they have to pick at here with an inferior sequel that might make them think they are watching A View to a Kill (okay, Eastwood and Moore were each near 60 and each film is set in the Bay Area...). In a sea of decent Dirty Harry sequels, you can't go wrong with any of them as acceptable films for a look around procedure and what can be bent in the idea of justice when it comes to the cloying hands of bureaucracy and eyes all around. As such, The Dead Pool is totally fine for entertainment.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: A Christmas Story.

Redux #020: A Christmas Story.

Cast: 

Peter Billingsley (Ralphie Parker), Jean Shepherd (Narrator), Ian Petrella (Randy Parker), Melinda Dillon (Mrs. Parker), Darren McGavin (Mr. Parker - The Old Man), Scott Schwartz (Flick), R. D. Robb (Schwartz), Zack Ward (Scut Farkus), Yano Anaya (Grover Dill), and Tedde Moore (Miss Shields) Directed by Bob Clark.

Review: 

From my review on December 25, 2010: 

This film, is a classic. it's a film that has decent acting (albeit with some overacting at points), a story that has many themes to go with it that connect into one (with some...fantasies by Ralphie) It's funny, but it can also be serious. It's a timeless classic that was once overlooked back in 1983, but it is now considered to be a classic in the Christmas spirit. Merry Christmas, and I hope you watch this film at least once this year, if not twice (as it's on a marathon right now...).

If you have not encountered this film on cable television or on the video shelves, it would be quite a curious achievement for a film that has grown in stature since its release in November of 1983, which is now forty years old. The making of the film was a long and lengthy process that really should start with Jean Shepherd and his unique place among the art of telling a narrative to others. Born in Chicago but raised in Hammond, Indiana, Shepherd had served in the U.S. Army Signal Corps during the second World War before getting into radio that saw him move around various places such as Indiana and Ohio (there was also an attempt at late night television) before his most noted run came at WOR in the New York area, where he broadcasted for over two decades beginning in 1956. Somehow, with a timeslot of 1:00-5:30am, it all came together for those monologues (as opposed to playing music records). Probably his most notable stunt came with I, Libertine, a practical joke novel born in 1956 out of making fun of how bestseller lists were done (where people would just go to libraries and ask for it, complete with listing a publisher and a fake author name), which became such a noted phenomenon that an actual book was created (written by Theodore Sturgeon based on an outline by Shepherd). Shepherd kept busy even when not on radio all the time, whether that involved segment work, commentaries on other radio outlets / in magazine form / the college circuit, or, well, script work in television and this film. In 1966, Shepherd's novel In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash was published, which came about after Shel Silverstein had encouraged him to put his musings from tape into book form, which saw him help Shepherd with editing and developing. His musings were loosely inspired by experiences that aren't exactly autobiographical but are, well, ones that might seem real to you or me in the ways that matter - it was a hit book. A couple of Shepherd works had reached television (with him as narrator) before and after the release of this film, such as The Great American Fourth of July and Other Disasters (1982) for TV. Shepherd apparently envisioned the film as "Dickens’s Christmas Carol as retold by Scrooge.” Shepherd, along with his wife Leigh Brown, wrote the film with Clark. The Louisiana native grew up in Alabama and Florida and had dabbled in philosophy and football before entering film in horror, such as with Black Christmas (1974). He had an interest in making a film of Shepherd's stories, but he couldn't get funding from MGM until the success of Porky's (1981). The film was done in Toronto for interiors and Cleveland for exteriors, but in that manner of low-budget films having to improvise, a lack of snow meant a variety of tricks used for snow, such as foam. You could watch the film in any one scene and feel right at home, whether that involves the reveal of that primal instinct coming out in going from tears to drawing blood in a fight or those imagined sequences of being a gunfighter or being blind from soap that isn't too different from the delusions one can find as an adult when it comes to assurances. 

The mundane things that make us who we are really do come into account for this film, one that runs for an efficient 94 minutes. Sure, it has the softening of nostalgia (as per Clark to the chagrin of Shepherd), but at the end of the day, we are weird little people every day of the year with our own little things to get hung up on, and such weirdness can be really funny to look at again and again. It was a modest success with audiences of the time, don't forget that part. But why do people like me come back to this film every now and then?  Shepherd once put it best: “Ah, life is like that. Sometimes at the height of our revelries, when our joy is at its zenith, when all is most right with the world, the most unthinkable disasters descend upon us.” One can be playing with their present and boom, something comes up to remind us that things will come and go the way you cannot control, holiday or not. Billingsley proves more than just a vessel for Shepherd to narrate the observations of memories past with his worthwhile timing that make for useful delight. It is a film for the kids and adults because it doesn't dawdle on BS'ing you about where things stand. There are no weak elements to the kid actors because they seep right into the story with no pretensions of being anything other than who they are: vessels to show us the weirdness of growing up in the pains and very few pleasures. Dillon and McGavin hold the film as the paragon of lovingly human people that hold it all together in that great connection of showing family in the clearest sense of making it work in spite of itself. Probably the best way to show that is in that fateful reveal of the last Christmas present where you see the faces of the two as Billingsley opens it (notice that through the previous parts of the film, McGavin's character never talks to Billingsley about a "Red Ryder BB Gun"). The film may seem like one all about the pursuit of an object, but really it is about who we are when it comes to the basic elements deep inside us, whether the calendar says December 25 or not. We lash out in those certain moments, we imagine others as witches or people to liberate with our perspective (hey, saving people with a "BB gun" or writing a theme isn't that too different), we try to do our job until we can start getting the shoes ready to head out, you get the picture. The film may be set in that time of the 1940s, but those desires and impulses are timeless and Clark knows what he can show in a film that doesn't stoop awkwardly in its perspectives. There are no dull moments shown here, and it is that tinge of bittersweet nostalgia that makes it all count in spite of whatever Shepherd may have thought of the whole thing. We connect with the material because there is a chunk of it in us more than we think it is. The films of the old in Christmas-flavoring like Miracle on 34th Street (1947) did their thing in holiday magic of belief, but this is a representation of holiday homespun honesty in the ideal way.

