3000 Miles to Graceland.

Review #2578: 3000 Miles to Graceland.

Cast: 

Kurt Russell (Michael Zane), Kevin Costner (Thomas Jonathan "Murphy" Liebling), Courteney Cox (Cybil Waingrow), Christian Slater (Hanson), Kevin Pollak (U.S. Marshal Damitry), David Arquette (Gus), Jon Lovitz (Jay Peterson), Howie Long (Jack), Thomas Haden Church (U.S. Marshal Quigley), Bokeem Woodbine (Franklin), Ice-T (Hamilton), David A. Kaye (Jesse Waingrow), Louis Lombardi (Otto Sinclair), and Paul Anka (Pit Boss #1) Directed by Demian Lichenstein.

Review:

Believe it or not, I really was thinking of this as a potential "Acknowledged in August" candidate for some time. How could I resist? A Kurt Russell movie where he goes around dressed up like Elvis in an action flick that was a flop? How could it go wrong? Believe it or not, the original script for the film was done by a first-timer: Richard Recco, a New York electrician (as noted in this L.A. Times article of the time, which noted that he liked to paint in addition to being in an electricians union). Inspired by his love of the mystique of Elvis and thinking "hey, I could do that" when seeing an action movie, he studied the scripts of movies such as Dog Day Afternoon and True Romance for what became, well, a Hollywood movie. Demian Lichenstein (known mostly for his work in music videos and obscure movies), interested in a previous Recco script (which had been submitted into a Sundance Film Festival competition), got interested enough in the Elvis thing to where he brought it up to Kevin Costner in a meeting that got him to be interested as well. Lichenstein made enough contributions to the script by this point to where he shares the credit with Recco for the credits. The Franchise Pictures production apparently had enough creative differences to where Russell and Costner each made their own "cut" of the film to screen, with Russell focusing more on the romcom aspects and Costner doing, well, the version you see now. Made on a budget of over $47 million, the film was a substantial flop (yes, people chose Down to Earth and Hannibal on opening week), making less than half of the budget as a whole.

Naturally, the movie is set in Last Vegas during "International Elvis Week" where a bunch of robbers dress up in jumpsuits and glasses to get millions of dollars to get in and get out, and good lord, I swear this is somehow lower on the totem pole for Vegas heists than the 1960 version of Ocean's 11. How could the Costner version have passed? What fresh hell was present in the Russell "version" that things would've been better with a movie that starts with a fight between CG-rendered scorpions? I can't really say it would've been a better movie if it just focused on the heist and these robbers (mainly because it feels designed to short-change Slater, Woodbine, and Arquette*, with the latter not even being depicted getting shot to death), but good lord, this is just a listless movie to slog through, especially for 125 minutes. You could be listening to an entire Elvis album (okay I don't do albums, but even playing six of his songs would give you more of his stuff than what you get here, since they barely do any Elvis songs). Older folks might know that Russell played Elvis in a John Carpenter-directed TV movie in 1979 and also briefly acted in that Presley vehicle It Happened at the World's Fair (as released in 1963, where he kicked him in the shins). This is basically the litmus test for how much you like Russell as a presence in movies because even in crappy fare, he at least gives the idea of a neat conman more than, well, trying to stay on the level of Cox and survive the rest of the mayhem, which naturally rests on the lead surviving not one, but two gunshots because, wait for it, he was ready with a bullet-proof vest (what, never see a zombie movie?).  The most interesting about Costner's character is that he plays someone resentful of not being able to prove that they are the bastard son of Elvis. 

As I tried to shrug my shoulders at the sheer lunacy of taking that into account, I also had to try and play fair with an actor that I don't really find myself that fond of besides, what, Field of Dreams or Bull Durham* (Dances with Wolves lends credence to the theory that you can see a movie as an 8/10 but not actually love it that much)? This performance, resembling the ramblings of a homeless man (well...*), may actually make you appreciate The Postman (1997), because at least he seemed like he wanted to actually have fun with his weird ass fable as opposed to whatever the hell his deal is meant to be here. Aside from basically killing or blowing up anything that walks into his path, it reeks of a parody and yet he plays it so seriously and so joylessly that it doesn't even matter by the time the character finally kicks the bucket. There is very little energy for me to talk about Cox and the varied attempts at comedy (in a confused movie that has moms abandoning their kids to go to Idaho, because screw it), so why even try? Who cares what she tries to give in this movie? (hell, let's throw real questions: did anyone actually like Friends?) Having to spend any time with her or the on-screen son in Kaye (a precocious pickpocket kid - what a twist) probably makes a good tribute to the Elvis movies, specifically the corny parts you skip before hearing a song. So, in the unceremonious cleaning out of Slater, Woodbine, and Arquette in the first 40 minutes, you get a supporting cast (not counting Cox/Kaye because, well, no) of even more people who are given little to really do with Lovitz, Long, Ice-T, Church & Pollak, because good lord, how do you waste that much potential? There's just little zip to the lines given for basically filler (i.e. who cares about the authorities being one step behind in a movie where a robber getting away with crime basically seems certain), as if the array of editing choices (2001 era, woah buddy!) was supposed to be the showstopper. You don't care for the heist (what's to worry?), you don't care for the "romance", and you don't care for the villain, and at a certain point in the array of deaths (such as say, a "draw your weapon" one), you just want to get to the climax because at least it'll just be Russell and Costner trying to one-up each other. Simply put, what you get here is the ultimate take-it-or-leave-it stinker: not terrible but not nearly average enough to slip by for anything other than days of having absolutely nothing better to spend time with for lazy action days.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Still not the best baseball movie. 

*What, who else doesn't drive to Taco Bell?

*Wrestling fans might remember this was the time when Arquette "won" the World Heavyweight Championship by this vignette, as done during the making of 3000 Miles to Graceland - WCW Monday Nitro - 1,000 Miles to Slamboree (Kurt Russell, David Arquette, Courteney Cox)

Metropolis (2001).

Review #2165: Metropolis (2001).

Cast: 

Yuka Imoto (Tima), Kei Kobayashi (Kenichi), Kôki Okada (Rock), Tarô Ishida (Duke Red), Kôsei Tomita (Hige-Oyaji), Norio Wakamoto (Pero), Junpei Takiguchi (Dr. Laughton), Takeshi Aono (Ponkotz), Masaru Ikeda (President Boon), Shun Yashiro (Notarlin), Toshio Furukawa (Skunk), and Shigeru Chiba (Lamp) Directed by Rintaro.

Review: 

"When I created the images for the futuristic city in Metropolis, in my mind I imagined Manhattan. So hopefully American audiences will feel a little bit closer to, or at least familiar with, the imagery, and through that they can grasp the underlying theme of the film, which is basically how humanity can be improved and how we can advance by living with different sorts of creatures. In this film, it's basically living together with robots and human beings. There will be a time that will come when those two different entities have to live together. If the audience can feel that, then I've done my job."

In 1949, the manga Metropolis (referred to as メトロポリス or Metoroporisu) was released, the second of an epic trilogy of sci-fi manga. Written by Osamu Tezuka, he apparently got the inspiration from seeing a still image from the 1927 film of the same name, as directed by Fritz Lang. Tezuka later became known as "the God of Manga" because of his innovative techniques in manga, with notable examples such as Astro Boy and Kimba the White Lion, before his death in 1989 at the age of 60. During his lifetime, he apparently did not wish for Metropolis to become an anime (as stated by Rintaro during an interview in 2001). At any rate, who better to be involved with an adaptation of a Tezuka work than Rintaro? Born Shigeyuki Hayashi in Tokyo, his interests were pretty clear as a kid: films (ones in his country or ones internationally shown such as The Stone Flower) and manga, with Tezuka being the clear one. He learned the basics of animation in an ad conpany that went bankrupt in short manner, but he heard about Toei looking for help on a film they were doing, and he wrote an enthusiastic letter to them. At any rate, his first job came as a teenager as in-between animator on Toei's debut feature in The White Snake Enchantress (released in 1958 that later became one of the first anime films to get an American release). He wanted to be a director from the start, because not only must one "understand the entirety of animation jobs", he felt the animators were the real stars of that medium. His first directing job came with the Astro Boy anime (as originally aired from 1963-1966). In 1979, he directed his first theatrical film with Galaxy Express 999. At 82, he just released an anikated short last year. The manga and film are distinct from each other, perhaps not surprisingly. Far be it from me to illustrate the differences of a manga that I've never read and this film when better sources can detail it accurately. The film is more of a synthesis of parts from the manga and the aforementioned Lang film, which Rintaro stated was one of his favorites. The manga's key robot that one that could fly, change their sex, and didn't have a belly button, and, well the Lang film had an ulterior motive in its "Maschinenmensch". The story of "The Tower of Babel" is mentioned in both Metropolis films. Most notably, the screenplay for the 2001 film was written by Katsuhiro Otomo, who you may remember had made Akira (1988), the anime film adaptation of his then-running manga. He had been involved in character design for Rintaro's Harmagedon: Genma Wars (1982), which had helped convince him that he really could do this by himself (i.e. not just having the interest/ambitions on maybe being involved in films), and it was Rintaro who had approached him about the project specifically because he wanted to try new things with that film.

