Ravenous (1999).

Review #2619: Ravenous.

Cast: 

Guy Pearce (Captain John Boyd), Robert Carlyle (F.W. Colqhoun / Colonel Ives), David Arquette (Private Cleaves), Jeremy Davies (Private Toffler), Jeffrey Jones (Colonel Hart), John Spencer (General Slauson), Stephen Spinella (Major Knox), Neal McDonough (Private Reich), Joseph Runningfox (George), Sheila Tousey (Martha), and Bill Brochtrup (Lindus) Directed by Antonia Bird.

Review: 

"Ravenous’ is more about social misfits than the whole seductive nature of power. I would like to think that someone who enjoyed it only as gallows humor would start to think. The metaphor of power and a society where we’re encouraged to be competitive is, to me, not a great society. As a European, observing early Californian history and making a film about that — I kind of believe Europeans were responsible for a lot of stuff that happened here. Robert Carlyle’s character represents that. The Europeans practiced genocide. I think the good things about America — we’re (Europeans) not responsible for.”

A long time ago, in a frontier not too far far away, there were people in this world that came out of a travelling party with survival coming by the one thing you could not expect, at least if you believe what survives in historical fact. Alfred Packer claimed that he survived a number of days on roots within a brutal wilderness of what was not quite the state of Colorado in the winter of 1874. Aside from being a petty thief, Packer was not exactly a consistent man with his stories of survival, so it perhaps came as the tiniest bit of surprise that it wasn't so much a man making a tall tale of survival to cover a robbery but instead a claim that he survived on the bones of his party members (to say nothing of the Donner Party from three decades prior, where a group of pioneers saw 30+ people perish and a few bones missing along the way). Anyway, Ted Griffin was a first-time screenwriter that had graduated Colgate University. All of a sudden, Ravenous was one of three screenplays that got sold to a studio in a week, with Fox 2000 slating a director with Milcho Manchevski (director of Before the Rain [1994]) by 1997. Shooting was done in Mexico alongside Slovakia that saw production squabbles between its producer and Machevski to the point where an attempted replacing with Raja Gosnell went nowhere. Antonia Bird was brought in to direct because of the recommendation of her business partner, Robert Carlyle. Bird was involved in theatre from the age of 17 with Coventry Rep and directed a total of four films (Priest [1994], Mad Love [1995], Face [1997]) alongside the various TV and theatre involved as both producer and director. She did not get everything she wanted for the finished film, as post-production saw a voiceover included alongside the quotes you see in the introduction (i.e: "He who fights the monster must make sure not to become a monster."- Friedrich Nietzsche is then followed with "Eat me!"- Anonymous) that she felt was "superfluous". Even with a budget of $12 million and an initial release in over a thousand theaters, Ravenous was not a hit at the time of release. 

This ended up being Bird's last feature film as a director, as she spent the rest of her time as a TV director until her death in 2013 at the age of 62. Such a pity for a movie with interest in the intensities of competitiveness. What Bird saw the movie as was the perils of consumption and all that comes with a focus on two people that happen be the embodiment of drug pusher and junkie (in a sea of folktale movies, going with a version of the Wendigo myth from native Algonquian folklore is pretty interesting). It isn't exactly a fight for survival in the woods type of movie, it isn't exactly a fight for revenge, it isn't exactly the kind of movie for everyone...and it is still pretty damn fun. It's the type of movie to absorb in all the absurdities and pleasures that come with its atmosphere and tremendously game cast that remind you as many times as possible that one really should eat to live as opposed to living to eat when it comes to horror and pitch-black humor (did I mention the off-kilter playing of music in banjos, violins and more from Damon Albarn and Michael Nyman?). This is the kind of movie that does wonder about people who maybe see others as mere meat slabs. Pearce is given a pretty thankless task if you want to play devil's advocate: a weary junkie with nowhere to actually run. It isn't a road to seeing him becone a hero, it is a road of actually knowing what one is beyond a string of meat and desires, where one must see if they can actually atone with all that they did. Undeniably, Carlyle runs away with the show with his devilish qualities worth seeing as basically a vampire, one that believes it is more courageous to walk with him than to walk against him. He plays around with who he is to others around him with a type of confidence that could only come from someone who really has lived the tricks of the trade and decided he liked the taste too much to let it go. The body count actually is a bit considerable despite the careful pace (in fact, you might be more squeamish about seeing meat than blood, save for one scene), and Jones* manages to play off the general absurdity of his situation in wayward elegance for a few chuckles (McDonough is not in it much, hut his intensity is worth a look). It is a movie filled ominous delight over what happens when power truly does seep into the flesh and the inevitable crash of junkie and dealer in lyrical darkness that is actually pretty fun. It takes plenty of time to get there among flesh, blood, and the stark terror of the frontier, but the ride is worth it at least once, I believe. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Happy Halloween. Hell of a time for a triple header, we will see you later for Halloween -The Week After: Crazy Eights.

*I would be remiss not to mention that Jones would later be charged in 2002 for crimes involving a minor involving posing for photographs that saw him sentenced to probation and become registered as a sex offender for life.

Mystery Men.

Review #2568: Mystery Men.

Cast: 

Ben Stiller (Roy / Mr. Furious), Hank Azaria (Jeffery / Blue Raja), William H. Macy (Eddie / Shoveler), Greg Kinnear (Lance Hunt / Captain Amazing), Kel Mitchell (Invisible Boy), Paul Reubens (Spleen), Janeane Garofalo (Carol / Bowler), Wes Studi (The Sphinx), Claire Forlani (Monica), Geoffrey Rush (Casanova Frankenstein), Lena Olin (Dr. Anabel Leek), Eddie Izzard (Tony P.), Tom Waits (Doc Heller), Artie Lange (Big Red), Louise Lasser (Violet), and Ricky Jay (Vic Weems) Directed by Kinka Usher.

Review: 

"But that’s the nature of filmmaking. Sometimes things work, sometimes they don’t. Sometimes you just have to go with what you get and just hope it doesn’t make that much of a difference.”

I'm not really sure when I first heard of this movie, to be honest with you. Maybe it was the silly title or seeing a trailer of it on one of those "hey, this is on DVD too" things. But time comes for all things, so screw it, why not this one? Obviously, this had to be based off a comic book, although it is a bit more interesting than the usual source material. It all started with Bob Burden, who wrote and drew a comic called Flaming Carrot Comics that had a guest star with the Mysterymen, a group of "other guys" that consisted of many oddballs such as, well, The Shoveler, Spleen, Mr. Furious, you get the idea (as for the Carrot, well, he had a utility belt, a really strong pogo stick and weapon, and whatever "Zen Stupidity" is). Burden wrote over 30 issues from 1984 to 2006 that had various publishers from Aardvark-Vanaheim to Dark Horse Comics to Image. His work attracted the attention of Lawrence Gordon and Universal Pictures and eventually came into fruition with a first-time director as rejections from filmmakers such as Danny DeVito and Ben Stiller. Kinka Usher had been born in France (to a dance teacher mom and graphic designer dad) before breaking into the film industry in his twenties, which included, and I'm sure this is a surprise, work as a cameraman on a Roger Corman production. He became a director in commercials for various companies and kept on directing them* after this film came and went. Neil Cuthbert (a co-writer on The Return of Swamp Thing [1989] and Hocus Pocus [1993] and future writer of The Adventures of Pluto Nash [2002]) is the credited writer of the film, which had various re-writes that mainly dealt with people wanting to personalize their parts; Burden was even present on set for a few of those days. August 6, 1999 had plenty of cool options for theater releases: this movie, The Thomas Crown Affair, The Iron Giant, The Sixth Sense (and, to be generous, Dick came out two days earlier and the wider release for Blair Witch Project came right before August), with some of those movies becoming successes and some, well, being flops. The movie made less than half of its $68 million budget back and was not exactly a critical darling. 

