Fritz the Cat.

Review #2212: Fritz the Cat.

Cast: 

Skip Hinnant (Fritz the Cat), Rosetta LeNoire (Bertha / Additional voices), John McCurry (Blue / John), Judy Engles (Winston Schwartz / Lizard Leader), Phil Seuling (Ralph / Additional voices), Ralph Bakshi (Al / Narrator), Mary Dean (Charlene / Dee Dee / Sorority Girls / Harriet), and Charles Spidar (Bar Patron / Duke the Crow) Directed by Ralph Bakshi (#475 - Wizards)

Review: 

"My approach to animation as a director is live action. I don't approach it in the traditional animation ways. None of our characters get up and sing, because that's not the type of picture I'm trying to do. I want people to believe my characters are real, and it's hard to believe they're real if they start walking down the street singing."

You know, I ought to give adult animation a bit more of a chance. More specifically, I should give a further spotlight to Ralph Bakshi by starting at the beginning. Bakshi was born in the city of Haifa in what was once known as the British Mandate of Palestine to a Jewish family that soon migrated to the United States that saw him raised in Brooklyn. He graduated from the High School of Art and Design in 1956, a vocational school for commercial artists. He started work with Terrytoons that saw him eventually go from cel polishing to creative director by the time of the mid-1960s. He was briefly appointed the head of the department at Paramount's animation studio before he formed his own production company with Steve Krantz in 1968. Enter R. Crumb (as generally signed on his work, although obviously his real name is Robert). Having an interest in comics and drawing from a young age, Crumb was actually a novelty greeting card artist for several years before his interest in cartooning led to a variety of work published on and off (with a chunk done prior to taking LSD). Needless to say, there was quite an interest in the material often called part of the "underground comix". Fritz the Cat was something that he drew from a young age (the Crumb brothers tried doing their own comics for others to read when Robert was 15) which went from being inspired by the family cat to featuring talking animals doing, well, explicit things that formally entered the (comix) scene in 1965. Anyway, Krantz and Bakshi found interest in making a film based on a collection of strips that Crumb had done after being told by Krantz that the film he wanted to do (based on Bakshi's own upbringing in inner-city street life) wouldn't be able to be done for studios due to its content and lack of directorial experience on Bakshi's part. The perception of sharp satire in Crumb's work and similarities to Bakshi's own interests got him on the push to do a film that eventually got some sort of approval to go forward (or whatever). The film was rejected by every major studio, most notably with Warner Bros. Cinemation Industries would eventually distribute the film, one that became the first animated feature to be given the X rating and a hit with audiences not always seen with independent features. Krantz and Bakshi worked together on Heavy Traffic the year after the release of Fritz; probably as a result of the director asking for why he hadn't been paid for the success of Fritz, they didn't work with each other again. Krantz would produce a second feature that retained the services of Hinnant as the lead voice but not Bakshi. Released in 1974, the R-rated The Nine Lives of Fritz the Cat went over with mediocre (read: mild) reception. Once described as an "iconoclast" of animation, Bakshi would direct eight further films with varying levels of creative control that culminated with Cool World (1992), although he still does art even in his mid-eighties.

To be clear, this wasn't the first adult animated feature, as evidenced by the Animerama trilogy (A Thousand and One Nights / Cleopatra / Belladonna of Sadness) that started in 1969, and I'm sure there are other examples to note for shorts in the first half of the 20th century. But one has to start somewhere with covering fascinating jumbles of film. Various location photographs were taken for backgrounds that were then traced over for a film that used a handful of material as written by Crumb to go with a "sort of a stream of consciousness" in terms of not having many pencil tests. To put it mildly, the film of Fritz the Cat is what one makes of its title character. Bakshi once labeled the title character a "phony". Crumb and Bakshi have differing accounts of, well, pick a topic relating to its production. Crumb decided to kill off Fritz in a September 1972 comic while making fun of Bakshi and Krantz (evidently this irritation is long-lasting, as evidenced by a 2015 drawing Crumb made of a hairy butt that was depicted as a depiction of "Mohamid Bakshi", while Bakshi once called Crumb a "slick hustler"); food for thought: is the last act when it comes to dialogue for its title character that invokes a Beatles song really the type of thing to say is "red-neck and fascistic"? The answer is somewhere in the middle: it is a mess of a movie that is hit and miss with its humor that jumps around more often than the animation when it comes to essentially being a splatter painted rendition of someone trying to remember the sixties. The animation was done by various people (such as Ted Bonnicksen, who apparently took his assignment home to work on while suffering from leukemia) that came and went while Bakshi professed an aim for an animation that wants to be "live-action" in approach rather than that sort of "realistic" aimed by certain Disney productions of the time, one where adult animation would be "the right to animate any subject or idea you have and let the rating fall where they may" as opposed to just being, shall we say, "jiggle television" for 78 minutes. 

