Oldboy.

Review #2504: Oldboy.

Cast: 

Choi Min-sik (Oh Dae-su; Oh Tae-kyung as young Dae-su), Yoo Ji-tae (Lee Woo-jin; Yoo Yeon-seok as young Woo-jin), Kang Hye-jung (Mi-do), Ji Dae-han (No Joo-hwan; Woo Il-han as young Joo-hwan), Kim Byeong-ok (Mr. Han), Yoon Jin-seo (Lee Soo-ah), Oh Dal-su (Mr. Park Cheol-woong), and Oh Kwang-rok (Suicidal man) Directed by Park Chan-wook.

Review: 

"Many people tend to differentiate starkly between commercially successful or nonsuccessful movies, but the simple truth is merely that people have differing tastes about what kind of movies they like or don't. The audience seems hazy to me, shrouded in a veil through which I can't see. They are not real, not concrete. So I chose one person to be my sole audience, representing all the audiences out there. That person is my wife. From the scriptwriting and the editing process all the way to deciding on the music, I discuss everything with her thoroughly in detail. She is a normal housewife with an incredible eye who constantly offers me much advice and help."

One of the reasons for New Directors Month is to make up for lost time and go with people that clearly will get further featuring over time. Born to an architect and a poet in Seoul, Park Chan-wook actually planned to be an art critic. His major was philosophy at Sogang University but couldn't quite settle in to his major (the university did not have many arts classes) and found interest in a photography club. He then saw a screening of Vertigo (1958) and apparently was compelled to "at least try to become a movie director"*. Park worked as a film critic (when he had to make money in college, he did stories based on movies prior to being shown in Korea with subtitles) while earning film experience as an assistant director on Kkamdong (1988). He made his attempt to be a filmmaker with The Moon Is... the Sun's Dream (1992) and Trio (1997) ...and neither found an audience, to the point where Park essentially disowned them. At any rate, he kept going, directing the short film Judgement (1999) that basically made him realized that actors "were not puppets". He got his breakthrough with the mystery thriller Joint Security Area (2000), which for a brief time was the highest ever grossing movie in South Korea. Unintentionally, Park's next film became the first of what has been labeled as "The Vengeance Trilogy" with Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (2002), with Oldboy (2003) and Lady Vengeance (2005) soon following. According to Park, the theme of vengeance recurred in certain movies of his because of how people have had to deal with the rage and grudges within themselves (with smaller and smaller outlets to get it out) that basically leads to "stories of people who place the blame for their actions on others because they refuse to take on the blame themselves", where morality and guilty consciences are what matters as the subject (he also has stated once that his "through-line of violence" comes with the turbulence he had witnessed as a college youth in the 1980s). In addition to the occasional work for television (such as The Sympathizer in 2024*), Park has continued to make a wide variety of films such as I'm a Cyborg, But That's OK (2006), Thirst (2009), The Handmaiden (2016) and his most recent work, No Other Choice (2025).

The source material for the film was the Japanese manga Old Boy, which was written by Garon Tsuchiya and illustrated by Nobuaki Minegishi that was serialized from 1996 to 1998. Hwang Jo-yun, Lim Jun-hyung, and Park Chan-wook adapted the script for the film you see here. An unauthorized Indian adaptation called Zinda came out in 2006 before Oldboy was subsequently remade for American audiences with Spike Lee in 2013. What you get here is a movie all about making you feel every nook and cranny of the complexities that arise in what it really means to try and seek revenge and the all-encompassing perils that come with guilt. It is an action thriller of course, with a particularly standout single-shot corridor fight scene, but there is something much more involving in what the movie wants to make you feel in the cycles of violence that come every now and then that isn't so much exploitative as is evocative. The performances are particularly worthwhile to experience this disturbing journey of all-consuming violence, with Choi (who did most of his own stunts) managing to take it all in a stride that fits the film perfectly with where it has to go for a movie that really just involves two people confronting a mirror of each other rather than just good vs. evil. Yoo makes that other side of all-consuming revenge just as unnerving with a chilling performance that really does get under one's skin for what you see of him (I think back to the scene where he is just standing in the room with a mask, honestly). Caught in the middle of it is Kang, who handles it all with such hurried grace in this wavering story of someone trying to understand what they cannot possibly understand. You understand the feeling of being in captivity like a chained beast and wonder if they ever actually got out of the cage. Rage and vengeance can be all-consuming if one allows it to permeate through their wellbeing, and it helps that the film basically spreads its violence out in ways that make the punishments all the more unnerving (whether that involves pulling teeth, eating a live octopus, or, well, with its climax). It is a fairly brisk film that manages to be pretty unnerving with its slow burn about what really matters in the pursuit of "the truth" that you really have to not spoil for yourself. There are no triumphs or easy answers at the end of the film, which actually is a pretty big relief when you get down to it. It's a pretty damn good movie, particularly if you go into it with as little to know as possible to really let it wash over you.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

*Among influences Park listed in 2004 were: "Sophocles, Shakespeare, Kafka, Dostoevsky, Balzac, Zola, Stendhal, Austin, Philip K. Dick, Zelazny and Vonnegut." Fun fact: one influence on Viet Thanh Nguyen when writing The Sympathizer was in fact Park's Oldboy (2003).

