Half Past Dead.

Review #2473: Half Past Dead.

Cast: 

Steven Seagal (FBI Agent Sasha Petrosevitch), Morris Chestnut (Donny Johnson "49er One"), Ja Rule (Nick Frazier), Nia Peeples ("49er Six"), Tony Plana (Warden Juan Ruiz "El Fuego" Escarzaga), Kurupt (Bernard "Twitch"), Michael "Bear" Taliferro (Joe "Little Joe"), Claudia Christian (FBI Special Agent Ellen Williams), Linda Thorson (Judge Jane McPherson), Bruce Weitz (Lester McKenna), Michael McGrady (Guard Damon J. Kestner), Richard Bremmer (Sonny Eckvall), Hannes Jaenicke (FBI Agent Hartmann), with Mo'Nique (Twitch's Girl), and Stephen J. Cannell (Frank Hubbard) Written and Directed by Don Michael Paul.

 

Review: 

You might know that Steven Seagal was a star at one point in time. Above the Law (1988) utilized him to his strengths in, well, kicking the crap out of people, even if he already had ideas of being a filmmaker too. His fifth film as a star in Under Siege (1992) was probably his peak, mainly because he was surrounded by people who looked like they wanted to be there for what could've easily been just "Die Hard on a boat". He finally made his presence known as a director (a bad one) with On Deadly Ground (1994), a movie that was beyond absurd in its environmental message in the face of having so many bodies all around the place. He then did a sequel to Under Siege in 1995 before having one noted supporting role in a movie with Executive Decision (1996) before starting to get into doing direct-to-video work such as The Patriot (1998) or stuff that didn't even get a US theatrical release such as Ticker (2001). Exit Wounds (2001) paired him with DMX in what was thought to be a "comeback movie", although it was this last venture with Warner Bros. At the end of all of this is Half Past Dead (2002), the 11th and final theatrical movie with Seagal as the key star, and it is the only one that was rated PG-13. No, seriously. He has made one theatrical movie in America since* this film with Machete (2010). Half Past Dead was directed by a first-timer in Don Michael Paul. The actor-turned-director/writer wrote the script for the film, which was his first theatrical script since Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man (1991). He would go on to such vaunted works as Who's Your Caddy? (2007) to go along with a litany of movies for the video market (Jarhead 2, three Tremors sequels, Kindergarten Cop 2). Half Past Dead was not a hit with audiences even with just a budget of $25 million. Two years later, Seagal added music to his "forte" with an album of music that had "pop, world, country, and blues music" in it. The less said about his ties to other countries, the better.

There is plenty of satisfaction to be had here. No, not as a good movie, I mean the satisfaction of seeing a bloated, lazy, arrogant Steven Seagal fall off the lowest bar possible when it comes to "action star", complete with barely even having a close-up of Seagal. This is delightfully pathetic, managing to evoke a sense of feeling like a ripoff of any action movie that just pops up in your head. To add on to this, apparently, some unused aerial shots from The Rock actually does show up in the movie. Being painfully generic is one thing, being painfully generic with a star having the charisma of a rotted potato is another. There is absolutely nothing to Seagal in this film to latch on for interest, unless you count him wearing a durag for, um, some reason. The near-death experience the character suffers at the opening doesn't really come into play, honestly, because Seagal just drifts through scenes with the same blank expression. It isn't a story of revenge or even a story of finding one's place after suffering trauma, nah, it is just a guy who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time that is totally not a regurgitation of Die Hard and The Rock (did I mention the movie is set with a restored Alcatraz? It goes right up with a plot about a guy wanting to get the secrets of a doomed man of where he buried valuable gold). His fight scenes seem more like the work of creative cutting with stunt doubles than an actual physical presence. Chuck Norris in his fifties probably had more fitness than Seagal, so where's that excuse? Chestnut seems mildly invested in getting to play a villain in it for the paycheck that probably isn't too different from an actor in it for the paycheck, which is a nice thing to say in a movie where Peeples and her getup of leather (someone watch The Matrix or certain magazines, hmm?) and eyeshadow probably serves as the one attraction worth watching for the whole movie in terms of curiosity. Ja Rule appeared in a handful of movies in the 2000s that probably were fun to do (Assault on Precinct 13 [2005], for example) alongside having a rap career. In that regard, being in this film to try and play buddy with Seagal (a'ight is said a handful of times to make that clear) is not nearly as embarrassing as being the future co-founder of the doomed Fyre Festival, to put it mildly. Stephen J. Cannell appeared in one film as an actor when not doing work on TV, and it was this one. Your guess is as good as mine. By the time the movie ends its pursuit of, uh, retribution and gold, you will have learned that a "generic" action movie can be a blessing when compared to bad action movies like this. As a whole, Seagal was reaching his fifties when doing stuff like this and it shows pretty clearly for a movie that is too bloated, too under-cooked and too tired out to be anything other than a piece of crap fit for laughter.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Bring on the sixth year of bad movies to celebrate Thanksgiving Week, hell yea. Next one up: The Nutcracker in 3D (2010).

*On a probably unrelated note, the following year after Half Past Dead, Segal had to take the stand because a bunch of mobsters from the Gambino crime family were brought in by one Julius R. Nasso to try and threaten Seagal after the dissolving of their partnership.

*For whatever reason, someone actually transcribed the dialogue of the film into text form here: Half Past Dead Script - transcript from the screenplay and/or Steven Seagal movie

Barbershop.

Review #2351: Barbershop.

Cast: 

Ice Cube (Calvin Palmer Jr.), Anthony Anderson (J.D.), Cedric the Entertainer (Eddie Walker), Keith David (Lester Wallace), Michael Ealy (Ricky Nash), Sean Patrick Thomas (Jimmy James), Eve (Terri Jones), Troy Garity (Isaac Rosenberg), Leonard Earl Howze (Dinka), Jazsmin Lewis (Jennifer Palmer), Lahmard Tate (Billy), Tom Wright (Detective Williams), Sonya Eddy (Janelle), Jason Winston George (Kevin), and DeRay Davis (Ray Ray) Directed by Tim Story (#011 - Fantastic Four and #013 - Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer)

Review: 

Barbershop was the first prominent movie directed by Tim Story. A Los Angeles native who made home movies from a young age, he graduated from the USC School of Cinematic Arts before turning his attention to filmmaking, which debuted with One of Us Tripped (1997), a $30,000 movie that he made when he read a story about how Clerks (1994) was made on its modest budget; his second film failed enough for him to have to music videos before Barbershop came along. Over the course of his career, Story has directed fifteen movies of varying quality, ranging from the Fantastic Four films (2005, 2007), to the Think Like a Man features (2012, 2014) to a few Kevin Hart concert films and The Blackening (2022). Mark Brown (previously a writer on Two Can Play That Game and How To Be a Player) wrote the story for the movie and co-wrote the screenplay with Don D. Scott and Marshall Todd. Producers George Tillman Jr and Robert Teitel (who had previously worked together on Soul Food [1997]) spearheaded the production and brought in Story, who impressed them with his prepardness. Incidentally, the dialogue expressed by the character played by Cedric the Entertainer about Civil Rights leaders apparently stoked a bit of controversy because it is apparently true that Jesse Jackson cannot take a joke at his own expense (the bit about Rosa Parks is a bit funny for those who are truthers about Claudette Colvin); predictably, calling for a boycott of a movie (cough cough Al Sharpton) did little to hurt the film. As it turned out, this was the first of four films in what you might call a franchise, with two direct sequels (and a spinoff) coming out between 2004 and 2016; some of the cast reprised their roles for those films, although each had a different director behind it.