The intent by Rintaro was to "communicate Tezuka's spirit" with a film that apparently took five years to make. Hand-drawn animation is used alongside those moments of computer animation. Those moments with CG were then subjected to what Rintaro called "detachment" in which the animators then hand-drew over. The result is a curious cohesion of various moods that make for a strange experience to wander into. It is one thing above all: a beautiful film to look and listen to. One does get that feeling of a sprawling spectacle of city with its own levels of living beyond just pretty buildings and wide-eyed folks. Beyond the imagery of humans and robots is the idea of pushing coexistence above all else, where it isn't just enough to have cutting-edge technology if you've still got people mired under the boot of people with nothing better to do than exploit them like puppets, where in turn you see robots getting beaten to pulp if they happen to be in the wrong designated places (the most striking one is undoubtedly the first one to view, right there in the first few minutes agyer showing what the city looks like). Technology can be convenient and helpful to us, but it could also make for a potentially destructive force in the wrong hands, which all sounds like a familiar fable, but the journey to get there is worthwhile moreso than the acting to get there. Oh sure, the voices are serviceable to the journey, but it is the general mood and vision that comes with an imagined idea of super-sprawl in old times that dominate more than anything. Destruction in terms of hubris and misplaced sense of savior status is right there for the taking here. Okada and Ishida do make dependable adversaries, each trying to grapple with what really seems to matter in enforcing vision that leads to probably the most interesting use of song to cap a scene in quite a while. Imoto and Kobayashi make a useful bond in that general sense of identity and the inevitable, but one does get a sense that 113 minutes is just about the point where it makes sense to see the film wrap up. The curiosity over its effects and some of its ideas as a robo-fable work better the less you try to guess where it goes. It's a pretty good film, maybe not being the one you go right to first for anime recommendations but one to go when trying to branch out in vision. It makes for a useful tribute to the work of Tezuka in that sense of amazement for a solid experience.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

We're back. For the third year in a row, January starts with a collection of reviews of directors not previously featured on Movie Night. Last January had eighteen additions to the list of over 900 directors featured. This is the first of the fourteen seasons to start with an animated film, because why not? Next up, Sean Durkin's The Iron Claw.

The Mummy Returns.

Review #2126: The Mummy Returns.

Cast: 

Brendan Fraser (Rick O'Connell), Rachel Weisz (Evelyn O'Connell / Nefertiri), John Hannah (Jonathan Carnahan), Arnold Vosloo (Imhotep), Oded Fehr (Ardeth Bay), Patricia Velásquez (Meela Nais / Anck-su-namun), Freddie Boath (Alex O'Connell), Dwayne Johnson (Mathayus of Akkad / The Scorpion King), Alun Armstrong (Baltus Hafez), Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Lock-Nah), and Shaun Parkes (Izzy Buttons) Written and Directed by Stephen Sommers (#201 - G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra and #1748 - The Mummy [1999])

Review: 

I did enjoy the 1999 Mummy film, albeit as a neat little romp. It did not exactly improve on previous films under that same title that had been released in 1932 or 1959, but as an action/effects feature with that general dose of horror, well, it worked out well. Sommers apparently was hesitant about doing a sequel, even if it was basically inevitable with the resulting success of that first film, which he had a hand in writing. In fact, he had described the original script of said film as "a bit reckless" before eventually getting to an "okay" result. Aside from an enlarged budget (which stems from a few raises to actors), not much has changed here, since over half-a-dozen actors from the first return here to go with a script done by Sommers. The film was a general success with audiences on the level of the original. The Scorpion King (2002), a spinoff film featuring, well, Dwayne Johnson reprising his role as the character of the same name, came out the year after this film and inspired its own run of films. Sommers did exactly one further horror-ish film with Van Helsing in 2004, which went pretty much where you would expect. A third Mummy film would come in 2008 with The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, which retained Fraser and Hannah only in cast while Sommers served only as a producer.

Well, sometimes you just can't win them all. 129 minutes somehow seems pretty disposable for a film that is just a bit short in comparison to the first film when it comes to holding itself together for overall cohesion. It is a bit too familiar to go with being bereft of effective pacing. Granted, Fraser and Weisz do still have a good deal of charm together, and in general one will be just fine with watching the film when it comes to looking for just spectacle (okay, maybe some of those effects don't help). They seem to enjoy the strangeness that comes with being in a sequel with less to do in quick charm, which is more than one can say for most middling sequels. At least the kid actor that comes for the film makes for a few chuckles, but if I am drawing straws by saying this for a film released in the new millennium, what is it saying about the parts as a whole? One sees folks like Hannah seem to be having some sort of fun being around here again (relief or otherwise), but the stakes don't seem as presentable here. One senses their attention start to drift even before a dirigible makes an appearance and boy do I wish I felt some sort of presence of terror in seeing the return of said mummy from before (complete with creating big water). It trots out pygmy mummies and past lives to go with utilizing wrestler-turned-actor Johnson mostly for spectacle sequences in the start and end (one to explain just what he has to do with anything and the other for effects that look as rushed as one could expect). Even the one sequence of a character getting killed seems destined to be undone for the climax, and, well, it is funny being right for the dumbest and shallow of things. As a whole, it just isn't as freshly interesting as its predecessor, managing to be as average as one painfully can see in countless other features that is merely just okay rather than fully satisfying in fun. It is a mild disappointment that pleases a few requirements but doesn't make for a great sequel in enough categories to recommend it more than once. The fluff just isn't enough here to be as good fluff as before.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next: Re-Animator.

Jurassic Park III.

Review #2023: Jurassic Park III.

Cast: 

Sam Neill (Dr. Alan Grant), William H. Macy (Paul Kirby), Téa Leoni (Amanda Kirby), Alessandro Nivola (Billy Brennan), Trevor Morgan (Eric Kirby), Michael Jeter (Udesky), John Diehl (Cooper), Bruce A. Young (M.B. Nash), Laura Dern (Ellie Sattler), Taylor Nichols (Mark), and Mark Harelik (Ben Hildebrand) Directed by Joe Johnston (#060 - Captain America: The First Avenger and #322 - Jumanji)

Review: 

Thirty years ago in June of 1993, Jurassic Park managed to, well, become one of the biggest hits of its time. You already know that it was a hit adaptation of the Michael Crichton novel, and you already know its success inspired a follow-up novel that in turn became its own film with The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997). After the release of the film, Steven Spielberg, who directed both features, had no interest in doing any more films in the series as director, but he had someone in mind to do the third film: Joe Johnston, who apparently expressed an interest to direct a Jurassic Park sequel for years (Spielberg would serve as executive producer). The Austin native had been involved with special effects from a young age, most notably beginning his career as a concept artist and effects technician on Star Wars (1977). He became a director with Honey, I Shrunk the Kids (1989), the first of his "effects-driven" films, although October Sky (1999) was a noted exception. The timeline from announcing a third film in 1998 to actual release in summer 2001 is a convoluted but fun one to get around to. Various writers were approached with trying to make a draft, starting with Criag Rosenberg, who made a draft that involved teenagers being marooned on Isla Sorna. Peter Buchman was then recruited to do a rewrite when Johnston rejected Rosenberg's draft. Buchman had a two-pronged story: dinosaurs somehow killing people on the mainland and a story where Alan Grant and company crashing on Isla Sorna. Weeks before shooting was supposed to begin in mid-2000, however, the script was rejected by Johnston and Spielberg, with the former having asked David Koepp (who had written for both of the previous films) for ideas, where Koepp suggested making it more of a rescue film. Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor (fresh off an Academy Award nomination for Election (1999)) were then brought in to do a script for a couple of weeks to deal with characters and story (due to an influx of action); it is because of them that you see Laura Dern for two scenes rather than none at all. This script was then fiddled with by Buchman and an un-credited John August to the point where Payne was later quoted as saying that the script basically went for action and then took "the rest out". It probably isn't a surprise that Johnston called the production "a living hell on a daily basis", and there would not be another Jurassic Park film for fourteen years.