Another end to the New Directors Month tradition. Among the finalists for this year include the following: Pigs and Battleships [Shōhei Imamura] · The Man Who Fell To Earth [Nicolas Roeg]  · Wakefield [Robin Swicord] · Bad Company [Robert Benton] · Jacob the Liar [Frank Beyer] · Hundreds of Beavers [Mike Cheslik]

As always, see you next time.

Willard (2003).

Review #2299: Willard (2003).

Cast: 

Crispin Glover (Willard Stiles), R. Lee Ermey (Frank Martin), Laura Elena Harring (Cathryn), Jackie Burroughs (Henrietta Stiles), Kimberly Patton (Barbara Leach), and William S. Taylor (Joseph Garter) Directed by Glen Morgan.

Review: 

Remember Willard? You know, the movie about rats. In 1971, Bruce Davison had starred in the film loosely based on the 1968 novel Ratman's Notebooks by Stephen Gilbert, with Daniel Mann serving as director. It had quite the quartet (Sondra Locke, Elsa Lanchester, and Ernest Borgnine) to make for a movie that I wish I remembered better than the one time I saw it about seven years ago (I didn't even bother watching the "follow-up" 1972 film Ben, which has a title song that is played here). But I eventually figured I would reach this film, mostly because I assumed Crispin Glover would be a worthwhile lead presence in terms of oddball nature that I could lock away for a future time. Anyway, the film (which isn't exactly a remake since it elects to go with an ending distinct from both the original film and the book) was directed by first-time feature director Glen Morgan, who some might know best from his writing on select episodes of The X-Files. The movie wasn't a big success with audiences, but Morgan did direct again...with a remake of Black Christmas (2006).

It probably is a reflection of my hazy memory of the original, but this second rendition of Willard manages to justify its existence with a solid lead performance to go along with worthwhile timing in unsettling moments and even a bit of humor for a neat average movie. It won't rank up there as one of the great re-adaptations, because one can only go so far with a psychological portrait of a man hollowed out enough to enjoy rats with such a familiar structure (incidentally, this film features Davison...as a portrait on the wall). Granted, knowing the structure is kind of amusing for me when you get introduced to Ermey as a man of the rat race (pun intended) that gets to chew out our hollowed lead. Glover just seems to nail this role from the get-go in a way that is unnerving in the fact in the little things that come out that remind us of ourselves (of course, most of us have not cobbled rat-related books like Glover, who reworked the 1896 book Studies in the Art of Rat Catching for a collage book). This is a character that has been thoroughly hollowed out by authority around him that we can't help but feel sorry for, even if just a tiny bit when it comes to trying to make a place with something that he doesn't hate in his lonely state. His energy is infectious and fascinating to see play off the other members of the ensemble. Ermey is devilishly excellent in a role he seemingly could play in his sleep in rough demeanor, albeit one that makes me chuckle (in one scene, he is shown looking up dirty pictures). He makes the perfect foil in pushing, pushing, and more pushing when it comes to grinding people down until, well, you already can guess. Harring proves fine in those moments matched up with Glover in awkwardness while Burroughs gets to grind away in brief hamming of scenery (no one can beat Lanchester, but still). The rats here are mildly spooky, but I think you know that others will have their own reaction to creature features where it can't be whisked away so easily. The open-ended nature of its ending is quizzical enough to close the film on a worthwhile note, rewarding those who liked the journey set by Glover in creepy energetic nature and prefer a remake that just goes for solid creeps and mostly hits it. Sure, creature features don't always win in the scare department, but with an unnerving portrait of a man hollowed to all but rats in the world played to exquisite execution by Glover, you might have the right movie to watch one strange night.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Italian Job (2003)

Review #2222: The Italian Job (2003)

Cast: 
Mark Wahlberg (Charlie Croker), Charlize Theron (Stella Bridger), Edward Norton (Steve Frazelli), Donald Sutherland (John Bridger), Jason Statham (Handsome Rob), Seth Green (Lyle), Mos Def (Gilligan "Left Ear"), Franky G (Wrench), Boris Lee Krutonog (Yevhen), and Aleksander Krupa (Mashkov) Directed by F. Gary Gray (#517 - Be Cool and #1806 - Friday)

Review: 

"The first line of my creative mission statement was the characters are first and everything else is second."