You've got your movies or shows about bars or the neighborhood, but it does help to see one come around about the odds and ends of a barbershop. For me, I don't know a lick about barbershops, but I'm sure you get the gist of a workplace with plenty to look and listen about. For the most part, this works out to a casual work comedy, having a worthwhile ensemble for 102 minutes of generally interesting stuff. It comes and goes in amusement that has a familiar haircut (Car Wash comes to mind), which is generally helpful for those who like their movies to have a little bit of insight sprinkled with gags and subplots. Cube has the commitment required to sell the movie as one to look within oneself and realize again what community means besides the money (don't get it twisted, the money matters, particularly for its latter half, but, well, there's more to life than daydreams and schemes). He maneuvers the movie with general commitment that plays it straight enough, at least when compared to Cedric, who manages to sell the wayward "elder statesman" part with good timing. The rest of the ensemble (Ealy, Thomas, Eve, Gairty, Howze) are also pretty game in being pretty distinct in that certain kind of worker group that one can see in all the facets that matter (opinionated, argumentative, useful, what have you). Anderson and Tate play the long reaching subplot of the film (an ATM that can't quite find a place to be opened in peace) for a bit of physical jokes that are serviceable. David makes for quite the craven figure to pop in and out of the background, that much is for sure. The movie coasts along with a laid-back style of entertainment that manages to not override its welcome because of a game cast that have at least some part of it that will remind someone of a memory long ago or to just have a neat chuckle for the hell of it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Star Trek: Nemesis.

Review #2324: Star Trek: Nemesis.

Cast: 

Patrick Stewart (Captain Jean-Luc Picard), Jonathan Frakes (Commander / Captain William T. Riker), Brent Spiner (Lieutenant Commander Data / B-4), LeVar Burton (Lieutenant Commander Geordi La Forge), Michael Dorn (Lieutenant Commander Worf), Gates McFadden (Doctor Beverly Crusher), Marina Sirtis (Counselor Deanna Troi), Tom Hardy (Praetor Shinzon), Ron Perlman (the Reman Viceroy), and Dina Meyer (Romulan Commander Donatra) Directed by Stuart Baird (#1692 - U.S. Marshals)

Review: 

By the year 2002, Star Trek was in the midst of a long slog of what you might call its second phase of franchising. From 1987 to 2005, there was at least one Star Trek TV show on the air (before the dawn of streaming, one could watch shows in "broadcast syndication"). Of those, only The Next Generation (the one that started with a child prodigy that no one liked and a crappy-ish first two years that I liked as "pretty good" before Deep Space Nine challenged what that really meant) attracted attention enough to actually make movies with; in the winter of 2002, Nemesis, the fourth and final film with those Next Gen characters, was released, coming after the lone success of First Contact (1996) and two middling efforts with Generations (1994) and Insurrection (1998). The original story for this film came from the efforts of three people: John Logan, a previous co-writer of films such as Any Given Sunday [1999] and Gladiator [2000], Rick Berman, who previously responsible for co-writing the last three films...and Brent Spiner. Stuart Baird was hired to direct the film, having been previously known for his Academy Award-nominated work on editing for Superman [1978] and Gorillas in the Mist [1988] before becoming a feature director with Executive Decision (1996) and U.S. Marshals (1998); at it stands, this is the last directorial effort for Baird, who still edits well into his seventies. The movie was a financial failure at the time of release, and it spurred the end of any new Star Trek films for seven years.

It's funny to see this as the "final journey" of a crew when you consider Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991). Those main actors were all past their fifties (some even in their seventies, whereas with Nemesis, the oldest was Stewart in his sixties), but there was something to the idea of "The wall coming down in outer space" that felt like a damn good way to end on a high note (the less said about Generations, the better?) in embracing change. Here I feel like I am watching B-roll footage of rejected Star Trek material. You have a person who looks and kind of talks like the captain to go along with some deadly plague and a plot to destroy the Earth and Data being Data (complete with the crew godawful dark uniforms because god forbid there is any color beyond undershirts); hell, Troi being mind-violated was actually done before with the episode "Violations", and that one didn't have the crew going "oh, I'm not letting you relieve yourself of duty." I don't think you can even say it falls on Baird, because, well, the last film in the series was directed by Frakes with the plodding Insurrection. Maybe it is cliche to say, but this is certainly a movie that looks "tired". Here, it just feels again that one is watching an overextended episode of the show that only lets Stewart, Hardy, and Spiner have anything to actually do. It is the ultimate experience of frustration: it provides a few familiar comforts that never has a terrible stumbling block or great moment. It fritters and dithers for nearly two hours like an old pet that forgot how to do tricks. Hell, it presents Remus (a planet right around Romulus, heh, get it) with little to no actual curiosity despite the whole *vampire slaves* thing (okay, they're sensitive to light, but didn't that sound better?). Baird seems trapped in actually making a movie with people in it, and it is funny to see that from a guy who had been wrapped in a film sequel (sort of) years earlier with U.S. Marshals (1998), which somehow seems more up his alley. The action scenes are hit and miss (we will not discuss the dune buggy sequence), with the battle for the climax at least serving serviceable, which is both the best mark for the film and a sad thing to say for a movie that ran itself into the ground before it even got halfway to the 117-minute runtime. 

You know, there were seven cast members for this show, but if you watched the four Next Gen films back-to-back, you could swear there was only three or so that actually did anything of note (poor McFadden might as well be a ghost, and it is perhaps great irony that Dorn, who had the pleasure of being a key cast member of more Star Trek episodes than anybody...has nothing do here in the last time he played Worf for years). Honestly, at a certain point, I think I stopped caring about Data when it came to this film. By the time the film tries its little rug pull moment, my mind was elsewhere (evidently, Spiner wanted his character killed off due to fears of aging in the last film, here he gets his wish with a cheap trick). Stewart (who called the film "particularly weak" in his memoirs) may be the most talented in going with sci-fi mumbojumbo, but is it really a compliment to be the best part of a sinking ship? The funny thing about Hardy is that the attempts to make him look like a younger clone of Stewart has the same effect as trying to pretend that Wooly Willy is fun after spending five minutes with it. As a whole, it is a sad experience to watch such a plain bad Star Trek movie, managing to prove that either one should make their script is all the way to go before making a movie or one shouldn't even try at all if the result is something like this. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Bubba Ho-Tep.