Jurassic Park III basically takes the series to the most B-level of desires and decides, screw it, run with that. The second film is a movie where almost everyone is a specialist of some sort, and the best actor is the one who is only present in the middle in Pete Postlethwaite. Well, that, and a nice little sequence in San Diego for the climax. The third film, now in the mode of just finding a way to set up getting to the (second) island of dinosaurs, seems the freest of the two sequels in just going with the flow.  Two things are true here with the third film: it is somehow too short of a film, and it also is debatably better than the second film in entertainment value. If the second film was a movie that accomplished 70% of its grasp, the third film probably accomplishes 71% of its grasp, and that is totally fine with me for one sitting. The first two films dealt with scientists liking to play God or corporate stoogery, so I am totally fine with a ridiculous little ride with people that I like a little better than the previous attempt at spectacle-chucking that tries to play itself as a family adventure. Neill was happy to be back for the third film, not so much because of the paycheck (insert your joke here), but apparently, he was most enthused to see if he could do a better performance than he had done in the first film. I enjoy him here, mostly because his cynical attitude works just as well in riding the coattails of being stuck in fresh dinosaur hell without coming off as an imitation of what was done before (or at least being just a schlock B-hero, which is not really an insult). How can you go wrong with a guy who is doing a speech at an auditorium (about humans that probably would've been wiped clean by velociraptors to walk the earth if not for that one big asteroid) and decides to only field questions that don't talk about that dinosaur attack he went through? Macy and Leoni make for a capable bumbling act to serve as the key figures of a would-be rescue mission that is really more of a "get your head together" mission, which does grow on me to make me eventually stop thinking, "hmm, which one could get a dinosaur nibble?" Nivola apparently called his part the only one in his career at that point that he "had nothing for me to latch on to, character-wise". I can't really argue the point, but I will at least say that he doesn't fall by the wayside in flexing to the whims of ambition, which at least makes him out to not being a cardboard villain. It is evident that the 92-minute runtime hinders the film more than it should, as if they really felt the sequence in the driving weather (complete with having just enough for one call) plus a scene exchanging eggs (don't ask) was going to be enough to forgive it ending with abrupt finish. As much as it would be funny to call in the military only to see dinosaurs play friendly with tanks, I suppose you have to keep some things a possibility for another brainstorming session. Or take a long break, I guess. As a whole, the third film is totally fine under the mildest of expectations when it comes to lean spectacle with few bumps in the road in getting to making a ride that won't make you want to jump right out before it arrives at its destination, and I would say that should be enough for those into that sort of thing.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Cowboy Bebop: The Movie.

Review #1892: Cowboy Bebop: The Movie.

Cast: 

Kōichi Yamadera (Spike Spiegel), Unshō Ishizuka (Jet Black), Megumi Hayashibara (Faye Valentine), Aoi Tada (Edward Wong), Tsutomu Isobe (Vincent Volaju), Ai Kobayashi (Elektra Ovilo), Mickey Curtis (Rashid), and Yūji Ueda (Lee Sampson) Directed by Shinichirō Watanabe. 

Review: 

"If you want to create animation, it's important to watch a lot of things that aren't anime. If you don't, it'll all be the same as what became before and originality won't be easy. Originality is very important, and I get a lot of my inspiration from live action movies and music." - Shinichirō Watanabe

Oh hell yes, I was anticipating doing this film. You may or may not recognize Cowboy Bebop within the history of anime, but I will admit that this was my first foray into anime beyond seeing a bunch of anime films (now, the second attempt at watching anime series in Neon Genesis Evangelion and its own feature...that will be for another time). The series was created by the production team at Sunrise: director Shinichirō Watanabe, screenwriter Keiko Nobumoto, character designer Toshihiro Kawamoto, mechanical designer Kimitoshi Yamane, and composer Yoko Kanno. Billed as "a new genre unto itself", Watanabe got his start in the industry in the mid 1980s that went from production staff to director in a number of years, starting with Macross Plus in 1994. With this being his first solo effort, he treated each episode as if it was like a mini-movie, complete with having the ending of the 26-episode series early on; the show actually first started with Bandai offering to sponsor a show as long as it had a spaceship so they could sell it, but their disapproval of early footage led to limbo before Bandai Visual became the new sponsor. The series aired in an irregular way: It first aired on April 3, 1998 but with a first run of only five episodes due to its 6PM timeslot on its network in Japan. Then, on a satellite network, the entire run of 26 episodes (referred as "sessions") ran from October 24 to April 24, 1999 on the satellite network Wowow. Two years later, it aired in the United States on Adult Swim (the late-night block for Cartoon Network started in 2001). In addition to anime, two manga works were released for serialization in Asuka Fantasy DX; Shooting Star ran had a brief run from 1997 to 1998 while the second one ran from 1998 to 2000. Nobumoto, who had served as the writer for numerous episodes of the series (sessions 1, 3, 6, 12, 13, 15, 22, 23, 25, and 26), wrote the film, which was announced in September 1999 that started production in July of 2000. The show did have a clear end point, because Watanabe, convinced it would be a hit, didn't want to it to be something that would possibly tie him to making the show for years and years like Star Trek, but a film was constructed that is set in-between the series that retained the core four voice actors of the series with Yamadera, Ishizuka, Hayashibara, and Tada (I would mention the English dub and the fact that it retained the same four used for the show, but loose purists like me stick with the original actors to begin with, but your milage may vary. There also is a remake that came out years later, but this is no time for fairy tales).

I love the show, let me get that out of the way. The blend of numerous genres such as the Western or pulp fiction made for one of the most fascinating things I have ever seen, one that started and ended with a bang in ways that made it a great decision to see all the way through. Style over substance? Well...duh? The film (referred to with the subtitle "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" in Japan as opposed to just "The Movie") is definitely more rewarding for those who have seen the show than someone going in fresh (one that is quite episodic but worth the ride), but I think it works exactly to what made the show so great in the first place. It is a vibrant movie that cultivates a web of conspiracy into general thrills and warmth that comes from watching these sublime characters and voices come together with nice visuals and a general atmosphere that stands apart from the usual number of animated films. You can see the main four in simple terms in how they proved so endearing: the calm and collected ass-kicker, the jack-of-all-trade father figure, the conniving tease with unpredictability, and the energetic free spirit. The dysfunctional family of bounty hunters is endearing to those who enjoy these folks and the banter they share, regardless of whatever presence lurks (in this case, a villain with some sort of meaning not usually seen in the series). 

Consider the opening sequence with Yamadera and Ishizuka being involved in stopping a robbery (bounty job that is four targets rather than three) that lasts just four minutes but tells all you need to know (or already know) about these two characters with the right touch of action and charm. The touches of noir are present here with aesthetic that involves Arabic elements (namely because there's a place in the film seen to help tell certain elements of the story). 115 minutes is a considerable amount to ask, but it does do a careful job in cracking its own story down to the eventual endgame while still having time for engaging character moments that come across here within the question that comes in if one is living in the real world. Isobe may not be the most conniving threat seen in this particular anime lore, but he does resonate well in making a quality match with invoking the futility of trying to run from the fear of death. Kobayashi acts as the diminished mirror of him in terms of humanity (i.e. being a one-time ally for us to watch in the same way you would see from other one-time characters seen in the anime). Yamadera and his self-assured confidence carries the film quite well as a look upon people trying to circle away from their past but never quite escaping it - an antihero if there ever was one, but a quality antihero worth watching. Given that the film splits its time with the characters usually apart, Hayashibara fares pretty well in managing the enigmas present in the character and the plot without being lost in it. It is fairly inevitable where the film will go at some point, but it is the ride that matters most in getting there, and it is a generally involving one that doesn't meander or talk down to its audience, instead letting things breathe before getting back on the trail. As a whole, it proves rewarding for fans of the anime and diverting for newcomers, which is probably the best of both worlds when it comes to its enduring legacy after two decades. Generous or not (because hey, this is my rating system), I thought it was a pretty fun feature and one that should be worth one's time to see.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

This closes out September. Be ready for a whole month of horror movies, as you would expect. There will be a variety of decades covered in horror, but a special twist will start out the month.