Interestingly enough, Hinnant was a performer on the PBS program The Electric Company in the year prior to the release of this film (apparently, he had a "naturally phony" voice that appealed to Bakshi). Of course, when you have a list of voices that range from TV presences in LeNoire to the director himself to "comic fan convention and distributor" (no I am not joking), it is no wonder that a good deal of the recorded dialogue is a mix of stuff recorded on the streets of New York City or involve recording others in conversation (such as the scene in a Harlem bar or with the rabbis). Hinnant and his glib nature work in the strangest of ways that make one look within when it comes to his puddle of morals to go for escapes of the most ridiculous and yet most relatable of escapades. Sure, none of us may get involved in an orgy, but I think we all deal at least once with getting too wrapped up in ourselves (whether or not one is a "leftist" or not) or taking things way too seriously, and Hinnant carries the film to worthwhile astonishment. The other voices come and go to occasional amusing notes, such as the silly first exchange that comes from the cop characters (take one guess what animal they are). It is a sea of hypocrisy and noise that seems about right in bad taste that is not quite a great movie but instead one that is a lightning rod for others to take hold and strike their own path for animated ventures. In the long run, well, Crumb thought the film was a reflection of the director's "confusion" that seemed to him to have "real repressed horniness", while Bakshi had the feeling (back in 1972) that it was both the best thing to happen in his life and the thing that helped him understand "what's locked up inside". So yes, Bakshi made a film that got him on the path to making adult animation get to a path to eventually lead to further boundary-pushing and also got to have a lengthy enmity with a comic artist (picking a side is far less amusing than noting the fact that both benefitted from the other) that is probably almost as amusing as the film itself. It is a lovely crude mess of a movie that really is a case of one drawing what they want to draw. Far from a masterpiece but far from a tryhard film, Fritz the Cat is the ultimate curiosity in potential meeting with reality that is different to any viewer when it comes to absorbing the sights that the film has to offer.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Intruder (1962).

Review #2211: The Intruder.

Cast: 

William Shatner (Adam Cramer), Frank Maxwell (Tom McDaniel), Beverly Lunsford (Ella McDaniel), Robert Emhardt (Verne Shipman), Leo Gordon (Sam Griffin), Charles Barnes (Joey Greene), Charles Beaumont (Mr. Paton), Katherine Smith (Ruth McDaniel), George Clayton Johnson (Phil West), and William F. Nolan (Bart Carey) 

Produced and Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, #931 - Not of This Earth, #1007 - Attack of the Crab Monsters, #1039 - Five Guns West, #1042 - War of the Satellites, #1136 - Gas-s-s-s, #1147 - X: The Man with the X-ray Eyes, #1186 - A Bucket of Blood, #1423 - The Wild Angels, #1425 - The St. Valentine's Day Massacre, #1674 - Machine-Gun Kelly, #1684 - Creature from the Haunted Sea, #1918 - House of Usher, #2030 - The Trip, and #2113 - The Undead)

Review: 

You don't need me to express the vast talent of Roger Corman in getting films out and done for audiences to see in their time, because the obituaries that have followed in the wake of his passing have pretty much stated as much. Whether as director, writer, producer, distributor, or as a mentor to aspiring filmmakers, the man had an eye more often than not for what worked best for an audience. One can't simply say he managed to have at least one film released in theaters from 1955 to 1964. Let us put it this way: The Intruder, released in the month of May in 1962, was released in the middle of his directorial career...after having done thirty features. But I think this one seemed most interesting to cover because of how it stands out among the ones that he oversaw in the days where one really could make a film in the span of a few days or weeks. As opposed to simply filming it around Hollywood, Corman aimed to film in Missouri (mostly in Sikeston) on a budget of roughly $80,000 that was based on a book by Charles Beaumont (a writer best known for film screenplays and several episodes of The Twilight Zone) that had been written in 1958. Apparently, Beaumont had written the book based on an incident that had occurred in Tennessee involving a Northerner stirring the populace of a small town into furor (the Tennessee incident is likely inspired by the story of Clinton, Tennessee, in which the town was among the first to hear from segregation defender John Kasper when it came to a visitior of the North traveling south in an attempt to get a Southern town inflamed against the integration of their local high school - this happened in the fall of 1956). For filming in town, the screenplay (as done by Beaumont) was only seen in full by Corman and Shatner in a move that Corman said was "watered-down for local consumption". It didn't help matters when it came to having time to film certain scenes on location, where at one point a sheriff told them to leave town and called them "communists". In addition to various townspeople being used as extras, you might notice that a handful of writers also appear in small parts (those three are with Beaumont, Johnson, and Nolan; incidentally, while only Johnson ever appeared in a film again, Leo Gordon was also a writer on several TV programs and films, and, well, Shatner became a novelist in his later years). Even using alternate titles for re-releases such as "Shame" and "I Hate Your Guts" did not result in a hit, and Corman tabbed it as his greatest disappointment in his career that taught him a lesson about audiences (apparently, a combination of a re-release in England by the British Film Institute and release on home video decades after its release got the film to "break even").