Review #2298: Bubba Ho-Tep.

Cast: 

Bruce Campbell (Elvis Presley / Sebastian Haff), Ossie Davis (John F. "Jack" Kennedy), Ella Joyce (The Nurse), Heidi Marnhout (Callie Thomas), Bob Ivy (Bubba Ho-Tep), Larry Pennell (Kemosabe), Daniel Roebuck (Hearse Driver), and Reggie Bannister (Rest Home Administrator) Directed by Don Coscarelli (#1459 - Phantasm)

Review: 

"You know what? Bruce’s fans have always known he’s a great actor. Everybody in Hollywood just sees him has this clownish character. But here he gets to be really subtle. His best moments in this film are not showy at all, they are simple. And you can almost hear his fans think: I knew he was a great actor! I knew it! I’m glad that the film also appeals to his fans. Because it’s a story about age and death and friendship. It might apply more to someone in their forties or fifties or sixties. But to have the Evil Dead fans enjoying it, brings me so much satisfaction. "

In 1994, Joe R. Lansdale wrote a novella involving a not quite-dead Elvis Presley living out the end of his days in a Texas resting home...at least if a mummy has anything to say about it. Of course, that novella was weird enough to fit right in for an anthology collection (called "The King is Dead"), although most stories don't generally involve a growth being found around a certain male body part in detail. Around that time, he had been interested in working with Don Coscarelli (an optioning of his story "Dead in the West" went nowhere). Folks might remember him as the director behind the first four Phantasm films, with Bubba Ho-Tep being his first non-Phantasm film since Survival Quest (1989). Coscarelli was recommended by Sam Raimi to approach Bruce Campbell about doing a film together, and while it took a few years to get around to filming. Coscarelli wrote the screenplay that came mostly from Lansdale's novella, which had merely alluded to how Elvis switched places with an impersonator. The movie was shot at the Rancho Los Amigos Rehabilitation Hospital in Downey, California to go along with effects provided by KNB EFX. The resulting movie (one that basically had no problem with the dialogue except for just who would narrate it, which eventually went to Campbell) received a limited distribution on the roadshow circuit (as toured by the director with the over three dozen prints struck of the film). While the film did not exactly inspire "Bubba Nosferatu: Curse of the She-Vampires" that you can see teased at the end credits (namely because Campbell had some issues with Coscarelli's ideas, which apparently intended to have Paul Giamatti play Colonel Tom Parker), the film has a fair cult following two decades since its release. Coscarelli returned to directing features with John Dies at the End (2012) while Lansdale wrote another Bubba story with Bubba and the Cosmic Bloodsuckers in 2017.

Sure, you go right for the title when it comes to wondering about the movie, it just stands right out. Aside from the casual interest in wondering just what lurks beyond the obvious in a mummy and an Elvis caricature, there are a few fun moments to have in the neat kind of shaggy comedy-horror movies. It casually moves along for 92 minutes for a mummy movie that goes with the most ideal target for a lumbering ancient being (that gets a cheeky explanation for where it came from: lost during a museum tour): old people that nobody will suspect to be sucked out of their life at a nursing home. Coscarelli took great care to make a film where our hero is not merely fodder for cheap jokes but instead is someone that we believe is the real deal in magnetic old glory that lives on just as much as the image people hold of Elvis in his prime. Campbell really delivered when it mattered most in pathos, pure and simple. Davis apparently was keen on the script enough to overrule his agent and express interest (Coscarelli had Mick Garris write a letter on his behalf asking Davis himself). He lends a charming dignity to the proceedings that has clear chemistry with Campbell and even a few moments to engage in humor (as one does when playing on JFK conspiracies and kooky explanations for claiming to be not dead and also dyed). The peril that comes with aging is knowing that the regrets will pop in our old minds just as much as the memories we tried to make in what we called our glory days. Some people get to live out their days in a blaze of choices and others sit there to rot in ways I can't imagine, and the film dwells in the company of aging goes well with the snappy dialogue that comes through (narration or otherwise) in mummy confrontation, codger style. The climax is poignant enough to deliver what you would expect from its surroundings that benefits its audience and sends them remembering that all really can be well in the end. It is straight to the point in offbeat entertainment that has a few chuckles and a worthwhile duo going along with the material on its face to deliver a movie worth popping in one night on the strength of its worthwhile reputation over the past two decades.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Signs.

Review #2164: Signs.

Cast: 

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

Review: 

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

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

Resident Evil.

Review #2158: Resident Evil.

Cast: 

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

Review: 

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Cabin Fever.

Review #2117: Cabin Fever.

Cast:

Rider Strong (Paul), Jordan Ladd (Karen), James DeBello (Bert), Cerina Vincent (Marcy), Joey Kern (Jeff), Arie Verveen (Henry, The Hermit), Giuseppe Andrews (Deputy Winston), Eli Roth (Justin / Grimm), Adam Roth (The Happy Bald Guy), and Robert Harris (Old Man Cadwell) Directed by Eli Roth.

Review: 

"At the time, everything was PG-13, and people told me nobody wanted violent horror films anymore. I was also told by “experts” that an R-rated horror film couldn’t make more than $15 million at the box office, which I knew was nonsense. I always believed if you gave people a great scary time at the movies, they’d come out in droves to see it."

Okay, I admit, the curiosity was there to wonder about Eli Roth as a director in horror. The Massachusetts native was interested in film from a very young age (as influenced by Alien [1979]), to the point where he made hundreds of short films before attending the Tisch School of the Arts. He worked a variety of odd jobs such as office work or for Penthouse or producing content for David Lynch. He wrote what would become this film as a script with his roommate Randy Pearlstein, which was inspired by an experience Roth had as a nineteen-year-old, where he handled horses at a family friend's farm and got a ringworm skin infection from dealing with hay that saw him bleed along with skin peeling off before he went to the hospital. So yes, a totally healthy person getting sick when something gets into him is what got him eventually on the road to making this film. Made in less than a month in shooting, Roth struggled when it came to living in his studio apartment (requiring his parents to loan him money) and also in finishing the film to mix and make prints (apparently it involved a VHS tape). Roth cited a screening at the very end of the Toronto Film Festival (after just managing to get a print made for late September 2002) as being key to getting proper distribution, which came after a bidding war won by Lionsgate. The film, released in September 2003, was fairly successful for the budget it was made (roughly $1.5 million); this also included a couple of recommendations on the Internet, whether that was Quentin Tarantino or Peter Jackson. Two sequels followed that were done by different directors with smaller distribution with Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever (2009) and Cabin Fever: Patient Zero (2014) before a remake (as executive produced by Roth) followed in 2016. Since the success of the film, Roth has directed, written. and produced a variety of features (mostly in horror), such as the first two Hostel films (2005, 2007) or The Green Inferno (2013).