This is a movie that yearns to be loved by an appreciative crowd, one that knows of the campy weirdness of comic book movies of yesteryear such as say, Batman and Robin (1997) or the current crop of offbeat failures such as Madame Web (2024). Some movies have a chump in the midst of their movie, Mystery Men is basically an entire team of chumps, the kind of folks who basically all represent the many facets of misfits you would see in school for two hours. It's a jumbled mess that will feel like a long bout of twaddle to those who don't like what its selling or will feel like a dream for those who love ridiculous little movies with noted names and the time capsule of good ol' 1999 that has serious-minded people in a silly world that gives them one shot to be on top when the corporate suck-sorry, corporate superhero can't save the city for once. Stiller tries to play it both ways: the bravado of actually trying to ragebait himself into being an actual person that is sometimes interesting. I could take it or leave it with the interactions spent between him and Forlani (who among us has an interest in striking up conversations with the waitress again and again), though. Macy and his can-do attitude of plugging away as a would-be hero is probably the most interesting of the leads because of his charm in the face of what could've easily just been a sad schlub but instead is likable enough to see him try to rise above the crop of mediocrity. I get the joke with Azaria and the attempt at doing a British accent of the highest camp order and also think taking a fork to the throat would be preferable to hearing his bit again, which actually makes hearing the long-winded fart joke of Reubens (who among us wouldn't want to be in a movie basically playing a slob?) tolerable. Kinnear is vastly needed more in his ridiculous mannerisms as a hero who can't exactly handle being "too good" at their job, particularly since Rush is supposed to match him as the main threat of mischief and can only help but pop up every now and then. Garofalo, Mitchell, and a randomly appearing Studi round it out with varying levels of interest (namely with Garofalo). You've got folks who have plugged away (shovels, jobs, you pick one) for years at something only to get silent stares, people who have been overlooked long enough to think they are invisible, folks who put on an accent/act to try and sound normal, folks who have to be rattled to even feel something (strength is one thing, some people actually willingly look at stuff that will get them mad Online) ...and then you've got folks talking in riddles, throwing balls and, well, farting. If taken seriously, it flails around with flab that will foil less patient folks while those who know what they're getting in a "hit or miss" goofy type of comedy will surely find something worth liking with these misfits and their freewheeling of the usual ensemble of would-be heroes and the offbeat ambition and neurosis in all of us.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day! 

Next up: A familiar face with little to say but plenty to do.

*Evidently, there exists an urban legend that Tim Burton actually directed the movie. I cannot imagine a urban legend more absurd. What's next, thinking that Steven Spielberg directed Poltergeist? 

*I swear, this was completely coincidental to review the movie around its 27th anniversary. Also, for fun, enjoy a making of video: Mystery Men Featurette - Spotlight on Location - Interviews With The Cast | 1999

American Beauty.

Review #2328: American Beauty.

Cast: 

Kevin Spacey (Lester Burnham), Annette Bening (Carolyn Burnham), Thora Birch (Jane Burnham), Wes Bentley (Ricky Fitts), Mena Suvari (Angela Hayes), Peter Gallagher (Buddy Kane), Allison Janney (Barbara Fitts), Chris Cooper (Col. Frank Fitts), Scott Bakula (Jim Olmeyer), and Sam Robards (Jim Berkley) Directed by Sam Mendes (#572 - Skyfall, #1585 - 1917, #1891 - Spectre)

Review: 

"If you are doing a play or a film, you have to have a secret way in if you are directing it. Sometimes it’s big things. American Beauty, for me, was about my adolescence."

It isn't every day you get a movie with a lead presence who throws away his responsibilities to go on a quest to maybe get with a much, much younger woman. To start, the movie was written by Alan Ball, the playwright-turned TV writer on the sitcoms Grace Under Fire and Cybill. The Atlanta native, frustrated by his work on those shows, tried to get into film. One of the scripts he would write was cribbed from a play idea he had come up and discarded, with the passion and "anger and rage at my working situation" resulting in a script that Dreamworks Pictures liked. There were numerous inspirations: one was the media circus surrounding the Amy Fisher trial (in which a 17-year old severely wounded the wife of a man she had a sexual relationship when still underage that saw her nicknamed the "Long Island Lolita"), and the other was an actual experience involving a plastic bag that he followed intently for 10 minutes (of course, his Buddhist faith played an influence too, where he was once quoted talking about a notion of "the miraculous within the mundane"). As strange as it sounds, it really was a script that wound up directed by a first-time filmmaker in Sam Mendes, who at the time had just done a revival of the musical Cabaret (interestingly, Mendes had Spacey and Bening in mind from the beginning). Present for rewrites during production (such as excising particular aspects of the ending), Mendes and Ball would each win an Academy Award that yer (television viewers might recognize that afterwards, Ball wound up creating Six Feet Under and True Blood).  

Hell, I suppose you could say that there is a beauty that is ironed out of people by culture, experience, or, well, conformity. Satire, psychological drama, whatever one calls the movie, it certainly is one that has managed to endure in the strange sphere of movies that some people really, really liked 25 years ago and others that, well, thought it was aging terribly by the years that went by (it most certainly is not the worst Best Picture winner when stuff like Cavalcade and Chariots of Fire exists). "Is that all there is?" isn't exactly the freshest premise, admittedly, because you could gleam that in another 1999 movie with Fight Club (which in perhaps a mirror of this film went from polarized reviews to a cult following in its 25 years of life) or even with Office Space. The times shifted fast on this film to a bizarro world where cynicism runs deep and the profound now reeks of pretentiousness. The facades that folks found funny to point at now just seem hollow in their barbs. Esteemed people of their age (insert any Administration of the past few decades) now resemble ghoulish relics. The taboos of older years are now stuff you may wish to bleach from your eyes on Twitter (or, for those with certain tastes, bookmark like a chipmunk), while others on social media seem to believe that their county and political values should be like of the old movies they watched as a youth. I think you get the idea, but I will say this much: the movie is kind of funny to me in that strange way that comes in facades and soap-opera weirdness. It narrates itself as if was Sunset Boulevard (1950), complete with strange self-importance and a worthwhile look (as shot by the famed Conrad L. Hall) of suburban facades.