It isn't often you get a movie where someone utters the n-word in the first five minutes. Really this is the story of a person who thinks they are a man but ultimately is as small as they come. There are a handful of hucksters out there that think they can make their voice heard from beyond the sewer it came from just because they can. The "intruder" depicted here is merely a reflection of the pond of sludge that brings that brand of seething hatred out into the surface. Sure, you could go with Corman's later idea that the film could have been a bit less "black and white". But screw it, this is the kind of movie that has staying power precisely because of how it looks upon this town in the horrific timelessness that comes with seething anger for "the other" in whatever form it takes. The enemy can be anything and anywhere when it comes to a town needing some sort of contempt for whatever perverted thing they don't like (like not being called "sir", maybe). The battle for wanting things to stay the same when it comes to color in school, as evidenced by the riots that occurred at the University of Mississippi in the fall of 1962 (incidentally, the only journalist to be killed in the civil rights era in Paul Guihard was shot and killed during the riots). At the time, Shatner had done a handful of television and supporting film roles over the past ten years to go with turns on Broadway, which Corman knew about when wanting a fine unknown actor, but he had exactly one leading film role to his name with The Explosive Generation (released in 1961, the same year as a supporting role in Judgement at Nuremberg) prior to what we see here. It was the only time he was directed by Corman, although it wasn't his last Corman production, since he later starred in the Corman-produced Big Bad Mama (1974). There is something in this performance that might be among of Shatner's best as a film actor when it comes to bubbling intensity that could only come from someone trying to pull a fast one in gripping a town under his finger. Just watch the sequence of Shatner speaking to a crowd (to a varying crowd of people, as planned by Corman) has such a powerful effect in hellraising with all of the tricks pulled in the playbook in insidious messaging (emphasizing certain words like "literally" or playing to the idea of a mass conspiracy involving certain "other" groups). The longer the film goes, the less that his grip on using the town starts to turn into a rope around him rather than one to hold, which only leads to desperation fit for basically a travelling racist. I particularly like the scene in the middle of things with Shatner and Gordon as a exchange that goes from initial huckstering by Shatner to one of tension (naturally this is a scene that happens as Gordon's on-screen wife has left him after being swayed by Shatner) that eventually ends with an observation that pretty much makes the whole film tick: a salesman seeing the mistakes of the pitchman in his midst that couldn't pull the trigger on him if his life depended on it for all of his "cleverness" and technique. Maxwell and Lunsford sell the sides of the family coin that come from where the touch of Shatner effects their thinking of the town around them (whether as a newspaperman or as a youth under one's grip). The film doesn't have any one hero but instead goes with the idea that among a town of bubbling ooze, there has to be at least one with the idea of decency to present opposition even in the face of scorn regardless of how much of it isn't washed away. While I can't say I've seen every Corman film, I think I can safely say this is among the top tier of his features as a filmmaker, as it is a film made with tremendous conviction in telling a clear-cut story of the dangers in allowing an agitator to wreak havoc in a town just bubbling for anger. Publicly available on the Internet, this is one worth recommending for those with the time (84 minutes) to make for both a showcase in its lead actor and in its director in clear-cut worthwhile filmmaking.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Rest in peace, Roger Corman.

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes.

Review #2210: Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes.

Cast: 

Owen Teague (Noa), Freya Allan (Mae / Nova), Kevin Durand (Proximus Caesar), Peter Macon (Raka), William H. Macy (Trevathan), Travis Jeffery (Anaya), Lydia Peckham (Soona), Neil Sandilands (Koro), and Eka Darville (Sylva) Directed by Wes Ball.

Review: 

Legacies are hard to maintain, particularly when it comes to movies as varied and interesting for films involving apes and a semi-different Earth than the one we know. War for the Planet of the Apes (as directed by Matt Reeves in 2017) didn't exactly blow things up in the same way of say, Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970), but it probably goes without saying that it managed to seal the legacy of a trilogy of reboot films all focused on the character of Caesar (as played by Andy Serkis) as one for the books. Of course, even before the release of the film, one could hear ideas of where the series could go even after what happens with the aforementioned War, so it didn't seem too shocking that the acquisition of Fox by Disney set the stage for eventually getting a new one of these Apes films on the board, albeit one that is set "many generations later" that was apparently pitched by its director in Wes Ball as “Apocalypto with apes”; Josh Friedman then wrote the screenplay. This is the fourth feature film by Ball, for which the previous three were adaptations of The Maze Runner novels (Ball had also worked on an adaptation of Mouse Guard with Reeves that got cancelled in the Fox deal, incidentally). Evidently, there are ideas of potentially having this be the first of a new trilogy to try and fit the legacy of what came before it. Well, if one can wash the taste of a lame 2000s remake out of their mouth and get people to be behind a "X of the Apes" for the 10th time in over half of a century, I suppose anything is possible.