Admittedly, the film is infectious to a certain type of viewer when it comes to its dwelling in horror and comedy, which led to a few critiques of being uneven in either. But if people can crow all they want about The Blair Witch Project (1999) and how it was so good when it came to found-footage horror despite being monumentally overrated with its particular type of characters (read: losers), why the hell would I not give slack to a film like this that is more offbeat and, dare I say it, one that actually gets to the point? Embracing the crude (there's a punchline in the ending that loops to the opening that somehow comes about from what is said and seen involving a store owner) when it comes to horror films is something I can't argue against when I actually care about what I am watching. It is a familiar movie at times (The Evil Dead, Deliverance, take your pick), whether that involves the usual suspects of folks causing a ruckus in the woods dovetailing with a possible plague. I actually kind of dig the idea of these imbeciles all getting taken down by going too far in their own human choices. Strong (one of the stars of Boy Meets World, really) might be the best in terms of light performances that inhabit the film, but there is something amusing at times when it comes to DeBello and his thick-headed performance. In a way, the film is about the pitfalls of where prejudice can befall any one of us, whether that involves how horrid a person looks or because they are outsiders. Granted, it isn't exactly the profound type of reaching point, but the film still manages to keep enough focus for a useful 94-minute feature. It takes the time to know these loonies and their proclivities for swears and sex that is, well, familiar to those who know people like that (I can't say I know people who would handle a sick man at the door like that, but being let down by folks you know isn't exactly an experience limited to folks like you or me). One highlight beyond just saying that scene involving "pancakes" (well, these folks are more than just in danger of getting sick from a flesh thing) is probably the one where the skin comes off when someone tries to shave their legs and they just keep going. Well, that, or an ending that sees one character show just a bit too much confidence in themselves or a gradually revealed place of one particular type of townies. As a whole, the film runs through the familiar grounds you might have traveled before in horror with tinges of comedy, but those that buy into what it is selling will be just fine with the film as a creation of the 2000s in all of its standing.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next: Rosemary's Baby.

The Adventures of Pluto Nash.

Review #1930: The Adventures of Pluto Nash.

Cast: 

Eddie Murphy (Pluto Nash / Rex Carter), Randy Quaid (Bruno), Rosario Dawson (Dina Lake), Jay Mohr (Anthony Frankowski / Tony Francis), Peter Boyle (Rowland), Luis Guzmán (Felix Laranga), Joe Pantoliano (Mogan), James Rebhorn (Belcher), Pam Grier (Flura Nash), John Cleese (James), Burt Young (Gino), Lillo Brancato (Larry), and Victor Varnado (Kelp) Directed by Ron Underwood (#808 - City Slickers)

Review: 

"I knew we didn’t have the kind of wit and the fun that I would want...I felt that it was not really working fully...But it wasn't very obvious how to correct it." 

Poor Ron Underwood. He was an exchange student in what is now known as Sri Lanka for AFS Intercultural Programs, and it inspired him to become a filmmaker by what he saw there. He studied at the USC School of Cinematic Arts (after changing his mind from studying at Occidental College as a pre-med student). After doing short film and television projects, Tremors (1990) became his very first film as a director, and he also served as a co-writer. Underwood did four further films in the 1990s such as City Slickers (1991) and Mighty Joe Young (1998). When he was finishing work on the latter film, he received an offer to work on a script by Neil Cuthbert that had Eddie Murphy attached that dealt with a colony on the Moon. The Cuthbert script had been bouncing around Hollywood for years, first being brought as a project at Universal...in 1983. 1989 even saw an attempt to see at Universal with Peter Faiman (the director behind Crocodile Dundee) as director. Keep in mind, when Underwood was brought in, he joined in with the understanding that they had 7-9 months to work on the script before Murphy could join in to help with shooting. Underwood felt that there was an issue with the main core in the script, and yet it never came together. Murphy did not care for the script that was presented to him, nor the handful of scripts presented afterwards, and he seemingly wanted a film that was written for someone like Sylvester Stallone or Harrison Ford that would have him bring the comedy...which meant a straight draft. Underwood stuck with Castle Rock Entertainment because of the obligation he had to friends that worked with there despite the fact he had other offers while the film process "seemed to just be going and on"...the result was that he was on the production for four years.

The film was such a tremendous failure with audiences and critics, being one of the few $100 million movies to not even make ten percent of its budget back. Underwood would direct for television on a fairly regular basis in 2003 (one year after this film) while having just one film credit since that film: In the Mix (2005), although he at least seems happy by what he gets to direct. Even Eddie Murphy made light of the failure of the film, although if anyone is to be blamed for this film, it is him (Underwood, while being charitable about him being nice, thought Murphy wasn't feeling funny in production). The problem with the movie is that it isn't particularly funny, and it desires an actor with some sort of energy to it due to how the bland story is not particularly interesting as an adventure nor as a "mystery". It doesn't feel particularly like a science fiction worth gawking at, looking like the world's cheapest expensive film, never insipiring curiosity over the time or tech beyond demo levels. The only highlight might be Quaid, having a bald head while trying to play an old robot. Somehow, he proves the quirks that are just begging to be let out here, having the rare distinction of being funnier than the actual lead. Murphy has the "in it for the money" face, not inspiring anything for comedy or for adventure, and the fact that he has a double role as the villain doesn't do him any favors either. The only one to possibly pity would be Dawson, adrift in a film with no energy for her to tap into/absorb for fun. John Cleese being in this film in the shape of a hologram is the very definition of "phoned in", as if he was tricked into believing that he had to top Eric Idle in phoned in supporting performances (hey, speaking of Idle movies...next year?). Faking one out with a few seconds of Alec Baldwin is more amusing than the gags presented (such as Hilary Clinton being on a $100 bill or a Trump Realty sign), sadly. The less said about Pantoliano, Boyle, Guzman, and Mohr, the better. As a whole, what we have here is a movie that is not particularly funny, not particularly adventurous, and not particularly fun. It is a snooze fest for 95 minutes that only avoids being called one of the absolute worst after 20 years because there isn't even enough to remember in how bad it is. 

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Last one: Valley of the Dolls.

Redux: The Ring.

Redux #140: The Ring.