It was at the turn of the 1980s that Shepherd thought to drive an idea for a follow-up to this film. Perhaps it only made sense that he called it purely an exercise to try and make money, since he saw the following that was growing with rerun showings (i.e., royalties), which apparently saw a bunch of showings around the Thanksgiving season rather than just on Christmas Eve (1997 was when the whole tradition of Turner Broadcasting running it for 24 hours straight started, incidentally). My Summer Story (formerly referred to as It Runs in the Family) (1994) retained Clark as director and Shepherd as narrator, which is amusing considering that the two hadn't got along in the first film because of the incessant suggestions that Shepherd tried to give on set that led to Clark not allowing him to be there at all. The second Story film came and promptly died in little-run theaters. A Christmas Story Christmas, a film with a handful of returning cast members, was released in 2022 to a streaming service (gag). At any rate, the enduring element of the film that became more than just a low-budget sleeper is the everyday aspect that makes us chuckle in the holiday sense of the word. The item that one desires and the ways we toil in that wish (child or adult) is amusing when you really look at things, and it only makes sense that it has endured for generations as one to blare from the rooftops again and again. The inflections of mundane life and the odd nature of trying to look back at such things in life make for a great contradiction in the grand scheme of things that make an enduring winner that could only come from Clark and Shepherd in the best of ways.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Die Hard.

Review #014: Die Hard.

Cast: 

Bruce Willis (John McClane), Alan Rickman (Hans Gruber), Alexander Godunov (Karl), Bonnie Bedelia (Holly Gennaro-McClane), Reginald VelJohnson (Al Powell), Paul Gleason (Dwayne T. Robinson), De'voreaux White (Argyle), William Atherton (Richard Thornburg), Clarence Gilyard (Theo), Hart Bochner (Harry Ellis), and James Shigeta (Joseph Takagi) Directed by John McTiernan.

Review: 

From my review on December 22, 2010: 

This film brings exuberant joy and all the fun and bang in a 2-hour action packed film set on Christmas Eve. The acting is alright considering this an action film an all, with fine action and some decent suspense. Willis is the standout with a decent performance that would jump-start his career. This film would begin a franchise, which I will attempt to cover soon.

It's one of the best action films ever made. How much is there to say about Die Hard in the 35 years that have passed since its release? How many times can one watch the film and find new ways and things to examine? Well, you would be surprised. I actually can't believe I only thought the film was just a 9/10 as a teenager, particularly since it was one of those films that endure in the memory for quite some time. Probably one thing that didn't come to mind the first time I saw it is that it was actually based on a 1979 novel called Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp (a writer who also dabbled in a detective agency in his youth). The author had written the book as a follow-up to his previous procedural novel in The Detective, with this being inspired by a dream he had about men chasing each other through a building...after he had saw the 1974 film The Towering Inferno. I'm sure you can see those similarities and differences pop up: an aging ex-NYPD detective is being chased by terrorists (led by a man named "Tony the Red" Gruber) and tries to save his daughter (a Ms. Gennaro) through stunts such as crawling through ducts while LAPD cops can only listen to him on the radio (the book is told all in POV of the detective). Jeb Stuart was tasked to write a screenplay with that in mind (as proposed to him by Lloyd Levin, who had been trying to get development done for it at 20th Century Fox), which would be pitched as "Rambo in a building". Of course, for Stuart, the real big thing to making it a useful screenplay was as he put it, "about a thirty-year-old who should have said he’s sorry to his wife and something really bad happens.” Written with undertones of thriller and the Western genres, Fox went right in with this for a target of Summer 1988, although Steven E. de Souza was tasked with doing a few re-writes as an experienced writer of blending action and comedy. de Souza (a Philadelphia native) went from story editing in television to producing TV to film writing with stuff such as Arnold's Wrecking Co. (1973), 48 Hrs. (1982), and Commando (1985). Lawrence Gordon and Joel Silver produced the film and had such a good time with John McTiernan when he did Predator (1987) for them that he was brought in to direct this film, provided that he put "some joy in it". It was the third theatrical film for the director and a hit that he returned to for the third film of what became a franchise: Die Hard 2 (1990), Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995), Live Free or Die Hard (2007), and A Good Day to Die Hard (2013).

Everywhere you look and listen with this film is a success on every level, particularly for its genre. 132 minutes never has seemed so swift for a fun thriller that is so crisp in its execution that it could be watched on any day of the year. You could just make a list of people to give credit for it being a success that would seem like a laundry list that goes from McTiernan to the cinematographer in Jan de Bont (himself a future action director) to music cues from Michael Kamen (who initially resisted the idea of McTiernan to have Beethoven's Symphony No. 9) to Stuart & de Souza to a well-rounded cast from top to bottom that grows upon every viewing. Willis (born in West Germany but raised in New Jersey) had exactly two film credits: Blind Date (1987) and Sunset (1988) to go with his most prominent role as an actor at that time in the TV show Moonlighting, which had run from 1985 to early 1989 (the production of the film and the last episodes of the show were an ordeal to film back-to-back for Willis, obviously). The laundry list of people who rejected the lead role before Willis could make its own comedy: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Burt Reynolds, Al Pacino, etc, etc. Willis is basically playing a Western hero that would be right at home for those who like High Noon (1952), complete with that interesting sense of vulnerability that comes through in all of the obscenities and observations. He does kick ass, but he is also one man left to dig out of the mud, and this makes for a compelling action thriller. If it was only him, the film would be pretty good, but having Rickman there to counter Willis with his composed nature of cutting charm and style is the best thing imaginable. He was a Tony Award-nominated actor in his forties that had to get over his doubts of having this serve as his debut into film. Can you think of a better background to go with a film debut like this? I sure can't think of many. He walks through the film with such sharp timing and dress sense (standing out from the others, which includes a former ballet dancer-turned-actor in Godunov) that can even make a solid attempt at an American accent. The highlight scene is a tough one to nail down, because he maneuvers the thriller angle with no sense of drying away from what could've just been nailed-down cliches from lesser actors so well. I think the scene where he is listing "demands" involving freeing a bunch of prisoners as if he was reading them off a magazine that he happened to glance at is probably him at his peak in terms of commanding presence and illusion without turning it into just a routine. Sure, there are plenty of action films to enjoy when it comes to the routines of slam-bang things or choice phrases, but one cherishes those character-driven ones so much more when you really do care about how it all goes down in stakes and in execution. With such time spent to praise Willis and Rickman, it might be easy to say they dominate over the other cast members. But they prove just as special in support when it comes to that specific nature of balance with Willis (and because of the nature of filming and in general when it comes to the rewrites). VelJohnson and Gleason make watching the terror down below matter in perspective when it comes to doubts and fears. One needs those vocal interactions between VelJohnson and Willis to accentuate the struggle that comes in "one vs. the world" to make it all matter just as much as seeing Bedelia react to the dread building around her or a blowhard in relief with the immeasurable Gleason and Atherton. Simply put: you might be able to assemble an entertaining film of some kind even if you split the cast in two. Like an inferno, it burns to a fever pitch that can't be extinguished easily or copied so easily. The irony of a pitch of "Rambo in a building" for this film is that its success would see other films being likened as "Die Hard on a [X]" when it came to an everyman dealing with terror on say, a bus or a battleship. In the end, this is a wonderful film for the season of anytime because it is timeless and effective on every level required, from its lead actors to its director to its sense of scale and sense of timing that makes you remember why you find the need to go back to it every now and then as you would expect from a classic.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