Nothing is immune to having a "remake" or re-whatever you want to call it. This is one that is apparently just "inspired" by it that naturally came out over three decades later. Well, if you can remake The Thomas Crown Affair (1968) and Ocean's 11 (1960- actually I take that back, that remake was better)...Apparently, the original writers brought up to try and do a script were Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (best known as the writers of the James Bond films from The World is Not Enough [1999] to No Time to Die [2021]). Apparently, it was a pretty faithful pitch to the original, but it was rejected. As such, Donna Powers and Wayne Powers (who had a bit of TV experience and also co-wrote the films Deep Blue Sea and Valentine to their, uh, credit) were then hired to come up with a script, which they did over the course of several drafts and exactly one viewing of the original film to get a sense of the tone. This was the fifth feature film for Gray, previously known for Friday (1995) and The Negotiator (1998). It is strange how worthy a movie can be in neat average qualities when having the weight of being called "The Italian Job" under it. It is a fairly made homage movie that strangely manages to reflect the defining qualities that defined the original in its own way: pretty sleek maneuvering for its climax (which it shares with the original), a distinct supporting cast, and a pretty standard lead presence. It takes a few elements of the original, namely in stealing some gold with Minis and having characters named "Croker" and "Bridger" and that's about it (well, there is a heist shown in the intro that takes place in Italy - Venice, to be exact).

It is a decent movie really, but you've probably seen plenty of these caper films to know where they are mostly going (, particularly since it ends up being longer than the original at 111 minutes. It has a collection of seasoned performances for an action film that plays by its rules of having its own mark as a film named "Italian Job" (as mostly set in Los Angeles) made in the era where one has fun trying to figure out what a special effect looks like (or stunt work, in other cases) rather than calling it blobby filler. At least Wahlberg has an equal when it comes to middling charisma in Norton, who nearly phones it in the whole way with the energy of someone literally forced to be cast in this film, although at least with Norton there is the idea of an adversarial weirdo. I wonder just how good Wahlberg was in Boogie Nights, because every other performance I've ever seen of him seems to remind me of an old B-movie (which, hey, those are respected, unless it is the Planet of the Apes remake). In other words: the people around Wahlberg are more interesting, whether that involves an old pro like Sutherland all the way down to comedy relief such as Green (as nicknamed "Napster", which by this time was already in the "revamp" stage of decayed names) or an effective Theron and Statham when it comes to credibility. The film is lightly funny, probably not as much as the original when it comes to that spry buildup, but it is solidly credible in every category anyway that it doesn't particularly matter. The eventual chase sequence is pretty well handled, all things considered, managing to utilize the city streets (to go with tunnels and a helicopter) to worthwhile execution that doesn't leave one with a sinking feeling of misplaced interest. In the end, being a notch below the original is a compliment here for a movie that is generally entertaining in the aspects that matter most when it comes to useful action and the charm to make it bounce for the right angle needed.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

House of the Dead.

Review #2144: House of the Dead.

Cast: 

Jonathan Cherry (Rudolph "Rudy" Curien), Ona Grauer (Alicia), Clint Howard (Salish), Ellie Cornell (Casper), Tyron Leitso (Simon), Will Sanderson (Greg), Enuka Okuma (Karma), Kira Clavell (Liberty), Sonya Salomaa (Cynthia), Michael Eklund (Hugh), David Palffy (Castillo), and Jürgen Prochnow (Kirk) Directed by Uwe Boll (#1765 - In the Name of the King and #1924 - Alone in the Dark)

Review: 