The legacy of Caesar and where the message of "apes together strong" can lead when it comes to a new path in the ways of ape and humankind. The legacy of Caesar is such that the new Caesar is one that desires to secure the ascension of one's kingdom. It may not reach all of the lofty heights of its predecessor (or its runtime, which is perhaps a tad too long at 145 minutes), but there is plenty of entertainment to be found here nonetheless. Rise and this one seem to have a mirror image when it comes to having the pivotal moment of speech between the non-dominant species inhabiting the planet that one just assumed could not talk (that's one way to do another take on "Nova"). It goes a bit deeper in its relation to harkening to religious ideas in the very assertion that the example Caesar set out to lead by has instead been twisted into something far different than what envisioned. Now it is a name used by self-proclamation from tyrants to turn themselves into some sort of prophet for the masses to bend their knee to in the name of Caesar (interestingly, in Roman times, there was more than one Caesar when it came to importance in the Empire) and where one has to find their wings again to rise from the chains that threaten to consume them. Teague pulls an all-around efficient lead presence to follow with in what essentially reads as a coming-of-age story in the eyes of baptism by fire that is pretty compelling in a way that I hope will get more time to grow when it comes to the inevitable clash of idealism versus the pragmatic truths that arise in finding just how much truth there is within the fire and brimstone. Allan does well within showing the human nature of what has become rare in the apeworld: human agency and drive, which makes for a compelling climax and setup for what might come next (consider how the film goes with fight-or-flight responses when it comes to human or ape). Durand plays his adversarial role with the right type of fervor that would be at home with the corniest of gurus or blustery politicians that actually has an interesting view when it comes to the desire for self-inprovement of a species, self-serving as it may be when one has apes essentially on a Crusade killing in their name. Macon makes a delightful guide to go with Teague and Allan while Macy has a few little moments of defeatist thinking (of course, seeing a Kurt Vonnegut book in the film means one can't be all that bad). With an eye for a setting a frontier to set a slate built for a new line of inevitable ape and human conflict, I would say this made a pretty good attempt at doing so with the air of all-around enthusiasm. The motion capture is one that is good enough to almost feel like routine with how one just rolls with what they see without the feeling of distraction, which basically mirrors how one hasn't felt tired for yet another one of these films. Kingdom is a pretty good starter to what might be another phase within the parable of where and ape and man intersect with their own share of similarities and differences when it comes to handling the nature of legacy of ones with a name or symbol to pass down in history. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

War for the Planet of the Apes.

Review #2209: War for the Planet of the Apes.

Cast: 

Andy Serkis (Caesar), Woody Harrelson (The Colonel), Steve Zahn (Bad Ape), Karin Konoval (Maurice), Amiah Miller (Nova), Terry Notary (Rocket), Ty Olsson (Red Donkey), Michael Adamthwaite (Luca), Toby Kebbell (Koba), Gabriel Chavarria (Preacher), Judy Greer (Cornelia), Sara Canning (Lake), Devyn Dalton (Cornelius), and Aleks Paunovic (Winter) Directed by Matt Reeves (#1038 - Cloverfield, #1814 - The Batman, and #1888 - Dawn of the Planet of the Apes)

Review: 

"I wanted to push us into the realm of the mythic. I felt like this was the thing that was going to create the legend of what Caesar would be to future generations of apes. That if he was going to be a seminal figure in their history, this had to be a Biblical epic – the final test that he must pass to have this mythic ascension into the pantheon of apes."

Sometimes you really have to respect the tenacity of a film series, particularly one as distinct as Planet of the Apes, which has managed to go forward and back again with a trilogy of films that served as reboots to those offbeat sequels that had arisen after the original 1968 film (imagine making any more sequels after the first sequel had the hero of the first one blow up the whole world). The script was written by Reeves (the director of the previous reboot film in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes) and Mark Bomback, who decided to make a story that in their eyes would have the character of Caesar "cement his status as a seminal figure in ape history" that saw them watch plenty of films from the old Apes film (with War, the ninth overall film in the series taking a cue or so from Battle for the Planet of the Apes [1973]). As before, the effects for the film were done by Weta Digital when it came to the apes that saw motion-capture and CGI key-frame animation that has a friendly mix of performers in suits (Serkis, Konoval, and Notary are the only ones to appear as apes in each of the three films). It felt particularly timely to watch this film with the impending release of the standalone sequel Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes in 2024 (Reeves isn't the director, but who knows what Wes Ball will bring to the series) set many years after War. 