Ocean's Eleven.

Review #1889: Ocean's Eleven.

Cast: 

George Clooney (Danny Ocean), Matt Damon (Linus Caldwell), Andy Garcia (Terry Benedict), Brad Pitt (Rusty Ryan), Julia Roberts (Tess Ocean), Bernie Mac (Frank Catton), Elliott Gould (Reuben Tishkoff), Casey Affleck (Virgil Malloy), Scott Caan (Turk Malloy), Eddie Jemison (Livingston Dell), Don Cheadle (Basher Tarr), Shaobo Qin (The Amazing Yen), and Carl Reiner (Saul Bloom) Directed by Steven Soderbergh (#984 - Logan Lucky and #1526 - Traffic)

Review: 

"I wanted to see if I could combine two types of films, one that had this elegant, elaborate, technical side but also this casual off-hand quality to the performances – a film that wasn't aggressive."

The thing to remember about Ocean's 11 (1960) is that it sucked. It was a mediocre, bland movie that begged for a more involving script when it came to making a star vehicle heist movie that did only one thing right: making the idea of stealing money from Vegas with an intricate plan sounded cool. So yes, I would understand why someone would think they could do a remake of a 40-year old movie with a new array of talented name actors. Ted Griffin serves as the screenwriter for this film, which takes the loosest of inspiration from the original film and its screenplay by Harry Brown, Charles Lederer, George Clayton Johnson & Jack Golden Russell. Soderbergh, who went from indie classics such as Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989) to mainstream success with Erin Brockovich and Traffic (both 2001), was recruited to direct, and he directed both of the subsequent sequels (released in 2004 and 2007), which were all commercial successes.

The easiest thing to say is that the remake is better than the original. In fact, it runs laps around the original, doing so despite perhaps being just a good feature rather than the possible great caper it could have been. It is not particularly outstanding in any one area, but it manages to do just enough in being good in most of the core aspects to make it a solid piece of entertainment. It is a movie that wants you have a good time and that's about it, doing so with casual energy and expertise that would make anyone favorable to a machine-type of film (i.e. a movie that is mechanical but solid for a rental) where the heist is a heist you might see coming but enjoy anyway, complete with assembling its key eleven pretty quickly in the 116-minute run-time. Clooney glides through the adventure with casual charm, maneuvering through the machinations of what comes with heists and people, which mainly consists of a few amusing moments when it comes to the setup and his key part of the climax. Pitt maneuvers as the second man with casual coolness that also lends for a few little neat moments, such as pretending to be a doctor to move his way forward. Damon has the self-effacing qualities one might see from other films with him, which more or less means that he makes the best of playing a quiet pickpocket. Granted, some of the supporting cast sticks out better than others. Cheadle tries his best to play the charade of having a Cockney accent in a manner that would make Dick van Dyke proud. Oh right, I hadn't actually seen Julia Roberts in a movie before. Eh, she's okay, but watching the chemistry between her and Clooney is merely passable in bittersweet zippiness, which either means I should watch more films with Roberts or just go on my merry way. Besides, Garcia is the real presence among the others, odious and calculating in all the right ways as the targeted heavy. Mac and Reiner make quality relief in the "comedians turned con men" roles, as is the case with Gould and his loose charisma. Disappointing that Jemison and Qin kind of fall by the wayside, since Jemison's panicky characterization is at least semi-interesting as opposed to Caan and Affleck trying to play siblings for what you'd expect in very loose amusement. Each half could be seen coming in terms of general "know where it's going" quality, but they work out in not dragging the obvious points down, and the eventual endpoint is a nice way to go out. As a whole, the movie is a glossy and familiar work, but it is a well-executed familiar work that does everything you would expect from it with plenty to like that fulfills its reasonable expectations just fine. Whether one has seen the original or the subsequent sequels to the remake, you can't really go wrong here.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Baby Boy.

Review #1807: Baby Boy.

Cast: 

Tyrese Gibson (Joseph "Jody" Summers / Baby Boy), Omar Gooding (Sweetpea), Taraji P. Henson (Yvette), Snoop Dogg (Rodney), Adrienne-Joi Johnson (Juanita), Ving Rhames (Melvin), Mo'Nique (Patrice), Angell Conwell (Kim), Tamara LaSeon Bass (Peanut), and Candy Ann Brown (Ms. Herron) Written, Directed, and Produced by John Singleton (#545 - Shaft (2000) and #1640 - Boyz n the Hood)

Review:

John Singleton had a vision to tell stories for black audiences, and he did what he could with the nine movies he made in twenty years. Granted, Boyz n the Hood (1991) always will be mentioned first in the discussion, but one can't really forget about the films he made besides that one when it comes to depicting the experience on the street. After the success of the film, he directed four films in the next seven years: Poetic Justice (1993), Higher Learning (1995), Rosewood (1997), and Shaft (2000), which resulted in varying levels of appreciation (he wrote/produced all but one of them). Incidentally, this was the motion picture debut of Tyrese Gibson, a Los Angeles native who started in music in 1998 after receiving notice in acting within advertisements and roles on TV. Singleton wants to make his point about it clear from the opening, which takes an observation from Frances Cress Welsing involving the infantilization of the "black man in America", one that refers to how folks would use "crib" to describe their home to go along with imagery depicting a birth that sets the tone early for a movie that basks in authenticity. 

Admittedly, the movie does fine with what it wants to say about masculinity within a 130-minute run-time that squeezes just about as much as one could expect from a movie with a perspective that really could be said about anyone: there is a time to play and there is just a time to grow up. In other words: point a finger at oneself before trying to point it at others for one's situation, particularly ones self-created. One has seen self-determination in plenty of movies before, but one is interested to see it play out here with Singleton seemingly reacting to his previous film spent in the neighborhood with an older and wiser perspective (ten years, if you will). Gibson carries the film and the plight that comes with trying to have life both ways between man and "baby boy" with a natural style that generates curiosity in the dilemma presented without being used as a tool for easy blame. Henson proves to be a compelling match with Gibson in terms of gripping charm and interest that threads the needle of the determination angle with that waver in passion in trying to build the edges of a defined family. Snoop Dogg was not too unfamiliar with film, as he had appeared in a handful of roles over the past decade before release while being more known as a rapping icon. At any rate, he does well with a menacing role that comes into focus after everyone else has been introduced and makes the most of it. True, Gibson is interesting as the star. But honestly the highlight is Rhames, who practically steals the show away with his charisma that glows in well-meaning care that has engaging chemistry with Johnson. Each shows the presence of weary folks who only hope to see at least one youth spring from their parental nest without having to rip them out the hard way. Gooding provides the withered edge of a man trying to find redemption that pairs nicely with Gibson. By the time the film maneuvers itself towards resolution, it generally has managed to stick the landing points in confrontation (of course, one can see where the film touches on some of the same beats as Boyz n the Hood, particularly with having climatic decisions with two adults featuring a wordless conversation). It sometimes veers a bit in repetition, but it never dulls the senses with cheap tricks or moments that take you away from its neighborhood. The film was a fair hit on release, making $30 million on release (on a $16 million budget); two decades later, one can still see where the appeal still lies when it comes to this film, because it deserves a proper following with the success it manages to have by the efforts of a director rooted firmly in telling a story for black Americans to engage firmly with.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Black History Month ends with Summer of Soul (2021).

Rat Race.

Review #1714: Rat Race.