Its funny to go backwards when watching an Uwe Boll for the third straight year. This is the film that got people to look upon Boll and say, "What the hell is this doing in so many theaters?" It is loosely based on the video game of the same name that had originally appeared in arcades from Sega in 1996. Apparently, plans for a film first came around in 1998 with the idea that Jesse Dylan would direct from a script that had the involvement of Dylan and Mark Verheiden (most known for scripts such as Timecop). The outline (as provided by a magazine of the time) apparently involved a small college town involving a zombie haven to go with deaths at a rave and "necro-warrior" nerds that rally to fight the walking dead. However, by the time production actually came around, here one is with Boll as director and a script of differing names: the screenplay was done by Dave Parker and Mark Altman (you may recognize him as the co-writer of Free Enterprise (1998), the rom-com involving fans of Star Trek) while the story was done by Dan Bates and Altman. 2002 saw Boll and his production company take charge with said script to make this film, which began production in Vancouver. This was the 8th feature film for Boll as a director, which had seen prior works of horror and dramas such as Heart of America (2002), which most people would probably associate with the DVD markets. A direct-to-video sequel came in 2005 that had Altman serve as writer for screenplay with one returning cast member but, well, no Boll as director (amusingly, Boll would do the sequels to his other video game films of the time). By that time, Boll was ready for his two-pronged 2005 experience of Alone in the Dark and BloodRayne. There apparently is a director's cut that adds in some dialogue and alternative takes to go with pop-ups and you know, I'm just not there for that, man. 

You know that label "so bad it's good"? Sometimes you just want to call that label a crock of crap, and I think you really need to find films like this to really test the theory that a film can be so bad that it could come back to enjoyably goofy to watch. But this is the third straight Boll film to leave me with more irritation than before I pressed play, and I find little redeeming factors beyond the fact that the movie is probably one of few video game adaptations to feature clips from the game that they are adapting (well, technically the film is meant to be a prequel of the first game, which means rather than having an agent name G as the lead, you have the rave stuff here). Someone apparently counted the amount of clips shown at 32! Even the B-movies from the 1960s had something worth following along with in their ambition, this movie just has the turn-table technique for 360-degree shots that make me want to roll my eyes in the same way. Blank slates being spooked by zombies has never felt so lifeless, but by God did Boll accomplish it here. You can predict every movement for 90 minutes but feel so tired when doing so that it doesn't even feel worth it to do so. I know it isn't the worst, because those who have seen Alone in the Dark know what true misery is, but it is up there in the turd mountain. Cherry looks like he would rather be stuck anywhere but here with such a thankless lead role that does him no favors. What's the point of setting up a thing about students looking for a rave if the characters are too damn boring anyway? Even the one shot of nudity just seems to be "okay, next". I swear, if you throw a dart board at a bunch of names of cheapie films, you could land on one with Clint Howard involved in some way with pretty good odds (he also happened to appear in Boll's two previous films). He doesn't exactly rein in a good performance, but I'm sure the checks cleared all the same regardless. Cornell and Prochnow would've been a more interesting pair to really focus on when it comes to scoundrels and people who shoot guns, and yet...you get the idea. If you can remember a single thing about the "villain" in Palffy, you deserve a medal, because the whole thing about "immortality serums" and hordes of zombies under his control is handled with about as much grace as a dirt road with broken glass all over. As a whole, it is a Uwe Boll movie with little to show for its efforts, as it is the kind of thing that looks and feels way cheaper than $12 million. How could anyone approve of this? Well, 20 years have gone by and I certainly can't say that people are going to look upon this film as a lost classic, they just will see it as bland trash to throw onto the pile.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Tomorrow: God help us, Wired. 

Final Destination 2.

Review #2137: Final Destination 2.

Cast: 

Ali Larter (Clear Rivers), A. J. Cook (Kimberly Corman), Michael Landes (Thomas Burke), David Paetkau (Evan Lewis), James Kirk (Tim Carpenter), Lynda Boyd (Nora Carpenter), Keegan Connor Tracy (Kat Jennings), Jonathan Cherry (Rory Peters), T. C. Carson (Eugene Dix), Justina Machado (Isabella Hudson), and Tony Todd (William Bludworth) Directed by David R. Ellis (#437 - Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Francisco)

Review: 

You may remember Final Destination (2000) came from a spec script by Jeffrey Reddick that would've been proposed for The X-Files if it wasn't for the fact that he had a suggestion to pitch it to New Line Cinema (which led to ensuing writing contributions by James Wong and Glen Morgan). The resulting film was such a success that New Line approached Reddick for a sequel. He agreed while Wong and Morgan (unavailable due to other projects) were replaced by J. Mackye Gruber and Eric Bress. If you would like an impression of what I thought about that first film, here goes: "Cardboard cut-outs getting killed with Rube Goldberg-type deaths is still cardboard cut-outs getting killed. The curse of knowing the potential for death could have made an interesting movie, really. That, or maybe it really was something suited for television." 2021 me did not have much patience for the original Final Destination, of course it took me two years to return to this series. Actually, he thought of a movie where instead of a bunch of bland cutouts led by a guy who looked like a nerd until it became more apparent that "Death" really was coming for them, time would be best served by just making that character a real loser. Two years later, I have come up with one other idea that was inspired by viewing this cheap sequel: a killer that goes around offing people in a manner that look like accidents just so that way he can get people to believe that Death is coming for them (if you have seen a film or story that is based on any of those premises, that is cool, because, well, you won't hear me whining).