Godzilla (1998).

Review #2161: Godzilla. 

Cast: 

Matthew Broderick (Dr. Niko "Nick" Tatopoulos), Jean Reno (Philippe Roaché), Maria Pitillo (Audrey Timmonds), Hank Azaria (Victor "Animal" Palotti), Kevin Dunn (Colonel Hicks), Michael Lerner (Mayor Ebert), Harry Shearer (Charles Caiman), Arabella Field (Lucy Palotti), Vicki Lewis (Dr. Elsie Chapman), Lorry Goldman (Gene), Doug Savant (Sergeant O'Neal), Malcolm Danare (Dr. Mendel Craven), Ralph Manza (Fisherman Joe), and Glenn Morshower (Kyle Terrington) Directed by Roland Emmerich (#193 - Independence Day and #413 - The Patriot)

Review: 

"I’m totally proud of Godzilla. I’m always saying this, I mean I know there’s a lot of naysayers, but I’m proud of it. I’m not really a fanboy, so I was changing Godzilla. It was also, probably, a situation that I was a little bit talked into it.”

Why should I be surprised? Actually, this is one time where I'm glad I was born in 1996, because I really don't want to know how the hype would have been if I was at least ten years old for the release of this film, which is now 25 years old. This is the kind of movie that had a whole promo campaign all about "Size Does Matter". The idea for an American Godzilla wasn't too farfetched. There had been dubs released in theaters, if you recall: the original 1954 film got turned into Godzilla, King of the Monsters! (1956), the 1955 sequel got turned into Gigantis, the Fire Monster (1959), oh, Invasion of Astro-Monster (1965) was co-produced by Toho and UPA, and The Return of Godzilla (1984) got turned into Godzilla 1985. Plans to make a feature film started bubbling in 1992, when TriStar announced they acquired the rights to the character from Toho to make a trilogy of films. Jan de Bont was considered to direct by 1994 for a 1996 release, and he apparently had something in mind involving Atlanteans, a "Gryphon", and a creature designed by Stan Winston. Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio were approached to do the screenplay, although Don Macpherson was later hired to do re-writes. Budget concerns by TriStar eventually led de Bont off the project in favor of doing Twister. Despite all of this, in 1996 (the year after Toho tried to end their series with Godzilla vs. Destoroyah), Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin (right before the release of Independence Day, and I would like to point out that Emmerich apparently was big on doing his next film involving a meteor hitting Earth inspired by The Right Stuff) were hired to craft a Godzilla film, complete with Patrick Tatopoulos being hired to design an animal (not a monster) that would move fast. Emmerich and Devlin were credited with the screenplay and also the story (with Elliott and Rossio) while Devlin served as a producer. Around-the-clock work in trying to get the effects (a good deal done in CG) done meant that a final cut was only assembled just days before the premiere, with a lack of studio screenings being done before its release in May (three months later, an animated series came out as a follow-up that ended up lasting until 2000). The film, made for over $100 million, was one that made money, but a general lack of enthusiasm all the way around led to TriStar letting the sequel rights expire in 2003. Emmerich was apparently never a big Godzilla fan, describing them as just "weekend matinees you saw as a kid...you'd go with all your friends and just laugh" (he liked the first but apparently wasn't big on the follow-ups with monsters fighting each other). Devlin later stated his belief that there were two mistakes that were made with the film and its script: a lack of commitment in what Godzilla was as a character (i.e, hero or villain, since they went with "just simply an animal trying to survive") and lending its exposition of the character backgrounds in the middle of the film rather than in the start. Rossio wrote a whole essay with the title "The One Hundred Million Dollar Mistake". Some have mockingly renamed the film to such titles as "G.I.N.O." (Godzilla In Name Only) or "Zilla", and years later, Toho even went with a "Zilla" trademark. TriStar handled the distribution for a dubbed version Godzilla 2000 (which started production shortly after the release of this film) in 2000, funny enough.