Cast: 

Naomi Watts (Rachel Keller), David Dorfman (Aidan Keller), Martin Henderson (Noah Clay), Daveigh Chase (Samara Morgan), Brian Cox (Richard Morgan), Shannon Cochran (Anna Morgan), Jane Alexander (Dr. Grasnik), Lindsay Frost (Ruth Embry), Amber Tamblyn (Katherine Embry), Rachael Bella (Rebecca Kotler), Richard Lineback (Innkeeper), and Pauley Perette (Beth) Directed by Gore Verbinski.

Review: 

This was the third feature film of Gore Verbinski, a Tennessee native that grew up as both a filmmaker and a man interested in playing guitar. He directed numerous commercials after graduating from UCLA before Mouse Hunt (1997) was his feature film debut. Oh, but you aren't here for background when it comes to a review dedicated to re-doing an old review. Enclosed here is the entire review of what I thought about the movie in 2012, as a 15-year old in his second year of doing reviews.

This is a remake of a 1998 Japanese film named Ring (which was based on the novel also named Ring). Anyway, this film has some scares that don't use sneaking up on people, found footage, or gore, but by disturbing images that keep you invested. The acting's decent, with Watts doing a good job. The little kid feels like a Sixth Sense type of kid, which isn't necessary. This film feels fine, until the end. I feel this is a confusing end that makes you wonder this: Why? Why do you need this type of ending? Why not just end on a good end rather then twist end us, setting up the basis for a sequel rather then just easily close out this film that is decent, with scares, and...a setup for a sequel.

Pretty short, huh? I gave a movie a 7-star rating and I didn't even bother to make a useful case for why. I can at least give myself credit for listing it as a remake of Hideo Nakata's Ring (1998) which in turn was an adaptation of the Koji Suzuki novel of the same name that had a key distinction: no psych-meter to attempt to solve the horror-mystery like in the novel. That movie had a slow build in narrative threading to play on expectations with spirituality and calm pacing involving the threat of Sadako. The 2002 movie (as scripted by Ehren Kruger) has its own approach to its threat, now named Samara, based on the same idea of a ghost that is manifested after death with a grip of rage to seek vengeance on the living while never sleeping. So yes, you watch a VHS tape (yes) and possibly die in seven days. Incidentally, the film was 130 minutes when it came to its original version before being trimmed to 115 that mainly involved making it a bit less graphic along with cutting a character played by Chris Cooper that showed up for just the start and climax. Two decades later, The Ring is a decent movie, one that represents the time that it was made in capturing anxiety and unease without verging into gore. Granted, no movie is good or bad just because they don't play into the gore angle for horror (unless you happen to be squeamish or really into things), it all goes down to execution. After all, the VHS tape that makes it all possible is brief but unnerving enough to lurk in your mind. I think it works out quite well in keeping the tension at a reasonable length when it comes to the human element, complete with a gloomy setting in the state of Washington (mostly Seattle) to make it fit. Watts makes a solid presence to hold the film up in ordinary withered charm that works to the tension required when it comes to balancing mystery and family devotion, which works best when paired against her on-screen son Dorfman, who lurks in nerves without saying much. Henderson is casually there, but really the attention goes to Cox, hostile but alluring when presented in the second half of the film to bring it all together. 

Having seen both films, at least one can say the ending works just about right for a film that involves a cycle that does not yield to simple actions. I think the original film has a better resolution when it comes to the final decision made, although each have pretty decent choices to show its creature without going overboard. One could have ended without going back to the TV, but you need that little bit about what kind of sacrifice is needed to "combat" the threat. It is debatable as to which film is the better one, since the 1998 is probably a bit more subtle in subverting expectations while the 2002 film carries its own way of getting from point A to point B without falling into the remake trap of repetition without innovation. A 2005 sequel to the film followed in The Ring Two, directed by Hideo Nakata. It did not end well, to say the least. A 2017 film called Rings was released by Paramount Pictures. As a whole, the appeal of Ring definitely kept the attention of filmmakers in Japan busy, evidenced by the eight features (Sadako DX was released in October of 2022) with varying plot relations to the books or previous films. As for The Ring, the legacy of the film is the fact that it managed to be a quality remake that stands on its own in calm suspense for the 21st century.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Rings (2017). We are almost done.

The Bourne Identity.

Review #1852: The Bourne Identity.

Cast: 

Matt Damon (Jason Bourne / David Webb), Franka Potente (Marie Kreutz), Chris Cooper (Alexander Conklin), Clive Owen (The Professor), Brian Cox (Ward Abbott), Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Nykwana Wombosi), Gabriel Mann (Danny Zorn), Julia Stiles (Nicolette "Nicky" Parsons), Orso Maria Guerrini (Giancarlo), Tim Dutton (Eamon), Nicky Naude (Castel), Russell Levy (Manheim), and Vincent Franklin (Rawlins) Directed by Doug Liman (#1064 - Jumper (2008), #1256 - Mr. & Mrs. Smith, and #1569 - Edge of Tomorrow)

Review: 

The movie is a loose adaptation of the 1980 novel of the same name by Robert Ludlum. He did not have his first novel published until he was over forty years old, as he actually served as a theatrical actor and producer before finding a desire to make a living with writing; his writing may have been influenced by his experiences there, as he once stated that good theater and suspense were quite similar to him). An adaptation of the novel had occurred once before in 1988 that featured Richard Chamberlain as Bourne, which aired as a three-hour television movie on ABC. The basic premise of the novel is the key element retained here, since the novel was done during the Cold War with a lead threat involving terrorist "Carlos the Jackal", as the book includes newspaper articles from 1975 of his crimes (apparently, the Bourne in the book was actually a double-agent killed by the lead character before he assumed Bourne's identity to draw out an assassin). Ludlum followed this novel with two further books; after his death in 2001, with the approval of Ludlum's estate, new novels with the Bourne character were commissioned. After the success of his film Swingers (1996), Liman expressed interest in making a film adaptation of Bourne, and he wrote an outline, complete with taking inspiration for the CIA operation detail from the memoirs of Arthur L. Liman, chief counsel for the Senate investigation of the Iran-Contra Affair in the 1980s. Development would take a number of years in securing the rights to the novel alongside production; the final script was done by Tony Gilroy and William Blake Herron. The film was originally set to release in 2001, but the attacks on September 11 led to the producers deciding to alter the opening and ending sequences (which apparently featured flashbacks). The movie would prove quite successful, leading to further Bourne movies such as The Bourne Supremacy (2004), The Bourne Ultimatum (2007), The Bourne Legacy (2012), and Jason Bourne (2016), with all but one featuring Damon.