Cast: 

John Cleese (Donald P. Sinclair), Breckin Meyer (Nicholas "Nick" Schaffer), Amy Smart (Tracy Faucet), Cuba Gooding Jr. (Owen Templeton), Seth Green (Duane Cody), Vince Vieluf (Blaine Cody), Lanei Chapman (Merrill Jennings), Whoopi Goldberg (Vera Baker), Jon Lovitz (Randy Pear), Kathy Najimy (Beverly "Bev" Pear), Brody Smith (Jason Pear), Jillian Marie Hubert (Kimberly Pear), Rowan Atkinson (Enrico Pollini), Dave Thomas (Harold Grisham), and Wayne Knight (Zack Mallozzi) Directed by Jerry Zucker (#585 - Top Secret!, #664 - Airplane!, #1274 - First Knight, #1626 - Ghost)

Review: 

Do you remember It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963)? Stanley Kramer wanted to make a epic comedy movie, and he certainly did so with a frantic and diverting movie that stuffed its audience with plenty to try and laugh with, having plenty of comedic talent of the time and folks from yesteryear. Naturally, it inspired a few films that wanted to cash in on making an ensemble comedy involving folks trying to cash on greed and luck. These films included Scavenger Hunt (1979) and Million Dollar Mystery (1987), with the latter even having a sweepstakes to locate money (and yes, a teen won the $1 million contest). Of course, really one film that comes to this film when it comes to star-studded madcap mess movies, the easiest film to correlate with this movie is The Cannonball Run (1981). Neither movie earned much respect from folks who think they know better than audiences, but each has certainly had their own legacy in the decades that have followed each release. I say this for a movie that has turned 20 years old in Rat Race, and I would like to note that I have finally closed the circle with Zucker, in that this is the last feature film to be directed by Jerry Zucker (of course, I have forgotten about Ruthless People (1986), but that was a collaborative effort, so...), and I suppose it makes sense that the last one is a comedy after directing two films meant to be taken seriously (one with chuckles, one with unintentional chuckles, mind you). Of course, he hasn't stopped making things entirely, as he has added producing to his foray, but it is odd to see the last effort of a director best known for his work with his brother David with making spoofs that were, you know, pretty funny.

To make it short, Rat Race is not any of the films I have mentioned. Rat Race is quite disappointing, mostly because it manages to waste one's time in mediocrity, a movie that surely looked better on paper. Sure, one can always make the excuse that a comedy involving greedy folks that behave like cartoon characters doesn't have to have its head 100% straight, but there is really one requirement when it comes to making a silly movie: having consistent gags that land. Of course, it would also have helped to simply not pack so many cast members in there for one to try and follow. For a film that has six distinct groups of folks among 10 adults (and two children, but does that really count?), I find that less than half of them are effective in actually generating laughs. It is the 112 minute equivalent of stepping on a rake, where one brief moment of relief can then be followed by stepping into something that could have been avoided for no pain. The film was written by Andy Breckman. He wrote for a variety of projects such as radio, Saturday Night Live, and a handful of feature films (such as Arthur 2: On the Rocks (1988)), although the most notable creation by Breckman came the year after the release of this film with Monk. So yes, I suppose there is a lesson to be learned here or something. I think the best lesson is that sometimes, you too can cast a whole bunch of famous people who seem like they can be funny and pair them into an experience that never goes above "bare minimum" at any point for more than five minutes at a time, managing to accomplish a movie of dummy characters that do dummy things. 

There are basically two highlights: Cleese, who seems to revel in a role full of momentary eccentricity (i.e. rich people being weird) that lets him have fun without trouble. Lovitz is the second best thing, if only because he revels in the smarmy circumstances that bring everyone together for money the best - he gets stuck in the weirdest scenarios but actually lands them for chuckles, such as stealing a Nazi car or inadvertently doing a salute to WWII veterans. He seems craven enough to make it work for actual interest, while Najimy does okay when paired with Lovitz. Honestly, the others can be ranked like this in terms of mediocrity-to-less fun: Green/Vieluf, Meyer, Goldberg/Chapman, Smart, Atkinson, and Gooding Jr. Trust me, having Meyer as your attempt at a straight man is a wobbly sign already (Smart might have been a better choice, but hey, I guess flying a helicopter dangerously is meant to play for c-r-a-z-y laughs). Green and Vieluf aren't consistent, but at least one can see where things were meant to be funny. You would think an actor who won an Academy Award for essentially comic relief would be just fine here, but Gooding seems quite lost here, as if he is being befuddled by lame scenario-making that goes from something typical (i.e. losing clothing) to painful (suffering the indignity of a group of Lucille Ball impersonators). Goldberg (oh hey, that previous sentence applies here too) and Chapman don't get that much to do besides an interminable cameo involving Kathy Bates and a stupid squirrel, while Atkinson might as well just sleepwalk through his role with how bland it is. Watching a bunch of folks you probably aren't meant to like plunder depths for money is a boring idea, point blank. The ending is especially insulting, because if you are making a comedy about folks willing to go the extra mile in racing for $2 million by any greedy means necessary, you better have a conclusion that seems amusing enough to make it all fit together. Having all of them crash into a Smash Mouth concert for food donations is not that. It is a lazy ending, a bare minimum ending that might as well be equivalent to having the characters all go to a soup kitchen after a heist on Christmas. Again, not to steal from the well of citing better movies, but Mad World managed to see all the characters get their just desserts in a hospital bed that made a good punchline without seeming like a cheat. Playing "All Star" helps no one. Going around and giving money to a concert to the horror of a rich guy isn't really as funny as it could be, and it is probably because the movie has plodded around for too long with being as bare minimum as possible to where it doesn't matter. Two decades later, the only thing one learns from this film is that some movies should just stay on paper. Or perhaps one should just stick with the classics, really.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Legally Blonde.

Review #1698: Legally Blonde.

Cast: 

Reese Witherspoon (Elle Woods), Luke Wilson (Emmett Richmond), Selma Blair (Vivian Kensington), Matthew Davis (Warner Huntington III), Victor Garber (Professor Callahan), Jennifer Coolidge (Paulette Bonafonté), Holland Taylor (Professor Elspeth Stromwell), Ali Larter (Brooke Taylor-Windham), Jessica Cauffiel (Margot), Alanna Ubach (Serena McGuire), Francesca P. Roberts (Judge Marina R. Bickford), Oz Perkins (David Kidney), Linda Cardellini (Chutney Windham), Bruce Thomas (UPS Guy), Meredith Scott Lynn (Enid Wexler), and Raquel Welch (Mrs. Windham-Vandermark) Directed by Robert Luketic.

Review: 

Well, sometimes you need a movie about the law to go with a tale of forging a path forward for oneself with confidence, I suppose. Legally Blonde is adapted from the novel of the same name, which was self-published by Amanda Brown in 2001 (although it should be noted that the 1994 copyright filing lists both Brown and Brigdet Kerrigan, who coincidentally had attended Harvard) based on the writer's experiences in Stanford Law School, which namely involved making fun of her classmates with letters sent back home to Arizona while reading Elle magazine; one key experience involved her going to a group for women attending the school that Brown found amusement over their serious tone (such as trying to change "semester" to "ovester"). She dropped out after two years, but she eventually cobbled a manuscript together; while it didn't attract much attention as a book, it did find interest with film studios, and one pitch that was used for it was "Clueless meets The Paper Chase". At any rate, the film was written by Karen McCullah Lutz and Kirsten Smith, who saw numerous script changes that turned a first draft with raunchy material into one with adversity to overcome and a murder trial (including an ending that came from test audiences caring about the success of its character rather than a kiss on the courthouse). In other words, a script that would probably have come off the heels of stuff like American Pie (1999) ended up being more of a feel-good movie that surely plays its own note in the blonde circuit (which has quite a few stereotypes that I'm sure would make for an interesting discussion somewhere else). This was also the feature film debut of Robert Luketic, a native of Australia who had been making short films since he was a teenager before his short Titsiana Booberini (1997) attracted Hollywood.