I interpreted Spacey's performance as one that believe he is in on the joke of someone looking for meaning by basically reverting to a man-child. He trades one sense of totems for other totems in an amusing manner that is actually quite pathetic when you really get down to it. It isn't a role with any sense of dignity to it, but trying to re-invent oneself in the throes of balding hair and flabby nature is strangely enduring ot the now. I may not care for the man or his character, but I don't have to be to get a few chuckles at the pursuit of what one believes to be beauty. Honestly, Bening is the more interesting presence because somehow, her type-A personality facade is really, really amusing to me. It probably is represented best when one sees at her job in which she repeats the sentence "I will sell this house today" on a compulsive level that only makes the punchline (for all the facades one can put up, it all goes to shit in the face of looking closer) all the more amusing. Really, there may be a bit of the Burnhams in the people we may see every day, as that song by the Doors goes (people are strange...). Strangely, Bentley and Birch don't really have as much as impact as I thought they might have done for a movie that starts itself with the two of them for a moment that comes right back to the climax. It's just a couple of adrift youth that try to stake the waters between the ordinary and what is "interesting", and yeah, one gets it I suppose; Suvari may be played as an object, but her facade is at least obvious enough to be played to an actual conclusion. Besides, the brazen vulnerabilities that lie beneath the facade played by Cooper and Janney are far more compelling in those unspoken moments each has on screen (the latter basically seems to be as distant as a wide painting). In general, it is a movie that is shallow and yet somehow fascinating to see for the time it was made in, one in which it tries to make some sort of statement about the beauty of things that lie beneath the surface that have been left adrift in a time where people's pursuit for things and facades have only made one see the film as ridiculous rather than profound. Well-made and weirdly amusing, it is a movie that could only come from the turn of one millennium into another.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Ring 2.

Review #2310: Ring 2.

Cast: 

Miki Nakatani (Mai Takano), Rikiya Otaka (Yoichi Asakawa), Nanako Matsushima (Reiko Asakawa), Yoichi Numata (Takashi Yamamura), Rie Inō (Sadako Yamamura; Mebuki Tsuchida as young Sadako Yamamura), Kyoko Fukada (Kanae Sawaguchi), Yūrei Yanagi (Okazaki), Hitomi Satō (Masami Kurahashi), Hiroyuki Sanada (Ryuji Takayama), Fumiyo Kohinata (Ishi Kawajiri), and Kenjirō Ishimaru (Detective Keiji Omuta) Directed by Hideo Nakata (#1747 - Ring and #1755 - The Ring Two)

Review:

Yes, it seemed ideal to cover Hideo Nakata's first sequel to a film with Ring in the title. You might remember that Ring, as adapted from Koji Suzuki's 1991 novel of the same name, was released on the same day as Spiral on January 31, 1998. Wracked with the choice between film adaptations of the first book and the second book, people apparently were really big on picking the first one and ignoring the second one straight up. Nakata was once quoted saying that one of the changes for adaptation was to not involve the use of a "psych-meter" that was key in the horror-mystery plot. At any rate, here one is with the same director and writer (Hiroshi Takahashi) and a handful of cast members from before came out Ring 2; unlike the last two films, this one was not an adaptation of the novels (at the time of its release, Birthday, a short story collection novel and the fourth of the series, was not out). One year later in 2000, Takahashi returned to write Ring 0: Birthday, a prequel to the series. Nakata declined an offer to direct that film, although as you probably already know, he wound up being the director for the the 2005 sequel to the American remake.

It's very amusing that there basically are three Ring sequels in Japan and America that saw Nakata direct two of them, and it is the one that features psychic energy being channeled into a body of water that is somehow the best among the group. That is not particularly a compliment, because there just isn't enough tension here to make one believe that it really matters to justify itself beyond just feeling like an epilogue to the original. Some have apparently thought of the film as apparently taking some inspiration from Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977), which probably has something to do with the attempts at branching out beyond spooky tapes with, well, psychic energy and the apparent abilities of one certain person. The acting is passable but never particularly comes off as compelling with the various people that come and go (such as quiet kids, and a little bit of "oh hey, it's the person from the first film"); Nakatani has some of the curious energy required in inquisition, up to a point. The unravelling of what one gets to know about Sadako (such as a facial reconstruction) is interesting...some of the time. It basically is a procedural (with its own ideas of infecting one in more ways than one) that tries to coast on ideas that surely work better for those into "thoughtography" that isn't particularly scary. Some might call it the kind of movie that fits right in for those looking to absorb atmosphere and subtle nature, but it just seems hollow here, managing instead to feel like a collision of conversations that can only go so far before you wonder if you are going around in circles. The movie can't quite stick its trip down the well when it comes to finding a way to make sense of its actual landing (why is only this person who was saved, well, who really knows?), particularly in its actual final scene, which seems even more open to "throwing your hands up" than definitive, and I should mention that, well, the first film just happened to stick the landing closer in unsettling nature in ways the second never really gets to. As a whole, it has a few ideas perhaps worth looking into for 95 minutes that you either will go right in for as a proper way to follow Ring or you will just leave off mildly disappointed.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Rob Zombie's The Lords of Salem

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut.

Review #2226: South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut.

Cast: 

Trey Parker (Stan Marsh / Eric Cartman / Gregory / Satan / Mr. Garrison / Mr. Hat / Phillip Niles Argyle / Randy Marsh / Clyde Donovan / Tom – News Reporter / Midget in a Bikini / Bill Clinton / Canadian Ambassador / Bombardiers / Mr. Mackey / Army General / Ned Gerblansky / Bill Allen / Fosse McDonald / Christophe – Ze Mole / Big Gay Al (singing voice) / Adolf Hitler / additional voices), Matt Stone (Kyle Broflovski / Kenny McCormick (Hooded) / Saddam Hussein / Terrance Henry Stoot / Big Gay Al / Ticket Taker / Stuart McCormick / Jimbo Kearn / Gerald Broflovski / Butters Stotch / American Ambassador / additional voices), Mary Kay Bergman (Sheila Broflovski / Liane Cartman / Sharon Marsh / Carol McCormick / Wendy Testaburger / Clitoris / additional voices), Isaac Hayes (Chef), with Jesse Howell, Anthony Cross-Thomas & Franchesca Clifford (Ike Broflovski), Bruce Howell (Man in Theatre), Deb Adair (Woman in Theatre), Jennifer Howell (Bebe Stevens), George Clooney (Dr. Gouache), Brent Spiner (Conan O'Brien), Minnie Driver (Brooke Shields), Dave Foley (the Baldwin brothers), and Eric Idle (Dr. Vosknocker) Directed by Trey Parker.

Review: 

"We grew up with Monty Python, as fucked-up as that all was, and Dirty Harry and Charles Bronson and ultraviolence. People seem to forget that the world has been ultraviolent for a long time. Both of us — and all our friends — grew up in that culture, and we’re fine. There’s nothing about Marilyn Manson that says, “Pick up a gun and kill people.” And there’s nothing about South Park that says that, either." -Trey Parker 

" If there’s an overriding message in South Park, it’s just to question authority. That’s the shit we make fun of." -Matt Stone

Believe it or not, I have been waiting for this day to come for a while. In what I would call an "on-and-off basis", I watched at least a dozen episodes of a show that was for whatever reason shown late at night (the one that served as an affiliate for Fox) for at least a few weeks in that time where kids remember the weirdest things (as opposed to bad friends) watched when they are 27. That one was South Park, and it sure is a hell of a time trying to get the memory of stuff such as "Mecha-Streisand" out of your head. The genesis for what eventually became a television show on Comedy Central was a couple of stop motion animated short films as created and voiced by Trey Parker and Matt Stone, who had first met in study at the University of Colorado. The shorts of "The Spirit of Christmas" featured a killer snowman and Jesus fighting Santa to go with a couple of kids that is all done on construction paper and 8mm film. Inspired by various programs such as Monty Python, the show (with all but its pilot using computer technology) that resulted from the folks that gave you Cannibal! The Musical (1993) and Orgazmo (1997) is one that has managed to stay on the air for over 25 years, although I have to admit that for some reason, only the early stuff (some favorites of the early stuff is the one where the kids try to get a cop to learn how to read or, well, "Jewbilee" [aired one month after the film] had Moses depicted as a dreidel and was hilarious) seems to attract my curiosity (incidentally Parker and Stone have noted their dislike of their earlier episodes in terms of writing, proving that sometimes ome really can just ignore recommendations). Anyway, the film was in mind as early as 1998, complete with the condition by Stone and Parker to have it an R rating. The episode "Death" was a key influence, since that one involved the comedy styling of Terrance & Phillip (fart jokes) offending parents enough to ditch their kids while they go off to protest (which naturally was Stone and Parker's response to certain criticism people had of the show). Parker and Stone wrote the film with Pam Brady while composer Marc Shaiman co-wrote the songs with Parker. Made at the same time that the show was in production with a slightly different animation usage (Alias|Wavefront PowerAnimator), the movie barely sneaked in with an R rating (evidently if you are a studio project, you get a specific target on your back when it comes to swearing) and was released on June 30, 1999 to general success.