Basically, one is watching the culmination of a person as a sort of a mythic figure on the lines that would make a biblical filmmaker proud (at one point, a character even mentions the belief of fighting a "holy war") to go along with a scope that is highly enjoyable to close out what has basically been a string of distinct ensemble films with one dominant presence in Serkis being in each one of them. It is a tremendous evolutionary process to see play out in this series that never shows a loose failing when it comes to trying to perpetuate familiar names into wanting to see play out for another go-around. The ideas of redemption (or vengeance) or a new step in the process of mankind can be found pretty clearly with this film in such an entertaining manner that plays out the nature of where "co-existence" can culminate in the face of reality. Serkis is tremendous once again as Caesar because he has managed to seal the destiny of a character with all of the traits in a mythic force of nature with displays of empathy and guilt to go with worthwhile physicality that provides further proof in the case of worthwhile performances that can be found in the art of capture. He is giving this the effort one would see from a Moses-type of character that is fascinating in ways that went past the expectations one might have had from going past people in suits onto having dots on their face. Seeing the rest around him is a pilgrimage worth watching the journey, particularly with Konoval in that all-encompassing devotion (as the cool orangutan) to show just where things could lead when apes do in fact roam the Earth at large with varying differences potentially arising, as is the case with Zahn and his worthy shaky affliction as the newcomer (note the coat). Harrelson apparently believes that he was "a little daunted" when it came to talking about films that he felt "rigid" performance-wise. It is interesting to disagree with him here, because there is something quite entertaining in his stiff intimidation that goes greatly in playing a mirror to Serkis when it comes to reacting to potential trouble to the structure around their leadership (consider that one had to face killing one of their own species right as the war starts and the other killed their sick son as a means of protection and then see who is haunted most). It is tremendously haunting in a manner that doesn't require a big climax for both him and Serkis to show the futility that arises from such determined stubbornness that is both necessary to lead and also a path to self-destruction (simply put, one has to be a little nuts to lead something such as say, the presidency but not too nuts). It is a useful film in the eyes of looking at what it takes to get to the idea of freedom that has plenty of time for imagery (such as with Miller and her eyes to convey "Nova") within the snow and eventual result, particularly with how it ends up when it comes to sacrifice and securing one's name. In general, the movie has a bleak but all-around worthy execution to it that accomplishes the sell of making a myth worth watching play out on screen with effective visuals and performances to back it up for entertainment that makes it easily among the best of the Apes films.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Abigail (2024).

Review #2208: Abigail (2024).

Cast: 

Melissa Barrera (Joey), Dan Stevens (Frank), Alisha Weir (Abigail), Will Catlett (Rickles), Kathryn Newton (Sammy), Kevin Durand (Peter), Angus Cloud (Dean), Giancarlo Esposito (Lambert), and Matthew Goode (Abigail's father) Directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett (#1268 - Ready or Not)

Review: 

You know, it is funny, I picked this movie a few weeks after it was released because it just seemed like the kind of interesting little horror film you can encounter in the spring without needing too many audience members around (if one is paying over $8 for a theater experience, would you not take that chance?). Of course, it also helps particularly if you favor the directors, who, well, were behind Ready or Not (as released in 2019, although I suppose those two "Scream sequels" might be more familiar to certain folks). Perhaps not surprisingly, that film was also co-written by Guy Busick, who wrote Abigail with Stephen Shields (heh, a movie involving one controlled setting of a big house and trying to stay alive when presented with the fear of death, go figure). When it was first announced as being a production for Universal Pictures, it probably wasn't a surprise because of the fact that they were into the idea of just making a horror movie that could take loose inspiration from their previous history involving monsters to mold into something that would be along the lines of The Invisible Man (2020) rather than say, The Mummy (2017). With this in mind, one could be forgiven for thinking of this film as asking how one would do Dracula's Daughter (1936), which in it of itself was a very loose interpretation (read: little to no faithfulness) of a discarded chapter of the original Bram Stoker novel. And, well, I suppose I am making up for not watching Universal's two distributed vampire flicks in 2023 in Renfield and The Last Voyage of the Demeter.

The way one crafts the routine matters to enjoying what gets pulled for a film experience, particularly when it comes to horror, which gets plenty of flak from those who sure love other genres for playing to cliches just because they don't have "icky gore". But we aren't here to crap on people for their taste, we're here to see if a film seems worthwhile to spend time watching for 109 minutes. It delivers pretty much what you would expect from a film spent mostly in one location with a group of briefly describable characters and a title threat that is compelling enough to lend its ride to satisfaction. Weir (born and raised in Ireland) gets to play both sides of the coin that arises from a true wolf in a den of sheep that makes for an imposing presence in the fact that age and size is not the only way to spark terror when it comes to gnarly teeth and tone to go with it. She takes a playfully skilled approach to peeling off the illusion of being an outmatched youth with the endearing sense of fun theatrics. The ensemble around her (one that name drops And Then There Were None, to the surprise of probably nobody) does pretty well in the art of being picked off but having the tone of commitment a notch above staid. Barrera handles it best with useful timing that is generally worth rooting for when being in the house of the rising blood. When it comes to that old "final girl" trope, her worthwhile interest in the art of balancing "run!" and "it may be a vampire, but it's not a total monster" is solid for driving the film along, particularly when compared to the other key presence in Stevens in conniving engagement with baring opportunistic fangs. The others deliver a chuckle or two in their moments spent in the cast, such as Durand getting to play it naturally Canadian (with a bit of dim touch) or a silly Newton. As a whole, it is pretty standard type of gore, but it handles all the trimmings required of a well-oiled one-setting machine with the gore and pacing required to make for a solid curiosity piece. The setup for just what a vampire work just fine here (sunlight, ack!) to lend the climax a worthwhile execution when it comes to making decisions and, well, exploding splatter. Regardless of whatever may be next for Universal in playing it loose with familiar monsters or for the directors at large, I'm sure whatever lurks around the corner has a good chance of being solidly ready for viewing in the horror realm.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Fall Guy.