Honestly, it's just an okay movie. It's an obvious movie, one that plays exactly to the bone of "being yourself with confidence" that makes for a few chuckles for a 96 minute movie that sure takes its time to really get going, even when it has something to say about workplace dynamics in conduct (or perhaps not judging stuff like sorority life or law school by the cover...?) and something something feminist classic something something. Or something like that, because really it is the trial parts that are more up to speed in actually doing something beyond "aw shucks". You know how folks will randomly approach stars and have them do "classic stuff" at a convention? The appeal for this movie is kind of like that, albeit without as many nerd lingo (as any convention attendee would say). That, or it is basically a sports movie for sorority folks. Strangely enough, with a pitch evoking the name of Clueless (1995), it really doesn't seem to have that much "zing" to it, if you know what I mean. Sure, there are quite a few quirky moments, such as the "bend and snap" sequence, which sounds believable when you note that the writers came up with it while at a bar. It comes and goes, really, when you think about it. There is nothing here that is exactly harmful or ridiculous, and I imagine that it certainly proved an inspiration to at least one person when it came to law or perhaps something else - so yeah, average isn't the worst possible experience one could have with this feature. If it wasn't for Witherspoon, this probably would have been a lesser experience. Her sunny charm and wit certainly play off against the others well enough with flourishing interest that you would see from a "fish out of water" type without being played out, and its easy to see how two decades have only cemented the enduring entertainment that Witherspoon brings here. The others keep up fine for the most part. Wilson is casual enough to keep his portion of the film going well enough without asking for too much more (the aforementioned ending involved the two leads kissing at the end, but I think you can see why they just went with a different one). Blair brings up the snobby parts to where it needs to go (complete with the predictable stuff), which is followed by the snooty snake charm from Davis to go with the slithering calmness generated by Garber. Coolidge gets a chuckle in shyness while others get a line or two to show up (such as Larter doing some well-blown hysterics over gluteal efforts), which means that one will do just fine in keeping their attention airtight. As I stated already, it is the law parts that generate interest more, probably because its predictability is a little less obvious than the school segments, but that is probably just me. In the two decades that have followed the release of this film, a sequel was released alongside a musical and a spinoff, and it is perhaps representative of the legacy of the film that another sequel is in development. Is it predictable? Indubitably, but it has plenty of charm in the right places to make a worthy time for those in the mood for what it yearns to say about having fun as oneself without letting folks or other things get in their way. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Freddy Got Fingered.

Review #1604: Freddy Got Fingered.

Cast:
Tom Green (Gordon Brody), Rip Torn (Jim Brody), Marisa Coughlan (Betty Menger), Eddie Kaye Thomas (Freddy Brody), Harland Williams (Darren), Anthony Michael Hall (Dave Davidson), Julie Hagerty (Julie Brody), Drew Barrymore (Davidson's receptionist), Shaquille O'Neal (Himself), Jackson Davies (Mr. Malloy), and Connor Widdows (Andy Malloy) Directed by Tom Green.

Review:
"It’s just so often that I’ll do an interview and people say, “Oh yeah, Tom Green, the guy who made the worst movie ever made!” Meanwhile, I can't go to an English-speaking city in the world without people shouting at me, "Daddy, would you like some sausage?" Doesn't matter what city I am in the world, people will be shouting out lines from the movie at me."

Life is too short to go through a film that could either be thought of (a gross-out turkey or a secret classic. It has been nineteen years since the release of this feature, likely the most prominent ever done by director, writer, and star Tom Green, since this is the first and so far only effort in the first two categories by him. The Canadian native was born in Pembroke, Ontario, and he had studied TV broadcasting at Algonquin College while doing side work in stand-up comedy from a young age, inspired by comedians such as David Letterman and George Carlin alongside shows such as Candid Camera and Saturday Night Live. In 1994, he helped create a sketch variety comedy show with The Tom Green Show, which aired for six years with three separate networks in Rogers Television 22, The Comedy Network, and MTV He is notable for his shock humor and pranks (such as one in planking that he claims to have invented) alongside his other career in rap and talk show host (which went from being from his own house to an studio). This film was written by him and Derek Harvie, who also worked on Green's show. I state that there was an argument as secret classic only because there were (and still are) a few arguments about the film as some sort of favorite in transgressive comedy or even a "Dadist" work (Chris Rock has it as one of his favorites, for example). Sure, the film might not have been a major success with its $14 million budget, but Green has argued that it did better than it was given credit for, owing to its DVD sales alongside his theory that the box office figures were lower because people (of a certain age) simply snuck into his film after they had bought tickets for Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles, which was released one week earlier that made double the money of this film. I would say it sounds like a reeky conspiracy theory, but now we're just comparing apples to oranges with a film that would probably use it for comedy if it could. In order to gently lower oneself into the film, I started with the so-called "PG version", which supposedly is the film cut down with a silly voice to three minutes. After all, Green has admitted to have put scenes in the film that would "make boring people leave." When it comes to beating a dead deer, one takes the cake here.

I first expressed interest in doing this film a year or so ago because of its obvious reputation if only to counteract some of the films I would see with friends at times (such as stuff like Sex Drive) to perhaps make them (or myself) mad. After all, if you can't make someone mad, what's the point? Clearly, this question might not sit as well with other audiences. So, how does one approach it? Simple: you watch it, and you either like it or don't. It is quite possible that the reaction to this film can mirror the one done to horror films at times, particularly with its attempts at shock with certain scenes that revolve from a hospital room to others involving animals or cheese. Of course, the whole film really goes on how one views its main actor for an 87-minute feature. Personally, I felt that he both made a curious feature that also wasted my time. Perhaps it is my lack of familiarity with the material from his TV stuff like on MTV (which I never really watched in the first place), but I didn't exactly have a bad time with Beavis and Butt-Head Do America (based on a show that has since died and soon to be revived twice...or three times) - that was based on two numbskulls that nevertheless made a good time. For me, it's just a silly movie that isn't nearly as good or as bad as it has purported itself to be, serving as a reminder of how much one can reach those who like to have ridiculous humor, those that want something more, and those who simply don't care. I did have moments where I giggled, but some of that really involved someone alongside Green. Supposedly, Gene Wilder and Jerry Stiller were considered for the role before Torn got it, but each thought it was offensive. In any case, I am glad to see Torn, because he turns out to be my favorite part of the film. Torn, a native Texan actor of film and television for over five decades, is no stranger to eccentric highlights in his career and life, so seeing him get to pummel Green is probably like if I watched Maidstone (1970, the film where director and noted wife-stabber Norman Mailer got hit in the head with a hammer and then bit Torn's ear) for real, such as when he drags those sausages out from the roof and then promptly wrecks a half-pipe with glee. If Green is meant to represent the ridiculous and wild side that can come from daring to dream against the usual, Torn is that voice that responds in kind, which I can't help but appreciate in all of its gruffness. Coughlan is okay, in the sense that no one could make these gags involving trying to stoke enjoyment and interest in rocket-powered wheelchairs really that much better or all-too worse. Thomas is there for a brief time as the supposed straight man before he disappears to the surprise of no one. Time is spent with Williams with pain gags, while Hall and Hagerty have puddles of moments. Oodles of cameo moments occur with Barrymore and O'Neal that obviously won't be their most humiliating appearance. Oh, but how's the movie? I think if one goes by the ratio of enjoyment to minutes spent, it is a narrow loss, one that is sometimes funny despite its tinges of obnoxiousness for what can be construed by fans and detractors alike as either ahead of its time or just a weird gross time. You have to view the film with a little balance, because if you really go by the first ten minutes, or by the first fifty minutes...yea, just don't get mad about it too quickly. It's a weird, gross film, but it will fit exactly into the perception of whoever happens to watch it, regardless of if it deserves a second watch or not.

This concludes Turkey Week. I am glad to have done eight films in seven days, even if it likely could have been even more grander. But a week it was, eh? I didn't intend to do it, but back-to-back-to-back thousand word reviews? I think it is evident that another edition of Turkey Week for 2021 is in order, but I also think there should be weeks dedicated to other interests as well, so one should stay tuned for any new points of interest. If you have any suggestions for things to cover for stinkers or other things in mind, you are always free to speak your mind - have a happy holidays, folks.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars

Ali.

Review #1531: Ali.

Cast: 
Will Smith (Cassius Clay Jr / Muhammad Ali), Jamie Foxx (Drew Bundini Brown), Jon Voight (Howard Cosell), Mario Van Peebles (Malcolm X), Ron Silver (Angelo Dundee), Jeffrey Wright (Howard Bingham), Mykelti Williamson (Don King), James Toney (Joe Frazier), Jada Pinkett Smith (Sonji Roi), Nona Gaye (Belinda Boyd / Khalilah Ali), Michael Michele (Veronica Porché), Joe Morton (Chauncey Eskridge), Paul Rodriguez (Dr. Ferdie Pacheco), and Bruce McGill (Bradley) Directed by Michael Mann.