Parker and Stone didn't make a second South Park film, but they did collaborate for a different kind of non-liveaction film in Team America: World Police (involving puppetry) five years later. Every so often, I have to remind myself that there is always someone pissy about folks saying swear words at certain moments. I enjoyed this about as well as I thought I would for a film that has a few amusing songs that actually work to the film's benefit. It manages to avoid most of the traps one can find when trying to adapt a show into a movie (such as feeling like just a compilation of episodes) with an engaging pace and plenty of ways to drain from the well of showmanship. Parker and Stone managing to make a film where one only needs three or four voices (which includes the smooth timing of Hayes and Bergman) to make something seem like, well, a film with cartoon atmosphere (such as with Cartman, probably the most amusing goon to ever terrorize the senses for laughter at and with). The songs hit that certain type of sweetspot in not overstating its welcome and, well, being pretty silly fun, particularly with "Blame Canada" in its scapegoating glory. Within a film involving a gay(ish) Satan and Saddam Hussein is also one about the dangers of parents trying to play scapegoat in blaming someone for what their kids pick up rather than looking in the mirror and actually making the effort to reach out to their kids. Amusingly enough, there were apparently a number of young folks who were reported to buy tickets for films adjacent to this one so they could try and sneak in. There is the usual type of creativity in havoc to be found here, such as the reveal of Hell (complete with song and ghosts of folks meant to generate biting one's lip such as George Burns or Ghandi) or the momentary bits of guest voices/making fun of certain people (incidentally, George Clooney had appeared in a previous South Park episode, voicing sounds of a gay dog). I can't resist the crude enjoyment, particularly since it proves that one can push the boundaries of animation in terms of crass nature to go with a message more interesting than corporate meandering. As a whole, the movie serves followers of the original show exactly what they would anticipate in anarchic charm without compromising its sense of self for a rewarding time in the full of piss and vinegar mindset.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Audition (1999).

Review #2167: Audition.

Cast: 

Eihi Shiina (Asami Yamazaki), Ryo Ishibashi (Shigeharu Aoyama), Jun Kunimura (Yasuhisa Yoshikawa), Tetsu Sawaki (Shigehiko Aoyama), Miyuki Matsuda (Ryoko Aoyama), Toshie Negishi (Rie), Shigeru Saiki (Toastmaster), Ken Mitsuishi (Director), Ren Ohsugi (Shimada), and Renji Ishibashi (Old man in wheelchair) Directed by Takashi Miike.

Review: 

“The life of a movie director is a strange one. What one has done in the past determines the future. And I’m grateful to fans who enjoy my genre films. But I try to focus on the things that I like in the present. I like new ventures There could be disappointments for fans. I like to be diverse. And I’ll keep on being diverse in the future.”

Admittedly, there was no real debate about picking Takashi Miike or not when it came to looking for further faces of directorial vision. Born in the Yao in the Osaka Prefecture of Japan to a welder and a seamstress, Miike had a clear interest in film from a young age. He graduated from the Yokohama Vocational School of Broadcast and Film (as taught by Shohei Imamura) and worked in film crews before becoming a filmmaker in 1991, which started with a variety of television and direct-to-video work. His early work in features for audiences would be films such as Shinjuku Triad Society (1995), which he labeled as the first of a "Black Society trilogy" involving triads and the yakuza. Of course, Audition, which premiered on the festival circuit beginning in late 1999, became one of his more noted films abroad. His further films over the years have had their varying levels of attention. Ichi the Killer (2001) had a publicity gimmick handing out barf bags on the festival circuit with a resulting "controversy" about the gore, while his samurai film 13 Assassins (2010) was apparently a really well-regarded remake of the 1963 film of the same name, and he has continued with television from time to time such as Connect just two years ago. One particular influence that Miike inspired in his filmography of roughly 100 films was with Eli Roth, as Audition had Roth say "This is where horror's at. This is what I wanna do", with his 2005 film Hostel even having Miike make a cameo appearance. 

The screenplay for the film was done by Daisuke Tenga based on the book of the same name by Ryu Murakami (published in 1997 but only translated in English in 2009). The idea for making the film came by the company Omega Project, who had previously made money with Ring (1998). This film was shot in three weeks. Evidently, the film received attention for something about feminism or its climax when it comes to, well, being one to not miss. A festival screening apparently saw one person say, "You are sick!" during the Q&A session afterwards while another screening saw someone pass out. It is a slow burn of a film for 113 minutes that plays with the audience in its operation of manners that in a different light could have been mistaken for a Hitchcock inspiration that got veered into the realm of Cronenberg. Going into the film with as little surprise as possible is the best way to watch it, because it rules to not be prepared for what goes on for a film that builds the dynamic between Shiina and Ishibashi to interesting degrees of expectations meeting reality. The promotions for the film (such as that film poster) didn't exactly make it a complete surprise what you would see with it (which, again, was based on a book people had to have known), but Miike obviously has a passion for Murakami's writing. In fact, he apparently wanted to do a film based on Murakami's 1980 book Coin Locker Babies but couldn't find the funding. The film is all about the nature of where truth meets lies, because it all starts with a son that truthfully thinks his father looks tired and needs a wife. Ishibashi makes this pursuit as captivating as possible, one who makes the idea count that one really can get swept away by a woman with little more than a few phrases and seeing them "audition". The idea is amusing and perhaps a bit pathetic when you look at it under the surface to vie for the affection of a woman under the guise of a lie, and yet there is something that makes you at least see why he would go forward with the ruse as played with Kunimura, who takes it as seriously as part-casting, part-wife scouting. Of course, Shiina (fashion model-turned-actress) is the other key force, selling the dynamic with that righteous sense of timing who is unnervingly graceful. The sequences involving the audition in general make the film where it is for foundation of assumptions in society. No one is who they seem (whether in how they are as shaped by their experiences, trauma or not), which make the ultimate outcome all the more harrowing to see play out. The climax is excellent in taking those assumptions and leveling them into the ground, right down to its final shot in terms of shattered illusions. In conclusion, I really appreciated this film. It builds the degrees of elegance and tension in a manner that can't be appreciated in full unless one sees it all the way through for itself. If watching new directors to start a year for the last few years has taught me anything, one finds some of those directors are really worth looking into on a more regular basis, and Miike may just be one of those examples more than anything. It's a damn good horror film you just have to enter with as little illusions built as possible, and you can take my word for it on that being true.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Craig R. Baxley's Stone Cold (1991).

Baby Geniuses.

Review #2149: Baby Geniuses. 