Review #2207: The Fall Guy.

Cast: 

Ryan Gosling (Colt Seavers), Emily Blunt (Jody Moreno), Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Tom Ryder), Winston Duke (Dan Tucker), Hannah Waddingham (Gail Meyer), Teresa Palmer (Iggy Starr), and Stephanie Hsu (Alma Milan) Directed by David Leitch (#905 - John Wick, #978 - Atomic Blonde, #1087 - Deadpool 2)

Review: 

Sure, one may know that there was once a television series called The Fall Guy. But it is fun to do a brief history lesson anyway, so screw it; airing from 1981 to 1986, the show was originally created by Glen A. Larson (the same guy behind such television shows such as the original Battlestar Galactica) that had Lee Majors as the star involving a stuntman that moonlighted as a bounty hunter, with Douglas Barr and Heather Thomas as supporting presences. But the screenplay for this film (as done by Drew Pearce, who previously co-worked on the script of Leitch's Hobbs & Shaw [2019]) isn't really a straight-show adaptation as it is a film in the tradition of loose TV adaptations such as say, Mission: Impossible (1996). Of course, this is the kind of thing that can be interesting to encounter beyond just going for the cynical angle. In the land of adapting various shows or the toy next to oneself for a film, development for trying to make said movie had been in stasis for over ten years before eventually there were rumblings of "unnamed stuntman film" being worked on by David Leitch (who had been a stuntman for a decade before becoming involved in second unit work and eventually films such as Confessions of an Action Star [2005] and John Wick [2014]) to go with Ryan Gosling as star around the 2020s. Apparently, it was Gosling and Blunt who took inspiration from Leitch and his producer wife when it came to their romantic chemistry together.

Really this is more of a case of a charming romcom that happens to be an action film just as well for 126 minutes. It doesn't take too long to find the film as being fairly accomplished in charm that would be right at home to go along the shelf with Hooper (1978) when it comes to charm that I appreciate greatly in making one appreciate the very nature that comes to making movie magic, albeit without being as much of a "good ol' boy" type of arrangement. You get both a playful film with cannon rolls by a car and a few action sequences that doesn't seem to just be a CG screen plaything (or a deepfake, as they say). Gosling pulls off a tremendous performance in the delicate art of refreshing charm seemingly without having to make that much effort to do so. He has a breezy state to him that seems to just coast onto whatever type of encounter is thrust upon him (the narration delivered by him at times is give-or-take when it comes to things, but I go with it), and it seems to work best when paired with Blunt because of how they interact with each other that feels real. Predictable or not, it is the kind of comfort one likes to see in films that aren't necessarily just straight action films, and I'd rather have a familiar charmer anytime. Blunt apparently took her inspiration from people she had met such as Greta Gerwig when it came to playing a would-be director that handles her role with consistent grace and tenacity, probably best represented by a scene in which she utilizes the "script" to make a conversation with a recently reunited Gosling on the set that is the kind of neat chuckle to absorb. The movie utilizes a carefully crafted ensemble of a few good presences that go right down to Taylor-Johnson and his amusing daft nature that works best for the climax to go with a tremendously amusing Waddingham crafted for those who love to believe that suckers really are born every minute. Duke makes an entertaining presence to go alongside Gosling as the film gets going. The movie maneuvers itself well to achieving the shot and chaser for entertaining action that does show a few laughs to make a fun routine time without dragging itself to being too hip in awareness or self-seriously dry. As a whole, I like its approach with some worthwhile practical stunts to go with clear energy shown for the craft of filmmaking that is fit for any era but seemingly more so now more than ever because it is a feature made straight for the love of seeing people kicking other people in the ass on an ideally large screen (home or otherwise).

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars. 