It is the kind of character-driven action movie where one seems to watch a man get calmer when things become more intense. As a different road presented when compared to spy movies such as James Bond or the Mission: Impossible series, it stands out pretty stark with its touch of action alongside its thriller aspect. It basically rolls along the lines of a noir (to the point where it has been thought to be a "neo-noir) with its slow unravel of mystery that manages to pull off the tightrope of balancing character interest with action that doesn't see one wanting more of either. The car chase in Paris alongside the hand-to-hand sequences are good ones to highlight in that regard. While Liman did not get to any of the sequels, he did serve as a producer on a number of them, while Gilroy would write the next two features, and it is evident that Identity makes for a good start to seeing further burrowing into who the lead character is without baiting itself. At the heart of that is Damon, who prior to this had been involved with films such as Good Will Hunting and Saving Private Ryan (interestingly, one actor who rejected the role before Damon was Brad Pitt, who did his own thing with Spy Game, released in 2001). Damon does pretty good here with the role required, one that is confused by the very idea that they can just have a hazardous situation thrust onto them and not bat an eye when solving it carefully. Sure, there is vulnerability present here, but the main idea is that we have a capable lead trying to find themselves more so than any random objective, and he also handles the action sequences with effectiveness. Potente, wrapped in the middle of all this, fares fairly well in meaningful patience, one who seems capable in being paired with Damon in general reaction (such as when she sees a man jump out a window). In a sense, Cooper is the adversary of the film, since he is the one trying to deal with a wayward agent. He approaches the material with steely timing and determination that matches differently on a spy movie without a willing spy, especially when Cooper and Cox are present together. The rest of the cast includes quiet adversaries such as Owen and mildly interesting side folks like Stiles or an outspoken Akinnuoye-Agbaje. At any rate, a movie like this works best when on its feet, for which the movie shuffles along with careful efficiency in 119 minutes with general effectiveness that makes for a fairly solid action-thriller that stands pretty well two decades after its release.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Frida.

Review #1822: Frida.

Cast: 

Salma Hayek (Frida Kahlo), Alfred Molina (Diego Rivera), Geoffrey Rush (Leon Trotsky), Mía Maestro (Cristina Kahlo), Ashley Judd (Tina Modotti), Antonio Banderas (David Alfaro Siqueiros), Edward Norton (Nelson Rockefeller), Diego Luna (Alejandro Gonzalez Arias), Margarita Sanz (Natalia Sedova), Patricia Reyes Spíndola (Matilde Kahlo), Roger Rees (Guillermo Kahlo), and Valeria Golino (Lupe Marín) Directed by Julie Taymor.

Review: 

If one wants to hear about an entertainer director that made marks in both film and stage, Julie Taymor would be a useful start. Born in Massachusetts, Taymor developed an interest in theatre from a young age, complete with study with L'École Internationale de Théâtre Jacques Lecoq before moving onto Oberlin College (where she studied mythology and folklore). She honed her interests through masks and dance while first serving as director in New York theatres in 1974. She would make a variety of plays such as Shakespeare productions before having her prime moment with her production of The Lion King on Broadway, which was one of the most popular productions of its day in 1997, complete with Tony Awards for Taymor. Meanwhile, Taymor also did ventures into filmmaking, having her first directorial effort with an American Playhouse-produced film with "Fool's Fire" (which both premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and aired on PBS). Her feature debut was Titus (1999), which received fair marks (particularly with costume design). In her film career, she has made five films in over two decades of work. You might be surprised to hear that this film went through a lengthy development hell, with a plethora of considerations considered that involved Madonna, Jennifer Lopez, and Robert De Niro at different points. Hayek (who had slowly built a presence in Hollywood in the mid-1990s) had been interested in doing the role for a number of years, and by that time the works of Kahlo was attracting further interest from art folks, but it only came around in 2001 with Miramax alongside a variety of producers (seven credited) and four credited screenwriters (Clancy Sigal, Diane Lake, Gregory Nava, Anna Thomas) that listed Hayden Herrera's Frida: A Biography of Frida Kahlo as adaptation material, as championed by book editor/literary agent-turned-executive Nancy Hardin.

Admittedly, I had considered watching this film for a number of years, if only because one is always curious about art (no matter how "mediocre" or bad one is at it, as I can attest to). I think most of us at least know about the works of Frida Kahlo (born of German and Mexican heritage), if only because of how striking her art is. With a runtime of 123 minutes, I think the movie does a spectacular job in capturing the artist with enough strokes in style and engagement to make a solid biopic, one that runs through a number of interesting events in the life of Kahlo (and Rivera) with useful patience that never seems to collapse into easy generalizations. It captures the essence of someone with growing pain and talent for a fitting capture of an artist with such a vibrant personality that honors the art without falling into hagiography. With a useful ensemble like this, it should only make sense that Hayek (who received a plethora of award nominations for her role) leads the way with suitable timing, having a burning sense of self that lives through two great accidents (a trolly and Diego Rivera) with honesty. The chemistry between her and Molina sears through with confounding energy, one that endures with the quality of a bird and an elephant that is endearingly watchable, and Molina makes a good showman to pair with Hayek. The rest of the group come and go with varying strokes that hone interest for what is needed when looking upon history with general interest, with Rush and Norton probably being the most notable of the historical presences that compare interestingly when played against Hayek (of course, Golino is quietly effective in small moments spent with Hayek too). The clash of visions (ideological or not) collides for an engaging movie that elevates its subject (complications and all) for a curious biography worth watching from a director engaged with making entertaining projects with style to accompany it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: To end our month of Women Directors...we end with Marie Antoinette (2006).

The Master of Disguise.

Review #1705: The Master of Disguise.

Cast: 

Dana Carvey (Pistachio Disguisey), Jennifer Esposito (Jennifer Baker), Harold Gould (Grandpa Disguisey), James Brolin (Fabbrizio Disguisey), Brent Spiner (Devlin Bowmna), Edie McClurg ("Mama" Disguisey), Michael Bailey Smith (Bald Henchman), Austin Wolff (Barney Baker), Kenan Thompson (Himself), Jay Johnston (Rex), and Maria Canals (Sophia) Directed by Perry Andelin Blake.