Review: 
"The accomplishment of Will Smith in that movie is extraordinary: It’s not just the movement and the boxing — that’s difficult enough; it’s having your head in 1964, which came from sitting where you’re sitting and talking to Geronimo Pratt. That’s the challenge, because that’s what’s really, sincerely exciting — to get things to the point where they become emotionalized and real, so hopefully they have an impact upon audiences.”

It takes a life as big as Muhammad Ali to have two big names behind a biopic about his crucial years, which is why Michael Mann and Will Smith seemed destined to make this film together. The Chicago-born Mann studied English at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, but it was the viewing of films by F. W. Murnau and G. W. Pabst along with the release of Dr. Strangelove (1963) that influenced him about becoming a director and making a film with an individual statement with successful appeal for serious cinema without needing to be niche. He attended London Film School and subsequently made commercials and shorts before eventually moving back to the United States to do television, which led to his TV breakthrough with The Jericho Mile (1979) before a feature film breakthrough with Thief (1981). Known for his focus on his work with detail and style, this is the seventh of his eleven directorial efforts, and he would also serve as a co-producer and co-writer on the screenplay (with Eric Roth, Stephen J. Rivele, and Christopher Wilkinson, while Gregory Allen Howard got credit for the story). As for Smith, he had risen to fame through various media, which included hip hop in the late 1980s and television with The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (1990-96) before carving a breakthrough in film with Six Degrees of Separation (1993). Smith had his hesitations of taking on Ali in part because of uncertainty about the script but also in if he was ready to be involved in the feature. He went through months of training in learning about boxing and Islamic studies while gaining weight for the role for a project that ultimately ballooned to over $100 million in budget.

Ali had been prominent on and off the ring, with his pursuits involving writing, music, and acting, which included features such as a.k.a. Cassius Clay (1970, documentary), which had archival footage and interviews with Ali about his exile from the ring, The Greatest (1977), in which Ali starred as himself detailing his life from 1960-1974, and When We Were Kings (1996, documentary), which detailed the "Rumble In The Jungle" fight with archival footage. One could likely do multiple projects on the life of Ali or study him and his prominent life through simply seeing him near a boxing ring. However, this is a film that details the most important years of his life that go from 1964 to 1974, detailing his holding to his principles through a rise, fall, and rise again to the ring and what matters to him most when it comes to holding his principles in religion and against war. In this sense, Ali is a decent film, packed to the prim with observation and some of the confidence and curiosity that made Ali such an icon while perhaps dragging its feet in covering all the fine points of what it wants to show in its vision, a man filled with idiosyncrasies that made him a courageous rebel with struggles and human flaws. In this sense, Smith pulls off a wonderful performance, wrapped in confidence that does well in bravado and stature that works as a tribute to the man portrayed without seeping into hagiographic worship, elevating the material beyond putty if in lesser hands. Foxx proves just as well in delivering someone wrapped in hype and mystery with the right kind of conviction and timing when he is needed for the experience. Voight, wrapped in makeup, pulls off a pretty convincing performance, one with enterprising presence that likely captures the blustery confidence of the real Cosell (in my vague awareness of him the film did actually teach me something I didn't know, namely that he studied law before broadcasting) without just seeming like a pale imitation. Others do fine, but they generally seep in and out of the film as time goes on that make it a bit difficult to really grab a hold on (aside from one might know about them, as is the case with figures played by Van Peebles and Williamson), although at least the film never detracts from its time period with something distracting. The boxing sequences are generally well done, handling the plight of what it means to get beaten pound-for-pound with flourish and careful cutting. Even though the film was not a success with audiences at the time, it shouldn't erase what turns out to be a useful experience to see on screen. One's enjoyment of the film comes from how much of the material will resonate with a viewer when it comes to being a celebration of Ali and what he went through in a decade of fighting others from the ring onto the system that go from place to place with a fair bit of impact for its surroundings that make a decent achievement for both Mann and Smith to be proud of.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Monster's Ball.

Review #1530: Monster's Ball.

Cast: 
Billy Bob Thornton (Hank Grotowski), Halle Berry (Leticia Musgrove), Heath Ledger (Sonny Grotowski), Peter Boyle (Buck Grotowski), Coronji Calhoun (Tyrell Musgrove), Sean Combs (Lawrence Musgrove), Mos Def (Ryrus Cooper), Charles Cowan Jr. (Willie Cooper), and Taylor LaGrange (Darryl Cooper) Directed by Marc Forster (#384 - Quantum of Solace, #542 - World War Z, and #883 - The Kite Runner)

Review: 
"She came in and said ‘I know you guys don’t want me in this movie. You think I’m just a big pretty face, but I want this part.’ And she proved everybody wrong who thought that maybe she couldn’t do it.”

It can be a wonderous thing for a film to come together if the parts all sum themselves together to one good whole. The genesis for this film came from actors-turned-writers Milo Addica and Will Rokos. The two had written a draft by 1996, with the intent of finding interest from people they knew in the business while also angling for a small part themselves. The following five years was a parade of studio and writer struggles - while it attracted various stars in interest such as Sean Penn, it was mired in development over potentially lightening the script (including having one of the characters live rather than die) while the writing partnership between Addica and Rokos ended due to creative differences. Despite this, the film eventually came along with Lionsgate Films that had Lee Daniels (formerly a casting director and manager) as first-time producer. This was the third career work of Forster, raised in West Germany and Switzerland before deciding to do his studies in film with New York and its state university. Loungers (1995) was done on a cheap budget at the age of 26, but it was Everything Put Together (2000) that received attention from festivals and Daniels that helped Forster get his break.

"Monster's Ball" apparently refers to an old English term about a condemned man's old meal and his last night before execution in which his jailers threw him a "ball". But titles aren't everything in a movie, particularly when it comes to a film about desperate people and the bond that they share with each other despite all the odds, whether that means a cycle of violence or something else lurking deep in the surface. It is a dreary movie filled with people that nevertheless live in their surroundings with spoken and unspoken pain that does well with small-scale settings for raw intimacy that very much seems like it came from a novel of tragedy. It won't exactly hit all of the high points with emotional depth for everyone, and it may very well push itself to the limit at 111 minutes, but I generally liked what I saw in how it sticks to uncompromising melodrama with a fairly dynamite cast to go alongside it. Thornton leads the film quite well, weary and involving in a progression that hints at some form of redemption without necessarily becoming a caricature, instead finding himself wrapped between regret and moving on from it. Berry proves just as capable in delivering range of vulnerability and raw energy that makes for a great performance, one that invites a pondering of the soul in terms of what it means to be compelled to feel again, or to just feel something more than what has been felt before. Ledger doesn't have too many scenes, but he does make the most of it with tenderness that make a striking punch with Thornton, which make for a neatly wrapped ball of anguish. Boyle provides venomous conviction with his moments on-screen that work to where the film needs to go with a wince for what we don't see. What we have here is an executioner's song of nuance and hard-grained efficiency that touches upon what it means to lose someone and find something to reach upon without becoming infused with sentiment or movie hokum. This is especially true with the ending, which closes some of its loose ends while weaving an end for the audience to interpret for themselves in its true meaning. As an accomplishment for independent filmmaking, this is a stark film that one can't go wrong on if one is in the mindset for what it aspires to show in drama, complete with a well-picked cast to make things happen with honesty.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Training Day.

Review #1529: Training Day.

Cast: 
Denzel Washington (Detective Sergeant Alonzo Harris), Ethan Hawke (Officer Jake Hoyt), Scott Glenn (Roger), Eva Mendes (Sara), Cliff Curtis (Smiley), Raymond Cruz (Sniper), Noel Gugliemi (Moreno), Dr. Dre (Paul), with Harris Yulin (Detective Doug Rosselli), Tom Berenger (Stan Gursky), Raymond J. Barry (Captain Lou Jacobs), Peter Greene (Jeff), Nick Chinlund (Tim), and Snoop Dogg (Blue) Directed by Antoine Fuqua.