At least Devlin could be given credit for trying. But Emmerich? No, he screwed up a layup of making a disaster movie where a monster goes around breathing fire and wreaking havoc that could play like an Irwin Allen epic. I haven't watched an Emmerich film in a decade, but this is shovelware for tbe birds. You might say, hey, he tries to make popcorn entertainment movies, why not give him a break if you weren't too hard on Independence Day and The Patriot...? Nah, I can't give credit here, because this being the first all-around American rendition of a Godzilla film makes for the easiest target to call a piece of crap in all of history. This is a movie that names two characters after prominent critics of Emmerich's work and doesn't even take the chance to squish them. This is a movie where the creature can just disappear for chunks of the film and... reproduce asexually while having an origin of nuclear testing...by the French. I think being hard on this stupid film is not only a wise idea but a righteous one. 2024 will see a fourth Godzilla film from the States (oddly enough, Rossio co-wrote the story to Godzilla vs. Kong (2021) and Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire [2024]), and it likely will dwarf the one presented here by the simple act that it will be made by someone who cares about what they are making. It makes Godzilla, King of the Monsters!, that movie with dubbing and Raymond Burr playing a stand-in explaining stuff, look like a godsend in comparison. Fiery breath and an underwhelming human cast is the equivalent of being served a hamburger filled with plastic while the soda cup is filled with stuff from 1978. 

At least Broderick seems to be engaging with his role rather than looking like he wants to shrink away in humiliation. That doesn't make it any easier to bear the idea that a film about a monster (sorry, animal, but that just sounds stupid) with the most boring human characters to support it. Lame gags about his character name and a horribly misplaced timing of trying to get us to be on these characters for the middle have him fare nearly the worst of everyone. According to one source, a lead executive was so displeased at what he saw from Pitillo's performance that he wanted to find someone to re-voice the role. I would like to point out that she was one of three folks that had three-film contracts for Godzilla (alongside Broderick and Reno). How mean could I possibly be? Well, I will simply just say that she would probably be better fit for the third lead in a Gamera film. Most perplexing is Reno, if only because again, when I think of guilt and trying to deal with what they create, a bunch of bumbling French operatives is not high on the list. What exactly is the purpose of having accomplishes all being named Jean? With the various little attempts at humor involving bad coffee, I'm almost surprised they didn't give the team a skunk mascot. Lerner and Dunn are probably the only highlights of the film, and all they are doing is just stuff you would expect from people playing to the check that we like. It isn't even worth making a reference with talking about Azaria and Shearer. It meanders for over two hours and fails to even reach half of the level of something like say, The Towering Inferno ever did. The "asexual reproduction" makes the whole thing preposterous, the sequences of baby Godzillas elevates it further, the end sequence of Godzilla being taken down by military missiles closes the entire thing out to the stupidest possible level, because if there is anything to learn from a series about a radioactive monster and consequences, the best way for it to go down is a credibly interesting presence to counteract it...i.e., not the military. Emmerich can say whatever he wants about what he thought about getting into the project or the result, the bottom line is that this is a hacky movie that isn't particularly thrilling or particularly noteworthy for spectacle that hadn't been done in Jurassic Park (or its mediocre sequel) or other Godzilla films before it. I can't claim to have seen all of those feature films, but even the ones that are just okay at best knew that they were trying to make something worthwhile for an audience to watch. This just exudes misery.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

In some ways, every year gets better and better for Movie Night. Happy 13th anniversary, folks. Two record-setting months of interesting reviews made a useful 2023 and hopefully sets the stage for some re-invention in 2024.

Mars Attacks!

Review #2160: Mars Attacks!

Cast: 

Jack Nicholson (US President James Dale & Art Land), Glenn Close (First Lady Marsha Dale), Annette Bening (Barbara Land), Pierce Brosnan (Professor Donald Kessler), Danny DeVito (Rude Gambler), Martin Short (Press Secretary Jerry Ross), Sarah Jessica Parker (Nathalie Lake), Michael J. Fox (Jason Stone), Rod Steiger (General Decker), Tom Jones (Himself), Lukas Haas (Richie Norris), Natalie Portman (Taffy Dale), Jim Brown (Byron Williams), Lisa Marie (Martian Girl), Sylvia Sidney (Grandma Florence Norris), Paul Winfield (General Casey), Pam Grier (Louise Williams), Jack Black (Billy-Glenn Norris), Janice Rivera (Cindy), Ray J (Cedric Williams), Brandon Hammond (Neville Williams), Joe Don Baker (Glenn Norris), and O-Lan Jones (Sue-Ann Norris) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman [1989], #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride, #316 - Batman Returns, #969 - Planet of the Apes [2001], #1257 - Pee-wee's Big Adventure, #1295 - Sleepy Hollow, and #1615 - Edward Scissorhands)

Review: 

“I wanted to do something fun with a bunch of Martians with big brains. Basically, make a modern version of Plan 9 From Outer Space or The War of the Worlds.”

Yes, there were two big-budget films about alien saucers coming onto Earth in 1996. Take one guess which ended up as the big audience hit. Of course, the basis for the film was a Topps trading card series of the same name which had a mix of gore and other such content that come with cards that made their debut in 1962 around the Cuban Missile Crisis that gave a couple of kids a curious glance and outcry from parents that led to the culling of production not long after. Alex Cox actually proposed doing a film in the 1980s but couldn't get past the scriptwriting approval stage. In 1993, Jonathan Gems approached Tim Burton about the idea of doing a film based on a Topps card property in "Attack!": Mars and Dinosaurs. Jurassic Park (1993) kind of influenced going away from the latter, to put it mildly. As such, when it came to the screenplay, it was done with a vast array of characters and situations involved, which included that opening sequence of burning cows. As noted by a handful of folks, the spaceship designs were inspired by the film Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1956). Attempts to do stop-motion for the aliens were rejected due to costs, but the CG from Industrial Light & Music was stylized to have a cheap look on purpose. One other film used for inspiration by Burton and Gems was The Towering Inferno (1974), with them relating how they had watched the film a year prior while stoned. Gems was let go from the project by Warner Bros. (because they wanted Gems to take out that opening sequence) in favor of Larry Karaszewski and Scott Alexander (who had written Ed Wood (1994) for Burton) and then he was put back in a year later. Burton also wrote the screenplay but did not request credit. 