The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Review #2206: The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Cast: 

Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy), Jamie Foxx (Max Dillon / Electro), Dane DeHaan (Harry Osborn / Green Goblin), Campbell Scott (Richard Parker), Embeth Davidtz (Mary Parker), Colm Feore (Donald Menken), Paul Giamatti (Aleksei Sytsevich / Rhino), Sally Field (May Parker), and Felicity Jones (Felicia) Directed by Marc Webb (#1780 - The Amazing Spider-Man)

Review: 

Okay, so maybe The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) had a few admirers for its ideas on the character (as originally devised by writer-editor Stan Lee and artist Steve Ditko for comic books). It was self-serious in a way that surely seemed distinct from those other Spider-Man movies from the first decade of the 20th century, well, as much as one can be when having a villain be someone named The Lizard. A sequel was pretty much right on the get go, complete with Webb returning to direct. This time, the screenplay was done by Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Jeff Pinkner, who had been hired to do a re-write of the first draft that had been done by James Vanderbilt (as such, each were credited for the story). Plans to set up further films by Sony to basically set up their shared universe involving Spider-Man related things such as, say the "Sinister Six" or Venom were in mind prior to the release of this film in May of 2014. The film was made at a budget that is probably more than the reported $290 million that attracted slightly fewer people to the theater than the last film (read: money, but money...).; amusingly, X-Men: Days of Future Past came out three weeks after this film (good lord, I actually remember seeing it in theaters) as a film made in the shadow of previous franchise films that hinted at the idea of a follow-up film to a different type of result. Of course, any plans with further Spider-Man films with Garfield as the star all went away in a flash in the span of roughly a year to where the next appearance of Spider-Man came with Captain America: Civil War (2016) and blah blah blah, you probably already know about Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) and the return of certain folks with different costuming.  

Admittedly, there are a few elements worth appreciating, because even the lesser films had something useful to watch in the main lead, and Garfield does manage to carve out something worth watching for a film that is now a decade old. The charm exhibited between him and Stone is star-crossed enough to make the resolution something worth exploring in its impact in a sequel (in theory). They have useful chemistry together, even if some could have the caveat of "nice romcom, but this is a Spider-Man movie" right then and there. A good chunk of the movie is "in theory" when you send a few compliments its way, but there is no truly terrible aspect on the level of say, Blade: Trinity (2004). The action generally works out for those expectations one could hope for in a mid 2010s film that was at least trying to provide some sizzle alongside a moderate steak. And then you get to the film itself and realize that some movies just don't know when to stop. The first film may have been a bit lacking in its attempts to differentiate itself from a previous acclaimed trilogy, but it at least didn't have the gall to throw everything at the wall with a smirk on its face. Here I just find watching a competition of whether one can call it a poor man's Batman Returns (1992) or Batman Forever (1995) that was made by people who really thought they could get away with making a bloated sequel that could also set up something called "The Sinister Six" rather than picking one villain and sticking with it. Did the world really need bits and pieces of a "how did the Parkers die conspiracy"? I think they needed it about as much as they needed a blue Electro. If Spider-Man 3 (2007) was the byproduct of a studio wanting just a bit too much for their superhero sequel, Amazing Spider-Man 2 is the one that says, "hold my beer" and then some (this is a movie that casts B.J. Novak for a bit role that I guess is actually a "thing" in certain comics that for a film is about as interesting as the end of this sentence). Either have an Electro or have the weirdness of a man infused with the mode of a goblin, you really should pick one regardless of if it is a sequel or not (to say nothing of the attempt at setting up a bigger future threat in Giamatti and an "accent" that is completely unnecessary). It is bloated and average in all the frustrating ways possible, somehow being even more self-serious than the first one. 

I barely read any kind of comics, but I vaguely remember looking over a cheap reprint of a Spider-Man comic with Electro in it that had him in a green and yellow outfit that looked about on par for the 1960s that thought it would be cool to do crime when he got struck by lightning on a power line. Obviously one can see that the blue present here had inspiration from less older renditions of Electro, but I imagine that having a blue look also helps when it comes to making spectacle filmmaking. They really thought they were cooking with this character, but all they managed to do was cook up a really amusing look to go with characterization that absolutely cannot hold water with Foxx there to try and play a "nobody turned into a somebody". Of course, it probably isn't nearly as clunky as trying to set a fast one in having Garfield and DeHaan look like old reunited buddies prior to tragedy, which really seems to come off as if one was watching part three of a five part plan that actually is being held up by duct tape. His stuff seems almost studio note'd away with the parts that actually seem like a descent into madness (with the transformation sequence anyway). Field described in an interview after the release as one with troubles when it came to depth as if trying to put "10 pounds of [expletive] in a five-pound bag". This is a pretty accurate way to describe her characterization in terms of having exactly one remotely interesting scene (involving her and Garfield sitting and talking about one's parent). Hell, by the second film of the Rosemary Harris version of Aunt May, it had her finishing prayers to annoying goblins and seeing bank robberies up close. All you get with Field and her characterization is, um, being a nursing student to help with bills that get the sidelines because hey, got to get all this other stuff in about a secret abandoned station or ghost Denis Leary showing up at the most, um, interesting times. It is entirely possible that if you combined the amount of screentime of Scott/Davidtz between the two films as the Parker parents, you might actually finish neck and neck with Field, and only one had the distinct pleasure of being in the start of a film for some reason (the answer for that probably has something to do with the reasoning for wanting to ask exactly who asked about who the Parkers were to an audience that still has "with great power comes great responsibility" stuck in their head). When it comes to comparing bloated movies like say, a Pirates sequel to this, that one has it beat because it at least looks like it is having fun doing things. In general, this is a muddled movie that is all "in theory" - the chemistry of Garfield and Stone work in bits and pieces for a movie that is bloated with too many villains and not nearly enough structure to hold it up beyond the bare minimum of average. There are good comic book movies and bad ones, and this one (ten years standing) achieves the goal of straight average disappointment. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest.