Cast: 

Kathleen Turner (Dr. Elena Kinder), Christopher Lloyd (Dr. Heep), Peter MacNicol (Dan Bobbins), Kim Cattrall (Robin Bobbins), Dom DeLuise (Lenny), Ruby Dee (Margo), with Leo, Gerry and Myles Fitzgerald (Sylvester "Sly" & Whit; voices by Miko Hughes), and Kyle Howard (Dickie/Ice Pick) Directed by Bob Clark (#020 - A Christmas Story, #679 - Black Christmas, #1055 - Porky's, #1854 - My Summer Story)

Review: 

"We wanted to go for a more realistic presentation of the concept." - Bob Clark.

Oh no, Bob Clark. This was the guy who did horror such as Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things (1972) and Black Christmas (1974) before getting to do comedy/dramas such as Tribute (1980). After that, every film of his seems to remind one of a rollercoaster, as for every sleeper-turned-classic such as A Christmas Story (1983)...there was a litany of films that went down the road of audience appreciation such as the following: Porky's (1981 - hit, for better or worse), Porky's II: The Next Day (1983 - hit, somewhat), Rhinestone (1984 - the odd flop), Turk 182 (1985 - flop), From the Hip (1987 - flop), Loose Cannons (1990 - flopped harder), My Summer Story (1994 - little-seen flop), I'll Remember April (1999 - ???)...and then this. The involvement of Bob Clark with what became this film started in 1994. Clark ran into Jon Voight when attending a play and heard about a script that Voight wanted to do with his company that he had formed with Steven Paul in Crystal Sky Productions; Paul came up with the initial concept because he saw two babies communicating to each other once. This script (with multiple writers having gone through it) involved babies. While the script didn't look great to Clark (it involved portals called "Baby World"), he was interested in the short film he was shown involving babies sitting around in a meeting like they were executives (i.e., morph technology). Clark led the charge for a shift in the script that honed to the corporate angle because the other script seemed less "fresh." Of course, Clark had every reason to be nervous with the effects, but Babe (1995) certainly cooled fears a bit when it came to morphing. The effects when it came to the babies fell to the hands of Creative Special Effects when it comes to lips and mouths (alongside other stuff like natural head movements) for the babies for, well, conversation. By default, the CGI is a pioneer of some sort when it came to mouth movement, with credit of course going to babies...hitting their marks along with the use of a 15-year-old little person and a young gymnast for dancing and karate moves. Would you be surprised to hear that the film had a dubious release history? It was first planned for a release in Christmas of 1997 before incomplete effects meant a new target of 1998 and then 1999, and there was even the possibility of just shuttering the film as a Columbia TriStar Home Video release in the direct-to circuit before the movie slithered onto theaters in March of 1999, which managed to garner marginal attention from audiences. Five years later, Clark returned to direct a sequel with Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2 (2004), now with Voight serving as a star to go with Paul writing the screenplay and serving as a producer. Somehow, that film has a much worse reputation than this film, and it happened to be the last film directed by Clark, who died in 2007 at the age of 67.

Getting kids (age 5-9, apparently) rather than adult voices to voice the babies (such as say, Look Who's Talking [1989]) is probably the least sad thing of the whole thing. What could possibly invite you to waste 95 minutes on a movie that never succeeds in every joke that is attempted? If there was a God, I do not believe that watching babies walk and talk would be high on the priority list. You might as well call it the film most likely to be thought of as having no soul in it. The people who made this film probably did not think much of the film either during or after production, but that doesn't give an excuse for this being one of the worst things I have ever seen. Hell, it shouldn't even be called a film, it should be put in a special garbage can that you would put expired food products in. You might think, oh, well, Monster a Go-Go (1965) is filled with more inconsistencies and worse acting. Well, maybe, but that has the label of being made in weirder circumstances of "make the best out of the footage", what kind of excuse does this Hollywood slop have? Absolutely none. Clark and his team probably thought it was one of those things you can put on for the kids and enjoy, but no, they did not. I can't tell who to feel sorrier for when it comes to being present in such a bad feature here, Lloyd (future voice in Foodfight!) or DeLuise (guy who appeared in past junk such as Sextette, and The Magic Voyage dub); Lloyd's most dubious scene might as well be his second one, when he accesses a computer that only is there to deliver exposition to the audience and serve no other purpose. Well, okay, maybe Turner, because she has more time than each actor and doesn't even get to chew scenery. Imagine my shock, no scene chewing in a movie that has less life on it than the planet Mars. Even if you want to term MacNicol and Cattrall as just sleepwalking through their roles, why should they be given slack? It's easy to say folks are mailing it in, but, well, yea, they are mailing it in as if this was a direct-to-video production, complete with little motivation to do much of anything. They repeat one line four times in quick succession and later do a repeat of a gag where an adult gets tricked into getting hit in the beans after talking about it. The voices coming out of those babies were never going to work with how it looked because it just isn't a useful effect that you would want to see for very long. It is a gag that has run amok for what might as well count for anti-comedy. Truly, this was a sad experience to sit through, because it means that Bob Clark may be one of few people who directed both a vaunted classic and a horrendously awful feature in the same career. Avoid, unless you like garbage.

Overall, I give it 0 out of 10 stars.

Next: The Lonely Lady.

Beau Travail.

Review #1985: Beau Travail.

Cast: 

Denis Lavant (Adjudant-Chef Galoup), Michel Subor (Commandant Bruno Forestier), Grégoire Colin (Légionnaire Gilles Sentain), Richard Courcet (Légionnaire), and Nicolas Duvauchelle (Légionnaire) Directed by Claire Denis.

Review: 

"A film is an expandable structure, where space is invaded by the actors."

Upbringing and timing matters more often than not when it comes to directors finding themselves. Claire Denis was born in Paris, France, but raised in colonial French Africa owing to her father being a civil servant and moving houses every two years. Her contact with films came three-fold: her mother "told" her films due to her love of the cinema. She got to experience imported war films (albeit in degraded quality) from America. Denis later experienced memories of cherished films such as Pather Panchali (1955). After finding little to relate to in studying economics and Oriental languages, she decided to take her husband's advice to seriously think about what she wanted to do. Denis had an internship for Tele Niger, which was a channel dedicated to literacy education in cinema, but she decided to try to apply to the Institut des hautes études cinématographiques (IDHEC); she made her first short with IDHEC in 1969. After graduation, she became an assistant to directors such as Jacques Rivette and Wim Wenders. Wanting to have her own independence, she decided to make her own films. She made her feature debut with Chocolat (1988), a semi-autobiographical film. The film is loosely based on the novella Billy Budd by Herman Melville. The famed writer (known for his poetry alongside Moby Dick) had started writing it in 1886 but left it in a manuscript form by his death in 1891. The manuscript was not first published until 1924 (although Melville's widow Elizabeth kept it safe), through the efforts of Raymond M. Weaver (Melville's first biographer). There have been three adaptations: a 1949 play (with a revision for Broadway in 1951), a 1951 opera, and a 1962 film. The screenplay for this film was done by Claire Denis and Jean-Pol Fargeau, which was initially in booklet form (as suggested by Fargeau, since the film is basically a recollection of one's time in the Legion). The film was shot in Djibouti (a former French colony) without authorization.