The film (Burton's seventh as a feature director) was made on a budget of $80 million with a good deal more spent on promotion. The film barely met the budget back, while Independence Day, released five months earlier, was the audience favorite when it comes to setting a trend for blockbusters in a sense. I don't think you need me to say which has aged particularly better, because Mars Attacks! is the superior film in every sense of the word Both films do an attempt at effects extravaganza-making in the manner of Irwin Allen, but this is the one that has the most fun along with not insulting one's intelligence. It is a star-studded delight that comes and goes as a pretty good pastiche of the 1950s B-flicks that doesn't insult them or turn into a puddle worse than the material. This time, it isn't big authority or heroic figures that deal with saving the day but instead the ones you don't really see coming. It kind of frustrates me, how could people of 1996 ignore the fun of this? Nicholson apparently took on the film because he enjoyed working with Burton on Batman so much. Weirdly enough, he makes the Peter Sellars of what might as well be the Dr. Strangelove of alien invasion films, because he plays two different roles. He gets to play a towering force of centrist weirdos and a swaggering puddle of sleaze (complete with a gag about his hair) - how can you resist? Close meanders in snobbery for that time required before the inevitable plop. Bening makes a useful hippie in a film filled with broad amusing stereotypes, which even includes the smallest use of DeVito one might expect. You've got Brosnan (one year removed from GoldenEye) getting to do exposition and silly snobbery next to Parker in bewildering chemistry that has some fun head-play. The most noted presence though is Brown, becuase there has to be at least one person who seems serious enough to take on Martian ass-kicking. Haas and Sidney make a charming pair when it comes to families that sure love to stay together and find the oddest way to take down aliens: one old crooner song. Jones apparently wanted to do something different and thus signed on for this film, where he gets to sing "It's Not Unusual" and pop in and out in escape. Ha. I imagine Steiger loved the bluster as much as the check, and that's alright with me. This was actually one of Fox's last live-action film appearances (prior to going public with his Parkinson's disease diagnosis in 1998), and it is fine to see him play a would-be bigshot before the inevitable. The Martians as a whole look pretty funny, particularly with the "ack" dialogue and their plastic features without needing to be explained too much when it comes to the art of "invaders for the sake of being invaders", where Marie doesn't even have to speak to make an eerie Martian as well. The 106 minutes run off pretty well for amusement when it comes to playing against the Establishment type, and it truly bewilders me that this didn't get the respect it deserved for its time. Over 25 years later, this is one of Burton's most underrated films as a director when it comes to entertaining vision in alien disasters and humor with a star-studded cast to back it up.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Head.

Review #2159: Head.

Cast: 

The Monkees [Peter Tork • Davy Jones • Micky Dolenz • Michael Nesmith], with Victor Mature (The Big Victor), Annette Funicello (Teresa/Minnie), Timothy Carey (Lord High 'n' Low), Logan Ramsey (Officer Faye Lapid), Abraham Sofaer (Swami), Vito Scotti (I. Vitteloni), Charles Macaulay (Inspector Shrink), T. C. Jones (Mr. and Mrs. Ace), among others. Directed by Bob Rafelson.

Review: 

 "Of course, Head is an utterly and totally fragmented film. Among other reasons for making it was that I thought I would never get to make another movie, so I might as well make fifty to start out with and put them all in the same feature." - Bob Rafelson

Here's an opening line: induct the Monkees into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. 

Who are the Monkees? Well, it is an interesting question...First, let us talk about Bob Rafelson. The Manhattan native was distantly related to Samson Raphaelson (a prolific writer for a handful of Ernst Lubitsch films) but found himself studying at Trinity-Pawling School and Dartmouth College. He served in the U.S Army and found influence from disk jockey work when stationed in Japan (such as Yasujiro Ozu). He got involved in the TV industry in the late 1950s, specifically in story editing. He went to associate producer for shows and films, and it was during his time with Screen Gems that he met Bert Schneider (son of Abraham Schneider, who served as president of Columbia Pictures in the 1960s). They formed a partnership with a company called Raybert Productions. The release of A Hard Day's Night (1964), the hit music comedy featuring The Beatles, inspired the two to revive an idea that Rafelson had thought of a few years prior involving a music group that would be developed with Screen Gems. They even ran an ad to do auditions (after attempts to recruit The Lovin' Spoonful failed) for "Folk & Roll Musicians-Singers...4 insane boys, age 17-21. Want spirited Ben Frank's-types." The recruitment of who became the Monkees went four-ways: Davy Jones went first (July 1965) because Gems already had him under contract (he was a Tony Award nominated actor after starring in Oliver!), while Michael Nesmith was cast due to that September '65 audition, in which his wool hat and demeanor won him a part, and Peter Tork came on with the recommendation of Stephen Stills (yes, that one), a fellow one of the music scene of Greenwich Village, while lastly Micky Dolenz had screen experience in the 1950s with Circus Boy and his own interest in rock band music. Paul Mazursky and Larry Tucker are credited as developers of the show because they wrote the pilot, which was shot in November 1965. The pilot didn't test well, but edits made by Rafelson helped lead to a two-season order that premiered on September 12, 1966 (it lasted 58 episodes until March 1968). Of course, with a show of musicians, one needed a producer to provide songs worthy of a hit status. Don Kirshner was hired to oversee that requirement, since he had a variety of musicians and writers at his disposal when it came to making the idea of music of session musicians that delivered something for select Monkees to then put vocals on ("I'm a Believer" for example, was written by Neil Diamond, who also did acoustic guitar). This worked...to a point. The group wanted to be, well, a group, and they delivered more input with their third album (released in May 1967). Kirshner's micromanaging led to his dismissal in 1967 (he later assembled another pop group that used studio musicians for something with no group to deal with in The Archies).