Review: 

You would be surprised to know that this was released on August 2, 2002 if you saw the film, because, well, it really seems to be the first film-void to ever exist. Just remember, this film was written by Dana Carvey. Well, actually he wrote the story and co-wrote the screenplay with Harris Goldberg, but the point is still true. Of course we all know that Carvey wasn't exactly a slouch for comedy. Born in Montana but raised in San Francisco, he had become interested in comedy after graduating with a degree in broadcast communications from San Francisco State University; he made a few appearances in film and television in supporting roles, but his break came with joining the cast of Saturday Night Live in 1986, and he would work on the show for seven years with a mix of original characters and impressions of various personalities of the day. Of course, not every SNL cast member went on to just be a major film star, but he did dabble in film with features such as Opportunity Knocks (1990) and Clean Slate (1994) alongside a short-lived variety project with The Dana Carvey Show (1996, which lasted eight episodes). This is the first and so far only film directed by Blake, who had gotten into film as a production designer in the 1990s after graduating from Harvard University in architecture. Incidentally, his first feature was Billy Madison (1995), and he continued his association with Adam Sandler as part of his film crew for years. The film managed to make back its $16 million budget twice over, but I suppose some things like directing aren't meant to be. This was produced by Happy Madison Productions, which Sandler had co-founded in 1999; Carvey was the third SNL collaborator that had worked with Sandler to have his own film with the company, which naturally included Rob Schneider and David Spade in illustrious works such as Joe Dirt (2001) that clearly got better in later years. At any rate, this is the last film that Carvey served as the star and the last feature he did for nearly a decade, which he stated was because he wanted to spend time with his family.

Honestly, their was a sliver of cynical guessing that this was meant to be some sort of joke on the audience, as if Carvey was trying to take your curiosity and your mood at the same time, which only makes sense if you realize that this really isn't an 80 minute movie either (owing to minutes of credits that filler a movie with no soul). One scene has him ripping a dude's nose off before spitting it back onto his face...so that's one way to do it. Heck, go even farther, you might as well have shown him go for more than 20 impressions, you could have him try to impersonate the other actors and make it an offbeat one-man show. Carvey tries to coast on mimicry and can't quite get there, as if one is watching a premature rendition of MacGruber (2010) but without the "cult audience". By the time one gets to him trying to "disguise" himself as a turtle, one has already checked out, as if being irritated is too much effort; one instead turns to indifference and hope it doesn't turn to pity over an attempt at boyish charm for a near 50-year old actor. Esposito evokes a small smile in that she doesn't become overwhelmed by the void of boredom that arises from no chemistry between her and Carvey. One has seen Gould in far better material, particularly since he spends a good part of his time playing insult man to Carvey. It is strange to see Brolin here, if only because the makeup here makes him look like he has morphed into Burt Reynolds, one that is bemused in standing around and occasionally doing a gag from time to time (hence the cameos, because they basically do the same one three times with the guest star going around and stealing an item before the mask comes off for Brolin). When asked about his favorite film that wasn't liked by critics, Spiner once responded with this film...that is probably the nicest thing I can say about a performance that has in a loop, one that sees him cackle before he farts. I don't need to pile on, do I? Perhaps it was a coincidence that Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002) was released just a week before this feature. Think about it: that was also a movie where the lead actor (in this case, a SNL cast-mate with Mike Myers) played a bunch of roles, and it also featured a strange amount of cameos (although this feature's best idea of a cameo is Bo Derek). I guess the quality of the impression goes on how much one doesn't think of Peter Sellers when it comes to assuming the persona of a role. Of course, I say this because Sellers had a variety of classics to go along with quite a handful of missteps when it comes to impressions with the rhythm of humor (in other words, there is a reason one thinks of Being There rather than The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu as the last hurrah for Sellers). You see where I am going with the impressions, do you? You can do a whole bunch of impressions, but if it comes in a movie that has the bare minimum when it comes to timing or gags besides "look, he went from a faux-Italian accent to makeup", the biggest loser is the sucker who has to watch it, and they sure do get to look at the background a bit after a while. As a whole, the movie is blah, filled with rote gags that only a bored juvenile person might appreciate. Actually, watching a film develop into a void could make for a terrible curiosity for those who really, really, really want to see cheap gags and nothing else.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Next batter up.

Adaptation.

Review #1533: Adaptation.

Cast: 
Nicolas Cage (Charlie Kaufman / Donald Kaufman), Meryl Streep (Susan Orlean), Chris Cooper (John Laroche), Cara Seymour (Amelia Kavan), Brian Cox (Robert McKee), Tilda Swinton (Valerie Thomas), Ron Livingston (Marty Bowen), Maggie Gyllenhaal (Caroline Cunningham), Judy Greer (Alice), Bob Yerkes (Charles Darwin), Jim Beaver (Ranger Tony), and Litefoot (Russell) Directed by Spike Jonze (#1308 - Being John Malkovich)

Review: 
It begins with a customary quote from someone involved with the film, since Robert had felt was a fun way to differentiate reviews from 2019 to now, with this one being from Charlie Kaufman.

"I really thought I was ending my career by turning that in!"

INT. NEIGHBORHOOD - ROBERT'S HOUSE - NIGHT
Robert sits on his couch, appalled at what he tries to write on his laptop, working at 7am like usual on yet another display of adapting words of thought of someone else's work of brilliance. He looks at his screen and some basic data about what he saw, his eyes begging to be shut for some sleep rather than yet another nap built to cheat himself until the next time. He wonders about how to start a review about a film about writer's block and originality while acknowledging the sheer talent of its cast without seeming repetitive after over 200 reviews in a year, wanting to also acknowledge the accomplishment of a writer that solved his problem by simply putting themselves into what they wrote. Perhaps he should take up making pizzas. He takes a left and then a right with his fingers as he starts typing.

It never hurts to talk about actors, particularly one involving a talented award-winning trio of actors for a film packed with such originality and talent within a main trio of actors. One can make whole paragraphs about Cage and his self-described "Nouveau Shamanic" style of acting that has made him an object of curiosity since Valley Girl (1983) with his style of mega acting. That might be enough for a film, but Meryl Streep elevates it further, since she has made a career of versatility and range since her start in theater in 1975 that evolved to television and film with productions such as The Deer Hunter (1978), Kramer vs. Kramer (1979), and Sophie's Choice (1982). The third and final key to the puzzle is in Cooper, who actually took up acting after initially doing theater for set design as a way to overcome shyness and subsequently worked for years in theater an construction before shuffling the ranks to supporting roles with Matewan (1987). The Orchid Thief began originally as an article that Susan Orlean wrote for The New Yorker (published on January 16, 1995) that detailed John Laroche's efforts to poach orchids (looking for the rare ghost orchid) in a Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve with a group of Seminoles, having believed to have found a loophole in studying Indian law with the case of Chief James E. Billie, which the film mentions as having avoided conviction for hunting an endangered species of panther. Writer Charlie Kaufman was tasked to write a screenplay adaptation of the subsequent 1998 book The Orchid Thief. However, he suffered through a lack of ideas in making a film out of it (since it wasn't particularly suited for a basic film, which is why executives had approached Jonze to direct an "unfilmable" book), so Kaufman decided to use his frustrations into making an exaggerated script with a fictional twin brother, and Columbia Pictures found it fairly suitable enough to make a film of (with filming starting in 2001). Orlean, when approached about the screenplay, was not exactly supportive of what she read, but she did not get in the way of allowing the film to move forward; Orlean found that it turned out to be "very true to the book's themes of life and obsession."