Review #2205: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest.

Cast: 

Johnny Depp (Captain Jack Sparrow), Orlando Bloom (Will Turner), Keira Knightley (Elizabeth Swann), Stellan Skarsgård (William "Bootstrap Bill" Turner), Bill Nighy (Davy Jones: Captain of the Flying Dutchman), Jack Davenport (James Norrington), Kevin McNally (Joshamee Gibbs), Jonathan Pryce (Governor Weatherby Swann), Lee Arenberg (Pintel), Mackenzie Crook (Ragetti), Tom Hollander (Lord Cutler Beckett), Naomie Harris (Tia Dalma), Alex Norton (Captain Bellamy), David Bailie (Cotton), Martin Klebba (Marty), David Schofield (Mercer), and John Boswall (Wyvern) Directed by Gore Verbinski (#140 - The Ring, #1557 - Rango, and #1724 - Pirates of  the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl)

Review: 

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) was a hit so obvious that a plan to make back-to-back sequels was, well, a match made in pirate heaven, compete with retaining the services of its director Gore Verbinski to go with a screenplay done by Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, who had been two of the credited writers behind the original (as one remembers, there had been re-writes on that film, but Elliott and Rossio would write all except the last one together). The first sequel would feature working ships (as opposed to shooting on just one location) that would lead to various action set pieces, such, as, well, a bone cage. Of course, it was Verbinski who wanted the members of the ship to be composed of physical (sea) creatures rather than ghosts that Rossio and Elliott had in mind, complete with most of said things being played through CG, with the exception of makeup (such as extensive prosthetics and motion capture that sees one actor wear dots that then has CG added) for two of them. Shot for over $200 million, the second part of the back-to-back production came out with Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (which shot its ending just a few days into shooting the second film because of the nature of filming in certain islands) the following year.

I suppose 150 minutes is not a surprise length for a film that is the middle film of a trilogy that basically arose from the deep (read: money). Obviously, it can't have as much magic as the original did when it comes to being a CG spectacle, but I think you can imagine the appeal that lies within a committed crew in the art of wanting to execute entertainment in the useful sweet spot of the mid 2000s. It is an oiled machine that believes itself to be well-oiled enough to throw around several threads that it can dangle for a later setup, whether that involves the importance of sand, British people being weird, or the finer points of sea dwelling that makes for a reasonably fine experience. Granted, it isn't as "pretty good" as the previous film, but it provides enough spark to latch a hook for at least one more go-around the wheel because of the various desires that you would see coming from a film title meaning to get the eye(s). It never wanders away from trying to deliver something interesting to hear or see on screen, which is semi-effective. Verbinski once described the challenges of balancing Depp with the others as him being the spice in a "garlic milkshake". That probably works best when describing the aura of Depp in a role of the scoundrel among a litany of straights and other various creatures that he plays with the right blend of conniving charm. He walks the fine line of adventure with a swagger that seems to enjoy the idea of yanking the chain of others around him, regardless of if they are friend or foe, if only to avoid the end of all the mythmaking. He plays it with no sense of tiredness to it, jumbling through chases with a certain gaze that seems to be looking past the sword. Bloom and Knightley are in their own different interactions with Depp (as shaped by making sure to not have them all together for a good while), which is generally worth viewing, as evidenced by the amusing fight that breaks out in the sands where Knightley is watching a fight with the temper that arises from the clash of egos in sand. Skarsgård and Nighy make for useful newcomers to the series that aren't completely lost in the (interesting) effects around them, with the former making a useful player in the shaky bond of father and son (with Bloom) and the latter being a compelling adversary (Nighy has stated that rather than an accent of Dutch, he favored a Scottish one) of cruel fun. There are no weak spots among the rest of the gang of rogues and other such things, whether that involves the consistent pro in McNally or seasoned ones such as a ravished Davenport or those providing levity such as Arenberg and Crook. The staging of the action works fairly well for what is necessary in swashbuckling in the fashion of interest that takes a giant wheel and has fun with that. As a whole, it is a solidly fine sequel that plays the middle ground for pirate action with just a bit leftover to bubble over for looking at the next installment with curious interest.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.