A few years before his death, Rafelson stated that his partners and friends urged him to not make a movie with the group, but he insisted on doing so to "complete the cycle" and telling a "true story, in abstract" would be worth it. Of course, one can't forget Jack Nicholson. On a weekend in 1967, the group, Rafelson, and Nicholson went to a hotel in Ojai Valley for a weekend, smoked some pot with a tape recorder, and Nicholson utilized the tapes for what became a screenplay, although Rafelson said it was structured while on LSD. I would like to mention that despite being a part of the basis of what became a screenplay, the Monkees were not given credit for the screenplay alongside Rafelson and Nicholson. Raybert (later re-named BBS Productions) would later back films such as Easy Rider (1969), Five Easy Pieces (1970), and The Last Picture Show (1971) before its demise in the late 1970s. Schneider went on to win an Academy Award as a producer for Hearts and Minds (1974), while Rafelson would direct nine further films as a director (with five of them featuring Nicholson as star, such as the aforementioned Pieces film) before his death in 2022. After the 1969 television special 33⅓ Revolutions per Monkee, Tork left the group. The group continued until 1970, although various reunions of varying sizes came and went in the next five decades. Jones died in 2012, Tork died in 2019 before a farewell tour with Dolenz and Nesmith closed the group out prior to Dolenz's death in 2021.

The original cut was 110 minutes but was trimmed to 86; somehow, it was promoted as not being for children in some ads but was given a G rating. All of this may seem like window dressing, but you really haven't seen nothing yet with a film as weird and as interesting as this one is when it comes to a yell to try and escape the plastic prison of fame. It was written by the man who wrote The Trip (1967)! The show was a weird enduring hit that maintained a following for two seasons, so why should it be a surprise that the Monkees making a film would be too different? Tork apparently watched the film many times over the years and felt that the film could be a dazzler for those in psychedelia, the point of the film for him was that the Monkees "never get out". A guy named John Brockman was behind the PR for the film, and the original poster apparently was just a shot of him. Simply put, the movie was a financial flop. Nesmith enjoyed the experience of making it (even if he had joined a one-day walkout with Jones and Dolenz after the aforementioned "no writing credit" incident), Dolenz called it an "incredible, weird, psychedelic movie" and Jones wasn't too big on talking about it. Years later, Tork suggested that in some way, the film was made (unconscious level or not) by Bert and Bob as a way to kill the Monkees and that Rafelson's view of life is one can't get out of the black box is in just like the group in the film. Who can't enjoy songs such as the opening sequence with "Porpoise Song" (where one of the Monkees jump off a bridge) or Jones (and Toni Basi, pay attention) doing a song and dance of "Daddy's Song" right before a cameo of Frank Zappa arises? Or sequences involving playing dandruff (to Victor Mature, the "Old Hollywood" embodiment that surely got a kick out of this)? Or an exploding Coke machine? Or wonder how it all comes in the same movie where footage of Nguyen Van Lem being shot is shown? Or the ending where each of the Monkees jump off the bridge from the beginning? It is a series of vignettes with a good deal of evident ideas about, well, cutting the strings of the puppet. The manufactured pop group image is delightfully demolished by the four members in countercultural fervor that makes it the ideal watch on a late night that would be quite compelling to pair with Easy Rider and look upon the mavericks that did their vision in the late 1960s, and in some ways, Head may be the better film. Time has rewarded the Monkees as people with their own useful perspective within music rather than critics that thought burying them was the way to go. But in the lines of films of A Hard Day's Night (1964) and Tommy (1975), Head (1968) stands just as tall in enduring band vision: imperfect but a hell of a time to decipher, all because of the efforts of Rafelson, Nicholson, and just as importantly, The Monkees.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Resident Evil.

Review #2158: Resident Evil.

Cast: 

Milla Jovovich (Alice), Michelle Rodriguez (Rain Ocampo), Eric Mabius (Matthew "Matt" Addison), James Purefoy (Spence Parks), Martin Crewes (Chad Kaplan), Colin Salmon (James "One" Shade), Ryan McCluskey (Mr. Grey), Oscar Pearce (Mr. Green), Indra Ové (Ms. Black), and Michaela Dicker (Red Queen) Written and Directed by Paul W. S. Anderson. (#1670 - Mortal Kombat and #1688 - Alien vs. Predator)

Review: 

"This film is the explanatory prequel that game players have always wanted to see, using the scary mechanisms and devices that have become part of the Resident Evil cyber culture. I felt the idea was the correct approach for both people who had never heard of the game and for the avid players who will get all the references included just for them."

Surprisingly, I had thought about doing this film in each of the last two fall seasons. I thought to myself, hmm, I hear it has zombies, why not think of it? Well, sometimes things just don't go your way (. The source material for the film is what else but a video game (known as Biohazard in Japan and Southeast Asia but Resident Evil everywhere else), as created by Shinji Mikami and Tokuro Fujiwara that was created in 1996. Constantin Film purchased the film rights a year after the release of the first game and had a handful of names considered in the development process. Somehow, they went through the process of enlisting script ideas from a line that went from Alan B. McElroy to George A. Romero to Jamie Blanks and said no each time. So... they instead went with a man who apparently wrote a script that was a "ripoff" of the aforementioned Evil game after playing it. Made on a budget of roughly $33 million, the resulting success with audiences led to a slew of sequels in Apocalypse (2004), Extinction (2007), Afterlife (2010), Retribution (2012), and The Final Chapter (2016), for which Jovovich was featured as the one consistent star to go with Anderson being the writer of each one (while directing most of the sequels). 

They wanted to make a movie that wouldn't imitate the game in every detail but instead try to siphon that shock and horror feeling for a film. This is the kind of movie you could probably watch while doing your taxes. Things that barely register as things happen in the film that actually made me wonder how you can read a George A. Romero script, see it as destined for the "NC-17" rating and decide, nay, we must go with Paul W. S. Anderson. I find more urgency in looking for the remote that may or may not be wedged somewhere in the space between the couch and the wall than what happens in this puddle of a movie. I never played the Resident Evil video games, but I can certainly say that it is pretty hard to get me spooked when playing a video game in general...what the hell is different from film-to-video game adaptation? I can't even call this a fun type of B-movie, because it really manages to make 100 minutes feel like a tremendous waste of time in terms of the idea of trying to "shock" me with nonsense. One whole film goes by and I feel like nothing has happened to make one want to see sequels of this, with the "Umbrella Corporation" and their massive interest in dominating the markets and being used for the military just gives me a blank expression. Jovovich seems unsure as to where to really go in terms of "follow the path as the action lead", and it isn't exactly the best compliment when the only noteworthy sequence to highlight is a "flying kick" applied to a effects creature. The rest of the actors seem clinically stuck in second gear, with that bare idea of interest that really makes me wonder if Uwe Boll saw stuff like this and decided that he could do video game movies just like that. Even the scene of folks trying to escape deadly lasers (ones that slice you in the same way one wishes they could slice beef) just seems bland. It is a "5" because it doesn't give me that particular feeling of being just short of mediocrity but instead being shorter than even the too-average things. You really find a feeling of "phone it in" when it comes to thinking about this film, where it is not particularly good in any one consistent territory nor terrible in all of the aspects to really scare someone out. One either goes with the flow and looks further with those other features or they move on with their day and do something else. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.