INT. NEIGHBORHOOD - ROBERT'S HOUSE - NIGHT, HOURS LATER
Now the writer is pleased and can go on with his night, confused over the fact that his cluttered table seems rearranged and his computer tabs seem smaller for 6am. He motions to acknowledge the real meat of what is meant to be writing and not words on a screen before he decides to take a nap instead. He struggles to wonder what the true difference between a 10-star film and a 9-star film in terms of "really good" and "great" without automatically tracing back to what was thought of either category. 

What we have here is a fairly playful film, one that writes the book on what it means to adapt and persist within a sense of longing and disappointment that come from trying to reach a certain passion without getting lost in its process. After all, this is a film about a writer trying to adapt a writer's tale about orchids while also getting caught up in a tale stranger than fiction. In this sense, Cage is exactly the type of actor for an dauntingly ideal situation - two performances for the price of one, complete with a fat suit and split-screen photography. In this sense, Cage does great because of how he holds true to making each Kaufman a distinct presence that isn't merely just one talking to themselves, capturing equally the weariness and foolish abandon that comes from belief (or perhaps fear) in one's ability to tell a good story that can be splattered on screen. While it does have comedic elements in it, Cage never takes the meta aspects too far into stretching credibility or making it a self-centered work. In between scenes with Cage and Cage are conversations spent between Streep and Cooper that border the lines of fact and fiction, and it takes a dedicated person like Streep to not have the other author get lost in the process of adaptation. She captures an essence of longing in passion that results in an excellent performance, engaging and right at home in conviction. Cooper has the task of playing someone once described by Orlean as "pale-eyed, slouch-shouldered, and sharply handsome, in spite of the fact that he is missing all his front teeth." - to which I say he does a tremendous job in conveying someone filled with charm that captures the essence of a man with nuance for doing things his way with no sort of false pretense or cheap tricks needed to push his passion to something we can understand. Others in the cast do fine with gradual moments, such as Cox and his portrayal of the only other real figure in lecturer/story consultant McKee, which he does quite well in measured

The writer looks upon his work. He notices that yet again he has to make that lasting decision over how much he really enjoyed this movie. It isn't like flipping a coin, because at least the coin doesn't really seem to somehow look right and wrong. You win this round, writing voice in my head.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

One Hour Photo.

Review #1532: One Hour Photo.

Cast: 
Robin Williams (Seymour "Sy" Parrish), Michael Vartan (Will Yorkin), Connie Nielsen (Nina Yorkin), Gary Cole (Bill Owens, Manager), Eriq La Salle (Det. James Van Der Zee), Clark Gregg (Det. Paul Outerbridge), Paul H. Kim (Yoshi Araki), Erin Daniels (Maya Burson), and Dylan Smith (Jake Yorkin) Written and Directed by Mark Romanek.

Review: 
"I don't know how much value I have in this universe, but I do know that I've made a few people happier than they would have been without me, and as long as I know that, I'm as rich as I ever need to be."

It's easy to peg someone as just a comedian if you only focus on the laughs. Robin Williams is likely one of the most talented comedians to ever try his hand at both comedies and dramas that ever lived. He attended various schools of study in a path to becoming involved with acting (dropping out of studying political science at Claremont Men's College to study theatre at the College of Marin) that led to study at the prominent Julliard School starting in 1973. He worked through various odd jobs before deciding to do stand-up comedy in 1976, which he would perform on a consistent basis over the following decades, even while finding prominence with Mork and Mindy (1978-1982) and Popeye (1980). He was known for both comedic and dramatic successes such as The World According to Garp (1982), Dead Poets Society (1989), and Good Will Hunting (1997) that surely proved a perfect fit for this film (strangely enough, Jack Nicholson was initially thought of for the lead role, although he turned it down). This was the second work of Romanek, who had studied cinema and photography at Ithaca College before making his first feature with Static (1985), which he later disowned. In the years that followed, he decided to take on doing music videos, directing his first one for the group The The in 1986. He became better known for his videos for music groups such as Nine Inch Nails and Janet Jackson (his video for Johnny Cash's cover of "Hurt" is however is easily the most memorable).

It's easy to look back and think about the differences time can make for a psychological thriller like this. Sure, maybe people don't exactly go out to their big-box store and have photos processed by someone in a booth anymore, but there is definitely an appeal and interest about the very idea of having someone get a glimpse into a person's life through what they process in a photo. Think about the photos you take with others or have taken of yourself and think back to the memories associated with those snapshots and wonder about how someone might perceive them differently that may verge into devotion, considering that the main character not only knows the habits of certain customers that come in regularly (like ones who like to photograph cats) but also just happens to know where you live too. It is a film that views upon a not-so-quite ordinary man with a life empty enough for one to nearly forget about in the background, which most definitely taps into the emptiness of one's soul that arises from chasing memories to worship without having anything for yourself. What can it take for one to turn from voyeur to vigilante? As it turns out, sometimes the truth really does hurt when it comes to facing reality, and it generally does work out in building small-scale chills with a distinct look and one great performance by Williams to make an adequate thriller worth checking out. If there was no Williams, it wouldn't really be anything great, particularly if it was an actor that couldn't live up to basically having to disappear in a role like a chameleon. He has a mannered patience here that captures awkwardness and solitude with quality quiet makeup and instinct that generally helps in keeping a balance between would-be object of pity or something darker without needing to be wrapped in either classification too easily. Vartan and Nielsen don't really have much to do, but they do play fine to essentially paper chemistry that also share interesting moments when paired with Williams in art of the awkward glance. Cole and La Salle make adequate authority figures for a feature that seems to emphasize perception and cold loneliness more than anything, complete with carefully picked color palates (where Williams seems to blend into the background at times, and the bright lighting for the SavMart sequences are especially apparent in that effect). It is a modest movie, with only one real quibble that I had, which mainly involves having the film begin with him being photographed for booking - regardless of how much is there to predicted with ease or not, it really didn't need to be told to us like this to really set up the film on a chilly path. The ending however does fine with sticking out the lasting decisions that can be made by someone filled with calmly-smiled desperation in the part intended for a soul that perhaps leads one to think a little closer about just who is that person who knows about details from the photos you take. It was a modest hit at the time with audiences by making back its $12 million budget four times over, and it is pretty easy for me to see why. With a fairly interesting premise built on introspection and chills beside the usual resort of blood (except for perhaps one shot, which I love) or excessive twists to go with a solidly subtle Williams, One Hour Photo is a neat little gem worth checking out for the small scares that come from what you see in and outside the picture.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.