The title translates to "good work". Generally, one finds little dialogue to latch on to here, because one is focused on the images shown more than anything. The film is told through French with a mix of Italian and Russian for a mostly interesting 90 minutes. One perhaps finds self-discovery within the images of bodies that make a curious feature to absorb. In short, camaraderie is not in short supply here in a movie that sets up its great tragedy on its own terms and timing in a harsh landscape. There aren't too many speaking parts because the film mostly shows itself in a relaxed tone involving groups of French Foreign Legion men being, well, men in a legion. The military exercises were even choreographed by ballet choreographer. It all falls on the shoulders of Lavant, who is seen and heard (in voiceover, all throughout the film) in a manner that you would expect when it comes to making for great tragedy: a person who firmly believes that their cause is good enough to perhaps die for. We know the irrational hostility that becomes apparent in this one man because we all have had this kind of weird inkling that, well, there just is something wrong with the person in a group and that's that. Masculine insecurity isn't too far off from feminine insecurity, I guess. Subor probably has the most interesting line when it comes the idea that the only thing that ties these people togethers is "fornication and blood." He doesn't say too much, but you get the general idea of why someone would want to be around someone of his presence; people look the way they look to us because of perceptions, and it can be hard to shake off if a mentor is something they aren't or that a hack is something else. With that in mind, Colin makes a quality presence as the "foil" for Lavant in a movie all about the sun, the sea, and most of all, the skin. Beauty can be a dangerous thing in the eye of the beholder, which means one gets a film with plenty rhythm of the mind for a deliberate and fairly curious time here. The last scene is best left to view for oneself to make for a film that is, well, a distinct and imperfect experience fitting for world cinema.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Decline of Western Civilization III.

Stuart Little.

Review #1946: Stuart Little.

Cast: 

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

Review: 

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

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

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

EDtv.

Review #1848: EDtv.

Cast: 

Matthew McConaughey (Edward "Ed" Pekurny), Jenna Elfman (Shari), Woody Harrelson (Raymond "Ray" Pekurny), Ellen DeGeneres (Cynthia Reed), Martin Landau (Al), Sally Kirkland (Jeanette Pekurny), Elizabeth Hurley (Jill), Rob Reiner (Mr. Whitaker), Dennis Hopper (Henry 'Hank' Pekurny), Viveka Davis (Marcia Pekurny), Christian Kane (P.A.), Adam Goldberg (John), Wendle Josepher (Rita), Merrin Dungey (Ms. Seaver), Ian Gomez (McIlvaine), and Clint Howard (Ken) Directed by Ron Howard (#301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas, #546 - Cinderella Man, #1085 - Willow, #1095 - Solo: A Star Wars Story, #1509 - Apollo 13)

Review: 

If you remember, The Truman Show (1998) was a movie that happened to feature a man with his life unknowingly being displayed on television to a captivated audience of the world. EDtv, released on year later, is a movie that happens to feature a man with his life knowingly being displayed on television to a captivated audience of the world. One can be called a "satirical comedy" and the other can fall into the "psychological comedy-drama satire". Well, that isn't particularly fair to this feature, which is actually a remake of the 1994 Quebecois film Louis 19, King of the Airwaves [Louis 19, le roi des ondes]. Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel (who had written the scripts for a handful of Ron Howard movies likes Splash (1984)) wrote the screenplay for this film. Of course, one really shouldn't reference better material in its own film, with this film referencing An American Family (the hit reality TV show of 1973) in its early minutes when talking about its "innovations"...that show happened to inspire its own spoof with Real Life (1979), a comedy movie involving a documentary filmmaker trying to live with an American family for a year. The funny thing is that EDtv came out nine months after The Truman Show as a big-budget production that runs at 123 minutes (longer than you-know-who), and yet it was a considerable failure with audiences at the time. Maybe it was just more interesting to see Jim Carrey try to tap into comedy-drama rather than Matthew McConaughey (fresh from overrated material like Dazed and Confused (1993) to A Time to Kill (1996)), or maybe it was something else. But I think you know the answer isn't just that EDtv is inferior to The Truman Show, because dueling movies with similar concepts can work out for both sides. Besides, this was made in the era of shows like The Real World, what could possibly go wrong? 

Unfortunately, the movie only barely scratches the surface when it comes to any sort of "bite", because it point-blank does not know what the hell it wants to be, fledging between romcom and satire in ways that only an indecisive polar bear could love. I'm not saying that the movie needed to have the bite of Network (1976) when it comes to human nature, but one is basically watching a slightly amped version of The Jerry Springer Show. Of course, even Springer got to "take advantage" with his own movie that happened to have been released around that time with Ringmaster (1998), so perhaps calling EDtv the sitcom-infused love child of Springer and other offshoots is a bit on the mark. Maybe it isn't as much of a fantasy as the earlier 1998 movie, but it sure isn't any more in touch with reality, because its main motivation is never entirely convincing: if you were asked to be on television and have your life broadcast 24/7, you probably would have to be a crazy person to really go with this, and the movie just doesn't hold its own in terms of believability beyond what you would see in a paper-thin sitcom, which seems catered to being a movie made by committee of producers rather than a movie made from any semblance of believability. In other words: when you become a person on camera, you will lose far more of yourself than you prove to gain, and only the best translates well to television (best of course is subjective, since there are countless examples of people being famous on television for the sake of famous). 

The cast is here and there, which is not something you really want to say about a movie that likely has its myriad of cameo appearances happen because of some sort of insecurity (most apparent with its moments with Jay Leno, a presence odious enough to insult rather than allow him to make jokes for you). It especially doesn't help when the movie likes to show brief moments with "the average American viewer" from time to time, since it only adds on to the dry factor in all of its unnecessary nature (while homing in on the made-by-committee point). My real problem is that there are just too many characters present here, spiraling out of control for two hours when one could trim a few minutes and lose nothing. McConaughey is technically decent in the film in that he never borders on insufferable when it comes to being "man on television 24/7", because the script does want a presence of warmth within the initial spark of naivety that overrides any sense of wanting a looser script (i.e. either a performance of a loser or someone less likable). In short: he is fine despite the limitations presented. Elfman is wrapped in the least funny part of the film: the rom-com parts, which doesn't help matters when one is trapped like a fishbowl in ways that probably make Dharma & Greg seem completely tolerable, since the chemistry with McConaughey is marginal at best. Hell, even Hurley and her "hired gun" performance is slightly more interesting, even if it ends abruptly. Harrelson is slightly entertaining, but again, the movie needs desperation from its people rather than goofy middlemen (Landau and Kirkland play to form handily, but that isn't saying much). DeGeneres spends half of her time watching the screen of the lead character and the other half coming up with "zingers" that make for a forgettable performance, as if being the originator of 24/7 reality TV isn't exciting enough to make into biting humor besides the use of Reiner, which is as predictable as a meathead insult. Perhaps it is amusing fate that Hopper is in this movie, as he was actually originally cast in The Truman Show before being replaced by the filmmakers for Ed Harris. He just doesn't get much to do for his two scenes, which is surely disappointing for an actor of his stature - granted, the scene where he tries to reminisce about an old memory with his son only to misremember it on live TV.

There is potential for a movie worth watching in the desperation of someone who thinks that the best hustle in life is to go out on television and show their whole lives to the world, but the movie only thinks of it in the most basic of ways that has the effect of a whimper. It might be a cheap thing to say that the movie was steamrolled by a movie with a better director, writer and overall cast, but nobody, and I repeat, nobody, will ever find reason to give abject praise to EDtv, a mediocre movie in every sense of the word, without having to strain hard to not compare it to The Truman Show. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Mummy (1999)

Review #1748: The Mummy.