Review #2157: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.

Cast: 

Eddie Redmayne (Newt Scamander), Katherine Waterston (Tina Goldstein), Dan Fogler (Jacob Kowalski), Alison Sudol (Queenie Goldstein), Samantha Morton (Mary Lou Barebone), Ezra Miller (Credence Barebone), Jon Voight (Henry Shaw Sr), Carmen Ejogo (Seraphina Picquery), Colin Farrell (Percival Graves), Ron Perlman (the voice of Gnarlak), Faith Wood-Blagrove (Modesty Barebone), Ronan Raftery (Langdon Shaw), and Josh Cowdery (Henry Shaw Jr) Directed by David Yates (#121-#124: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix / the Half-Blood Prince / Deathly Hallows - Part 1 and Part 2)

Review: 

Sometimes one just gets tired. They miss a film they probably could have seen or put it on their to-do list to throw onto the waste basket for the next year. This is one of those times, which is particularly amusing because I can say without a doubt that once Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011) came out, I seemed to just go in and out of making excuses to really go back and watch those films once it was all said and done. Hell, I read the books as a teen, and somehow the idea of a "spinoff" film that retained the same director from that film adaptation to go with a screenplay by J. K. Rowling slipped my attention (I went back to try and jog my 19-going-on-20 memory and found that I somehow had time for exactly one theater release in the month that this film was released: Doctor Strange). Anyway, why don't we start making up for lost time: this is a spinoff film conceived with David Heyman (who had produced the film series) serving as a producer alongside Rowling (who had produced the Deathly Hallows films) that shares the title of a guidebook that Rowling had written in 2001 (which, well, was about beasts one might find in the wizarding world). Development started in 2013 and went on from there. The success of the film, which was planned to be the first of five films, would inspire two sequels Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) and Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022).

You know, some things are just unbearably average. I was 15 when I last remember watching all eight of that aforementioned film series (which is now labeled as being part of a "Wizarding World" franchise that inspires a blank stare), and I think he and me can agree on one thing: even the most inferior of the films (Chamber of Secrets? Order of the Phoenix?) rank better than this one, a sponge of doing things fine with the bare inspiration to look ahead. It has some of the curiosity required when it comes to wondering aloud why one would want to spend a second watching magic-sound phrases come out of folks (either British or not), and it does hold 133 minutes of attention with a handful of wonder-inducement, one can be fair there. There is something useful to find in watching folks try to engage with the idea of silly beasts possibly causing havoc in a 1920s New York that Redmayne can handle with the sense of interest with Fogler and Waterston, where even a magical parasite could be something really curious. And yet...why is it the film finds itself trying to wedge some sort of bubbling idea of war in the middle of things? (complete with a middling amount of screentime for Jon Voight, "Man Who Can Be A Ham") You can fool me with names such as "Newt" or "Queenie", but New Wizarding Orders with guys named "Gellert Grindelwald" that like to play disguise? That takes a bit more time to really stomach. Silly little plant looking creatures are a bit cooler than newspaper exposition. The performances are serviceable to the material, mostly in the case of Fogler, who provides the "take it in stride" balance to go with Redmayne and his, uh, spirited attempts at wonder that come and go with effectiveness. At least Farrell gets to dilly dally in obviousness a bit, especially when compared with a stone faced Miller. In general, this is a film that makes idle movement towards having fun but pushes a big cloud (parasite) and trying to maintain that line between wizards and "No-Majs" (blank stare). It is mildly fun, because those little antics involving a bank and magic tricks (it works out better in some ways to have people come and go) do make things come off interesting, and I do think there is something worth looking into when it comes to magic run amok that isn't trying to play too hard into things you heard already (except one line that I hated guessing). It is the kind of film that is crafted from cloth that could have received a bit more weaving to really hit its mark, but it does the basic necessities that will make those who were really drawn into it want to wonder what could be next without being a churner for the rest.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Boy and the Heron.

Review #2156: The Boy and the Heron.

Cast: 

Soma Santoki (Mahito Maki), Masaki Suda (The Grey Heron), Aimyon (Lady Himi), Yoshino Kimura (Natsuko), Takuya Kimura (Shoichi Maki), Shōhei Hino (Granduncle), Ko Shibasaki (Kiriko), Kaoru Kobayashi (Noble Pelican), and Jun Kunimura (The Parakeet King) Written and Directed by Hayao Miyazaki (#1111 - Spirited Away, #1233 - Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, #1480 - Castle in the Sky, #1758 - My Neighbor Totoro, #1934 - Kiki's Delivery Service)

Review: 

“Being the work of a retiree, it’ll have to feel like it had to be made. I insisted no more was needed, after all. I don’t know, but it’ll be something new. A place I’d never been before.”