Review: 
"Being a kid growing up with Kurosawa films and watching Sergio Leone movies just made me love what it could do to you, and how it could influence you - make you dream."

What we have here is a film comprised of two unifying visions in writing and directing when it comes to shades of gray in the streets and the people that live in it. Fuqua grew up in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and described himself as living a rough area that nevertheless found inspiration from films of his youth that affected him such as Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven in watching people struggle through their own fight for justice. He studied engineering and fine arts at West Virginia University with the intent to join the military before deciding to enter into filming with music video directing, which he started in 1992 for performers such as Chanté Moore and moved into film directing with The Replacement Killers (1998). The writer of this film was David Ayer, who while born in Champaign, Illinois lived with his cousin in South Central Los Angeles before serving in the United States Navy for two years as a Submarine Sonar Technician (with those experiences inspiring him to write his first published screenplay, U-571). The script for this film had been developed over the course of a few years by Ayer (who would later become a director in his own right) and he spent considerable time observing with people who resided in that area for their perspective on law enforcement, with the 24-hour setting coming through his fascination with seeing a person entirely transformed through one particular day. Fuqua would also do his part in maintaining a realistic atmosphere through shooting on location all around Los Angeles (whether that meant South Central or the Imperial Courts) that meant consultation with undercover cops and gang experts (which extended to the stars of the film).

Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that Washington does a great job with this role, because it clearly is a challenging role well-suited for a great actor to show nuance with. The film seems to take its lead from films like The French Connection and Dog Day Afternoon in a gritted-teeth telling about police action how it pertains to the community at large with a pace that works itself to fair standards with a solid duo wrapped around a world of brutality involving crooked cops and gangsters that still seems relevant today (the C.R.A.S.H. scandal involving the Los Angeles Police Department occurred by 1998, which was after the development of the screenplay but still prescient by the time of filming). Washington does a great job in depicting the logical next step of trying to take on the pressure-cooker type streets in going over the line and becoming an intimidator of the neighborhood. With a lesser actor, it might have just been an opportunity to go over-the-top in the guise of street justice, but Washington reins in a captivating performance filled with aggressive precision that isn't easy to pin down scene-to-scene. Hawke holds his ground on the other side of authority in ambition choked by underlying darkness, one that does just as well in driving the material forward with patience and an electric rapport with Washington that makes for good drama. Others do just fine in filling the details of a grayish world, such as Glenn with slimy calm, or an unassuming Mendes, though of course the best scene with others is one involving Yulin, Berenger, and Barry as "wise men" in their understanding with Washington when it comes to what's on/off the table. On the whole, one will find a decent experience to be had here through 122 minutes, as it has a general patience and understanding of a time and place that still adheres to how might makes right, with credible pacing and buildup to go with a well-paired duo and capable support to deliver a good thriller.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence.

Review #1528: A.I. Artificial Intelligence.

Cast: 
Haley Joel Osment (David), Jude Law (Gigolo Joe), Frances O'Connor (Monica Swinton), Sam Robards (Henry Swinton), Jake Thomas (Martin Swinton), William Hurt (Professor Allen Hobby), Brendan Gleeson (Lord Johnson-Johnson), with Jack Angel (Teddy), Robin Williams (Dr. Know), Ben Kingsley (Specialist), Meryl Streep (Blue Fairy), and Chris Rock (Comedian Robot) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, #1478 - The Color Purple, and #1520 - Saving Private Ryan)

Review: 
"While there was divisiveness when A.I. came out, I felt that I had achieved Stanley’s wishes, or goals."

This was most definitely a film I anticipated and feared ever watching. On the one hand, it has sensibilities of two great directors mixed into one prolonged experience both in length and the time it took to actually develop it to the screen. For starters, the film is an adaptation of the short story "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss, written originally in 1969. The original work included just four characters (David, his parents, and Teddy), which talked about the doubts of a boy's existence and what is real while his "parents" wait for the chance to have their own child. Stanley Kubrick had acquired the rights to the story by the 1970s. An array of writers would come and go in writing/consulting a script for Kubrick, which included Aldiss, Bob Shaw, Ian Watson and Sara Maitland, with Kubrick treating the soon-enormous script as resembling The Adventures of Pinocchio. One key thing that stopped progression of getting pre-production going was a perception by Kubrick that effects-work had to evolve enough to suit what he wanted (the release of Jurassic Park helped spur the idea of potentially doing the film again, but Kubrick ultimately retained focus on what ended up being his last project, Eyes Wide Shut in 1999). In the middle of all that searching for the right tone, Steven Spielberg had been approached by Kubrick to direct it, and it was after Kubrick's death in 1999 that led Christiane Kubrick to approach Spielberg to take on the project; Spielberg would develop a screenplay based on the story done by Watson, with the most notable aspect being the "Flesh Fair" sequence.

The ambition shown here in bringing such a project like this to life is admirable, regardless of how the final result turns out. It is a decent film, for better or worse. It has some of the edge needed when it comes to a visual level that makes an interesting curiosity that may perhaps inspire some thought about its deeper implications involving machines, that much is for sure. And yet there is just something about it that seems hollow when it comes to being consistently interesting in actually springing a story that really makes care all the way forward, which combines with a quiet ending that really seems to try to cover too many bases without truly deserving it. In other words, it is a fine movie, but I can't say I really, really liked it enough to justify 146 minutes of runtime, where it seems more clinical verging on silly than properly bleak and innovative, which basically means you get the decent but not perfect writings of two visionaries. Osment does just fine when it comes to a really tough task: a robot boy built to love, complete with an enduring spirit and robotic actions that carry this film as much as he can in unblinking fashion that will either lead to great heights or meandering. Law does fine, amusing in the manner of trickery to go along with the other side of what makes Mecha made to love. O'Connor and Robards don't really do as well, strangely enough, since they really don't help the first half seem that involving. Evidently the 22nd century has led to parents and children made out of wooden acting, where a voice of a teddy bear has more charm in comparison. Hurt does do a fine job, but he is gravelly underused, having basically just two scenes in the whole (meaningful in terms of hammering in the whole aspects of a robot child yes, but still). Williams is funny in his one scene to shine in exposition.

I really just wish I enjoyed this more, because there certainly are bits and pieces that seem suited for greatness that get slogged out of enjoyment. At least the original author Aldiss thought it was "inventive, intriguing, involving film", so to have a film that at least doesn't make the author mad is okay by me. For a story originally just about the plight of parents who struggle with loving a robot child, it sure is strange to have a film go from that to a "Flesh Fair" involving beating down old robots and a quest to become a real boy as Pinocchio with mommy issues. In a future that has cultivated the flooding of New York and had to rebuild itself with exploiting robots, why should it be surprising that at some point in time someone wanted to make a robot that loves you - basically this is the story of an advanced robotic pet looking for a way for their master to come back. The "Flesh Fair" sequence is in some way the make-it-or-break-it sequence - either it will help the film gather depth in the underbelly of robot use, or it will seem a bit too much for its own good. I'm fine with it, but it just seems so jarring when compared to the first half. I appreciate the look of the film, which does fine with featuring the future with some decent robotic effects, although its last trick for the end is a bit unwieldy. And then of course there is that ending, one that tries to resolve the pursuit for the "Blue Fairy" with a half-measure for a fable, as his plight for chasing down this delusion is thought of as like a human's ability to chase down their dreams (I...suppose). Keep in mind, this was the ending devised by Kubrick (not Spielberg), so it only goes to show that sometimes you just can't please everyone when it comes to resolutions. The setup to its little ending was ridiculous enough (because the odds of making a robot into a boy are pretty much nil, so either I expected him to wither away or give up), and the payoff is just an eye-roller more than a tear-jerker when it comes to meaningful science fiction. It is quite possible a re-viewing would help in seeing the layers beneath a vaguely provocative film, but honestly that really seems like a tall order - why not just spend time watching a better movie again instead? If one wants to compare and match, if I want a better Kubrick sci-fi time, I'll pick 2001: A Space Odyssey, and if I want a better Spielberg sci-fi time, I'll pick E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. What we have here is a film that is too cloying and too much for its own good to really become something other than a parable gone awry. I am glad that I saw the film in curiosity for measurement as a film of the 21st century, even if it is ultimately just a decent experience in the long run.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.