Cast:

Brendan Fraser (Rick O'Connell), Rachel Weisz (Evelyn Carnahan), John Hannah (Jonathan Carnahan), Arnold Vosloo (Imhotep), Kevin J. O'Connor (Beni Gabor), Jonathan Hyde (Dr. Allen Chamberlain), Oded Fehr (Ardeth Bay), Erick Avari (Dr. Terence Bey), Stephen Dunham (Isaac Henderson), Corey Johnson (David Daniels), Tuc Watkins (Bernard Burns), and Omid Djalili (Warden Gad Hassan) Directed by Stephen Sommers (#201 - G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra)

Review: 

Yes, I know, technically this isn't an "all the way horror movie". But it is a remake of the classic 1932 film of the same name as some sort of epic romantic adventure with help by Industrial Light and Magic. If you remember, the original movie involved Boris Karloff playing the title character, one that involved a mummy (Imhotep) raised from the dead that proceeded to live among folks for a decade before wanting to bring back his long-dead princess with a person that happens to be half-Egyptian and looks like said princess. Well, aside from the Book of the Dead helping in a resurrection, the movie isn't quite a straight-laced remake. Of course, this wasn't the first time this had happened, since Hammer Film Productions had done their own version that began in 1959 (although it was based on the sequels more so than the original, and this was followed by a number of sequels). It should be noted that the film that came from Universal Studios in 1999 was a culmination of a decade of attempts from producers James Jacks and Sean Daniel to make a modern Mummy movie that went through several directors and writers in consideration that revolved from George A. Romero to Clive Barker to Joe Dante; it should be noted that until 1996, Universal was aiming for a cheaply budgeted movie, and they were really aiming for an unstoppable villain at the level of The Terminator (incidentally, the movie was made for $62 million. So yes, one is probably wondering a bit about Sommers. Born in Indiana but raised in Minnesota, he was a graduate of the USC School of Cinematic Arts before he went to direct his first film in Catch Me If You Can (1989), which attracted a little notice despite minimal release; he directed two features for Walt Disney Pictures involving literary figures (Huckleberry Finn, Jungle Book), and it was during the end of shooting Deep Rising (1998) that he found interest in the ongoing attempts to bring The Mummy onto the screen. So, yes, I suppose one can be glad that Sommers (a fan of the original film that had aimed to do a remake for years) wanted to make a fair adventure with tinges of horror, at least for a title character that goes around wanting flesh to regenerate before creating sand storms. Sommers would be credited for the screenplay while also doing work on the story with Lloyd Fonvielle and Kevin Jarre. 

So, now we have a mummy that was buried alive due to attempts with the Book of the Dead to bring back a lost love that has been watched over from the bodyguards of the pharaoh and its descendants for 3,000 years while a lost city holding wealth and the tomb is waiting to be found. Look, it all depends on how much one buys into its attempts at sweeping adventure that doesn't take itself too seriously while having a few CGI effects here and there. Honestly, I'm fine with it, albeit in the mindset that it is basically comfort food; it may be fluff, but it is decent fluff, one that has interest in making charm count more so than sitting back and looking at effects sequences for two hours. It may not be great scary fun, but being alright fun that is aware of its surroundings is decent enough for most folks, a blockbuster in the era that fits it, and at least one can recognize some fair effects and some ideas of spooky scenery; the scarabs are pretty chilling, and the title creature in its growing form is pretty creepy. Technically speaking, it compares favorably to the original 1932 film, and it likely stands up fair for the era it was made for; while I undoubtedly have more curiosity over the film that could have been with a different director, being a loose effective remake of the original 1932 film is still an effective film in the long run (two sequels would follow in 2001 and 2008 before Universal did a "reboot" in 2017). Of course, the highlight among the cast is Fraser. He manages to roll along with the quick pace and wavering attempts at humor with just enough timing and stature to make things count, playing with the material with a casual appreciative nature. Weisz fares fine, straddling the line in curiosity that at least has more to do than her counterpart in the original feature (which, incidentally, means Weisz and Fraser have a bit of chemistry together). Hannah (first known for his work in Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) among television work) fits exactly to what is needed in mild comic relief without dragging the film down (or being easy bait in line for being taken down), while O'Connor does okay in sniveling middleman material. Vosloo is curious as the adversary, one that has to try and seem interesting in creeping terror despite being surrounded by a bunch of makeup that doesn't give him that much to really do. Part of me wishes this would have done more when it comes to actual horror, because the potential is there is you think about it. As a whole, it manages to push most of the right buttons in doing stirring entertainment in the guise of Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), but then again most blockbusters probably honed a trick or two from that film, so being a step or two below something like that isn't a bad thing. It is a romp, and a romp is fine if one is in the mood for it. I wavered between just how "good" it was, but I guess calling it a good kind of average film (in either genre) is appropriate. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Final Destination (2000).

Any Given Sunday.

Review #1523: Any Given Sunday.

Cast: 
Al Pacino (Tony D'Amato), Cameron Diaz (Christina Pagniacci), Dennis Quaid (Jack 'Cap' Rooney), James Woods (Dr. Harvey Mandrake), Jamie Foxx (Willie Beamen), LL Cool J (Julian Washington), Matthew Modine (Dr. Ollie Powers), Jim Brown (Montezuma Monroe), Lawrence Taylor (Luther 'Shark' Lavay), Bill Bellamy (Jimmy Sanderson), Andrew Bryniarski (Patrick 'Madman' Kelly), Lela Rochon (Vanessa Struthers), Lauren Holly (Cindy Rooney), Ann-Margret (Margaret Pagniacci), Aaron Eckhart (Nick Crozier) Directed by Oliver Stone (#095 - Wall Street, #1090 - Platoon, and #1265 - Natural Born Killers)

Review: 
"I love intelligent films that come at you fast. I don't have attention deficit disorder, my mind moves fast. There's a lot to deal with in my films. We had so many facts to go through, so the governing style was flash, cut, flash, repeat."

One needs to see a bit of distinct vision every now and then from a director, and Oliver Stone closed out his 20th century with another distinct focus in football. He had been a student at Yale University before doing service in Vietnam first through teaching students English in Saigon to wiping Merchant Marine ships to dropping out of Yale and enlisting in the United States Army. He went into New York University after that and graduated with a film degree in 1971. He made his first film as a director with the cheapie Seizure (1974) before getting the chance to write Midnight Express (1978), which resulted in an Academy Award for his script despite inaccuracies of the depiction of the real-life prison story. The Hand (1981) followed for Stone as a director, but the five years between this and his next was crucial, since he wrote Conan the Barbarian (1982) and Scarface (1983) in that time. He rocketed to further prominence with Platoon (1986) that kept him busy over the prevailing years, with this being his 15th as director/writer. He has touched subjects such as war with Salvador (1986), biopics with The Doors (1991), to crime with Natural Born Killers (1994), all seeming distinct in their provocative nature by Stone.