In 2013, upon the release of The Wind Rises, Hayao Miyazaki had announced that he would retire from feature filmmaking due to his age. The funny thing is this was not even the first time he said this, because he stated his intent to retire after the release of both Princess Mononoke (1997) and Spirited Away (2001). And yet, a man in his seventies retiring seemed ideal to believe. And yet, two years after his third attempt from retiring, he was approached by producer/co-creator of Studio Ghibli Toshio Suzuki) if he wanted to make a short film for exclusive screening at the Ghibli Museum (the result was Boro the Caterpillar in 2018). In 2016, he even brought plans to propose a feature film. The eventual result, done in the course of several years that had no deadlines (from the studio that used eight years to do The Tale of the Princess Kaguya) is this film, which apparently is one of the most expensive films made in Japan. On release there in July 2023, it was released with the name of a 1937 novel called How Do You Live? by Genzaburō Yoshino, which is referenced in the film (incidentally, the English translation of the book only came out in 2021); the film isn't really an adaptation of the book, and yet a good deal of folks went out in search of it online, go figure. One person Miyazaki has cited was the desire to leave something for his grandson. This is the first feature film for Studio Ghibli since Earwig and the Witch (2020), which had been directed by his son Goro (which, well, his father had thought about being behind that film, but instead here we are). This is the kind of film that was released in its native Japan with no usual marketing campaign, save for exactly one poster, as planned by Suzuki. The film was released in July in Japan, but only now in America can see the film in a theater, and for those who specialize in dubs, GKIDS spearheaded the distribution for American release.

So yes, for a good chunk of folks, you have the choice of what type of language to hear in a Ghibli film, and audiences gave it a pretty good first weekend in the States (after already making its round of impressions in Japan). Miyazaki apparently is in the middle of planning to do another film, which would be his 13th, and, well, who knows? The way to understanding the film is to see it as one where living for others is that key step in life, as opposed to just being adrift as oneself. It is a gradually paced film of 124 minutes that rewards those interested in a tale of self-discovery and absorbing animation. Ranking it among Miyazaki's previous eleven films would be a tight task for anyone, but I would say it would rank favorably among the ones I have actually seen, which is "pretty good". Wrapped in a deluge of wonderous animation and a winding road of growth within truths and lies is a film that ponders mortality and choices with seemingly semiautobiographical manners from Miyazaki (well, his mother did not die in the Pacific War, but spending eight years in treatment for spinal tuberculosis certainly does have an effect on oneself). Santoki carries this with the worthy journey required in someone that has to forge their own path with choices that have the facets of compelling drama. The struggle is transcendent while mattering more than just being familiar for the sake of it. Suda provides that spark of wily creature of mischief that is more than just the image one sees. The rest of the actors do well in the lines of making the line between fact and fiction work with general amusement and investment that goes beyond just having varying sizes of creatures (such as parakeets). The drama is in the decision to make more than anything. It is evident to see where the craft can go with dedication of time in terms of visual wonder, that much is certain. In short: the film (like Miyazaki) accepts the mortality that comes with deciding to make a place for themselves as grown people and sets forth to make something out of such things with a ready glance that isn't forced. Whenever one watches it, they will have found a pleasant experience yet again from Miyazaki in terms of engaging animation and boisterous storytelling for both youth and adult alike in ways that shouldn't be a surprise from the old master, and one should savor getting to see his particular vision on screen as long as one can.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Silent Night (2023).

Review #2155: Silent Night (2023).

Cast: 

Joel Kinnaman (Brian Godlock), Scott Mescudi (Detective Dennis Vassel), Harold Torres (Playa), and Catalina Sandino Moreno (Saya Godlock) Directed by John Woo (#030 - Face/Off, #336 - Broken Arrow (1996), #1100 - Mission: Impossible 2, #1855 - Hard Target, #1875 - A Better Tomorrow)

Review: 

"The biggest difference for me now is that the action should be realistic. It should serve the drama. In the past, my action was pretty much supposed to be entertaining. Silent Night’s action looks more realistic and more powerful, and it gives the audience more of a feeling instead of just being entertaining.”

Curiosity matters sometimes. What we have here is a film composed of just background noise. The director? Oh, just John Woo, who had last directed an American feature film with Paycheck (2003). Of course, he had never stopped making films when moving past his sixties and seventies, he just branched out back to his roots when it came to not one but two Chinese-Hong Kong two-part films (that, and he stated that he no longer was being offered quality scripts). The script for this film was done by Robert Archer Lynn, who had a few scripts to his credit such as, well, Already Dead (2007). Woo expressed his excitement at the script for what it could bring in terms of challenge as an experiment that he could "feel the freedom" for. As you probably guessed, one of the production companies for the film was Thunder Road Films, which happened to be one of the spearheading forces behind the John Wick series (a sign of the influence Woo had on filmmakers today). 

Cynically, one could wonder how an action movie plays out differently to those who watch with as little distraction as possible as opposed to those who are a bit looser with attention. But in general, the conclusion I come to at the end of the 104-minute runtime is that it all is just fine. It isn't great or terrible, it just is...fine. In a sea of action films that are either ready for DVD viewing or on demand that do their share of budget filmmaking, one will find a lean feature here that lives and dies and just how much one appreciates the curiosity of watching a movie that goes through the general motions of a revenge flick without dialogue to chatter away with. If you like a film that goes through the basics with likeable enough people behind it, this is the one for you. Kinnaman does well enough with the material required in terms of building worthy interest in seeing where the descent of voiceless torment goes when believing that the only way to dig out of that pit is to set forth on a singular-minded goal of oblivion. His intensity in the eyes is what matters most, and he makes that grief one to endure to the very end in meaningful tension. Granted, it may not take much to really care about a revenge thriller with a specific type of lean/mean tick of action, but he fits the bill without playing to just the minimum. The others, well, can only go so far. Think of the movie more as an experiment rather than a strait-laced quiet film, because it can only go so far with people simply deciding to not speak once before one just goes "sure". The film is so devoted to its goal of no-talk, DIY-action that it can only work to those who really invest in what a film composed of chatter can do. Action films with little dialogue aren't that new (I mean, you could just cite The Three Musketeers [1921]), but the general execution of it here works in that bleak sense of the word when it comes to the beat going on when it goes into gear. People live and die but things move on. It didn't need to be a detailed action film when it comes to theatrics, and Woo knows that. Action movies come and go, with this one being just fine in its execution that is more curious than gimmick in the nicest way possible. It can't rank as one of Woo's best films but giving it a whirl to pay attention to in the endgame is not a bad idea one could have for the time of season.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.