I wonder if Stone wanted to make the ultimate football film. What we have here is truly a hodgepodge of clichés and assumptions you can have in a sports film, right from an upstart rookie becoming a star and then needing to not become consumed in arrogance, a wearied wise coach (perhaps like Tom Landry?), action montages, and even having actual athletes as stars (of which there are several notable ones of the past like Lawrence Taylor or Johnny Unitas). Stone had first expressed an interest in a football project with an early 1980s script about an old linebacker he wrote in mind for Charles Bronson. Years later, he met journalist Richard Weiner. He had developed a script with former player Jamie Williams about a black quarterback. This would be combined with scripts done by John Logan and Daniel Pyne alongside inspiration from You're Okay, It's Just a Bruise by Robert Huzienga Jr (former team physician of the Los Angeles Raiders detailing player injuries); Stone and Logan would get screenplay credit while Pyne and Logan got story and Weiner and Williams were consultants. This frenzy also applies to editing, since there are four listed as part of the film. Stone clearly was under the mindset that football was somehow like war, particularly with how it marched on as a team together as opposed to individual only, while also seeing the other sides of football life (like the pain and egos). On a basic level, I would say that this is a decent movie, wrapped with making an involving film packing an ensemble worthy of carrying most of its weight that Stone wants to put on them on and off the field that can be fairly entertaining. Of course it also is considerably lengthy at 162 minutes (157 for the director's cut, in which twelve minutes were cut for pacing while adding six minutes of other scenes) with a self-importance like no other in its presentation of football players as the modern gladiator (complete with a brief flash of Ben-Hur to drive home the point) with all of the excesses that come from Stone's view on the matter. It is firmly a film of the 1990s in all the right and weird ways, one that I chuck a smile at when it stops doing flashes of editing and focuses on just the basics.

Pacino does quite well with the material required in garnering a leader one could rally around in all of the moods required, whether that involves weary loneliness or stubborn dominance that seems fairly convincing in rally curiosity. Diaz matches him in cleverness that never seems like a doorstep to forget about, a figure of new-school arrogance that does seem quite amusing. Quaid does fine with a man on his last leg of fame (and perhaps health) - respectable without being drowned in pity. Woods doesn't have too much to really do, but he is quite a conniving figure behind the lines that has one really good scene to munch on involving him being caught in a lie about the health of the players. Foxx (picked after Sean Combs lost the role apparently because he couldn't throw a football) captures the bravado of a rising star and all that comes with it in good detail, whether that involves brimming confidence or sparring words with anyone. Others such as Cool J and Taylor make the best of their time on screen in charm and coarse acting that resonate the siding of the football action in its business and excess. It can't quite keep every thread going without being a bit lost, but at least its numerous showing of games do look fairly convincing (hits and all) within a fictionalized football league (in the year 2001 no less). It still has a punch when it comes to the TV-infected sensationalism and other various topics, and it definitely seems willing enough to want to inspire a thought without bashing your head with it. On the whole, it lumbers to points about football gladiators and its exploitation a bit too much, but it does work itself enough to win out in the end.

Next Time: We venture into the 21st century.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Green Mile.

Review #1522: The Green Mile.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Paul Edgecomb), David Morse (Brutus "Brutal" Howell), Bonnie Hunt (Jan Edgecomb), Michael Clarke Duncan (John Coffey), James Cromwell (Warden Hal Moores), Michael Jeter (Eduard Delacroix), Graham Greene (Arlen Bitterbuck), Doug Hutchison (Percy Wetmore), Sam Rockwell (William "Wild Bill" Wharton), Barry Pepper (Dean Stanton), Jeffrey DeMunn (Harry Terwilliger), Patricia Clarkson (Melinda Moores), Harry Dean Stanton (Toot-Toot), Dabbs Greer (Old Paul), Bill McKinney (Jack Van Hay), Brent Briscoe (Bill Dodge), Eve Brent (Elaine Connelly), and William Sadler (Klaus Detterick) Written and Directed by Frank Darabont (#1506 - The Shawshank Redemption)

Review: 
"I think it's the basic need for all of human kind to be a part of something bigger than themselves because as actors we get to create that."
"The notion that we can be better than we are, as human beings; that there’s a bar that can be raised in all of our lives. And that there are certain acts of incivility that we should no longer indulge in. Maybe we should try to do a little better."

The 1990s had a plethora of memorable Tom Hanks performances that turned him from just a star in comedies into an icon. The California native had done plays in high school and at Chabot College and California State University, Sacramento before dropping out to do work with the Great Lakes Theater Festival in Cleveland. He did theater work for a few years (doing three years at the Lakewood Civic Auditorium) before venturing into film with He Knows You're Alone (1980) and television with Bosom Buddies (1980-82). Splash (1984) was his first starring role, which proved beneficial to his career in leading to more comedy roles and a gradual shift to drama with films such as Big (1988). While the 1990s started off with flops like The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990), he proved himself in the following years with neatly-picked roles suited to his personality that resulted in praise, with numerous highlights being iconic ones like Philadelphia (1993), Forrest Gump (1994), and Toy Story (1995). Coincidentally, Hanks was once thought of to star in The Shawshank Redemption before turning it down to commitments, but Hanks found himself onto this film after Darabont's first preference of John Travolta fizzled out. This was also the first major role for Duncan, who had worked odd jobs such as a bouncer/security guard and bit roles before having a break with Armageddon (1998, which he did when he was 40 years old) that led to a recommendation by none other than friend and actor Bruce Willis in this role.

The source material that this is adapted from is the serial novel of the same name, published from March to August 1996 as six paperback volumes (all except the last were 96 pages). There are a few differences between the two works, such as the change in year from 1932 to 1935 (Top Hat, the film with a significant part to play in the story, was released in the latter year), while certain characters are excluded (such as a vicious orderly present in the bookends that Darabont felt was beside the point). Ultimately, what we have here is a nicely-done fable, one that captures a sense of miracles with dignity and emotional power that makes an fairly watchable experience like no other. If it isn't as striking in depth as Darabont's other adaptation of a King work about prison in The Shawshank Redemption, it is at least spirited enough to maintain enough reason and hope to make its lasting point all the more endurable. It sits well with mature audiences without seeming too wistful in 189 minutes to the point of sanctimony, building its foundation with its bookend aspects in Greer that keep its lasting words about miracles and other ideas that can be interpreted with thought by viewers with the patience to do so and linger with it.

Undeniably, the cast live up to the period piece fable staging with care. Hanks proves charming in everyman consistency, sinking into manner of dignity and curiosity for those he works with in a place of officers and a cell of doomed men. Morse accompanies him as the lead focus of officers to view, maintaining a spirited patience that contributes well to the sequences within the prison in pragmatism. It is Duncan who shows the best presence with his time needed, a force of nature that inspires the passion and pan that comes with someone who pulls off sensitivity and conviction with no trouble at all, seeming one with the world and with us in a world that seems to just have pain. Hunt and Clarkson accompany the film with fair importance that proves useful, whether in grace or in withered nature. Jeter provides a little warmth within the bars, while Hutchison makes a tremendously slimy bully with accomplishment. Rockwell taps into wild evil with careful energy that could have been thought of as just a loon in lesser hands but seems quite underlying in creepiness with him. Cromwell does fine in hard-lined moments while Stanton provides a chuckle in his one key scene involving a execution rehearsal.

There were various filming locations that ranged from studio work at Warner Bros along with the Tennessee State Prison to go with custom-built interior sets from Terence Marsh to depict a sense of space and mystery in those prison scenes, which are quite effective. In its fable of miracles and pain, one has time to ponder upon its style and its weaving of story threads that make an experience that can inspire curiosity alongside revulsion, such as during its first hint of a miracle or a disastrous execution in the chair, respectively. It makes us want to think a bit more clearly about life, or more specifically the joys and pains that can come from such an emotional release that comes from something like this. It isn't completely perfect in its road to perdition in all of its time spent, but I find it worth at least one watch, particularly if one is looking for a Stephen King adaptation with an accomplished director and stars behind it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.