Okay, so you can't just say a movie is not good just because it doesn't have the premise better than the one you imagine in your head. But you can say it is not a good film if it doesn't do anything to improve on the original beyond perhaps diving into what might as well be ripe for parody. Maybe I should've seen it coming before, since I never really thought much of naming a character "Clear Rivers" the first time around until I thought, wait, really? I think the only time I felt anything with this film was in laughing at it rather than with it, such as the case of one death scene: a teen spooks some pigeons, which leads to them buzzing by a crane operator that leads to the operator dropping a windowpane right on the teen that reminds me of a Roadrunner cartoon. The scene where a guy decides to just use a gun to try and shoot himself only to have it not fire even with six bullets is probably the only spooky idea presented. Other than that, if you've seen the first film, you basically have seen the second film. I'm not even irritated of what I see here, I just find it hilarious that you retain two castmates from the first and only use them to basically serve as exposition (it amuses me that Larter's character responds to being flipped off by leaving the padded and safe asylum to lead to exposition because [insert reference here]). Wasting Tony Todd the second time around should be a crime, but what do I know? Anyway, the acting is the kind of cut-and-dry stuff you would expect, mildly involving but not nearly enough to make me remember an iota of who these people are. Even Larter seems bemused to be there, as if the only thing worth doing is saying exposition and looking ready for the last check to clear. The death scenes are, well, deadly, which is more of a compliment to the one who had to sketch out how a man will get killed as a result of throwing junk onto pavement minutes earlier (that, or how CGI logs will make a bigger crash than real logs, obviously). You might think I should be more fair with the rating, because, hey, it's not that much better or worse than the original. You know those latter Sherlock Holmes movies Roy William Neill did? Watching those eleven films in all of their average-ness is far more tolerable to write about than being fair to junk like this.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

next up: Night of the Living Dead...remade.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003).

Review #2112: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003).

Cast: 

Jessica Biel (Erin), Jonathan Tucker (Morgan), Erica Leerhsen (Pepper), Mike Vogel (Andy), Eric Balfour (Kemper), Andrew Bryniarski (Thomas Hewitt / Leatherface), R. Lee Ermey (Sheriff Hoyt), David Dorfman (Jedidiah), Lauren German (Teenage Girl), Terrence Evans (Old Monty), Marietta Marich (Luda Mae), Heather Kafka (Henrietta), and Kathy Lamkin (Tea Lady in Trailer) Directed by Marcus Nispel (#2108 - Friday the 13th [2009])

Review: 

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) is an undisputed horror classic, let us get that out of the way. Tobe Hooper and Kim Henkel crafted a worthy production that came first from Hooper coming up with a story based on "isolation, the woods, the darkness, and the unknown", one that found elements of news coverage of graphic violence and the exploits of serial murderer Ed Gein to make for a feature film (Henkel also cited killer Elmer Wayne Henley). Of course, one can't stop at one horror film, because everything needed the idea of a sequel to follow up such vaunted interest. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986) was a demented riff that saw Hooper return to direct, while the next two films in Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990) and The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1995) reached smaller and smaller audiences. But then comes a new millennium and perhaps a new era in trying to mine audiences for money based on name value, for which one sees the name Platinum Dunes step in (as created by Michael Bay and others with the express purpose of making cheap features). Hooper and Henkel served as producers on this film, and both share the same cinematographer and opening narrator (I'm sure this time around John Larroquette was not paid in marijuana). This was the directorial debut of Marcus Nispel, who had been born in Frankfurt in West Germany. He had worked in advertising before moving abroad to study at Brooklyn College and the New York Institute of Technology before eventually being a director for commercials at the turn of the 21st century. The film was written by Scott Kosar in his feature writing debut (incidentally, he has written a handful of remake scripts but also The Machinist). A prequel, retaining a few cast members from this film, was released with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006). Incidentally, the next film to bear the Chainsaw label in Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013), tried to serve as a follow-up to only the original that saw it have its own prequel a few years later (to throw you for a loop, thanks to 2022, there are now three Texas Chainsaw Massacre films that all have Larroquette as narrator). The film was released on October 17, 2003 (one thing I will give the film credit for, a horror film being shown in the fall season).

It is amusing, in a sense, to touch upon a film that must have seemed vile and horrific if one had never really seen that many horror movies before that one. The fact that the film runs at 98 minutes is the least surprising thing in the history of all things. I don't exactly remember the acting of most of the folks in the 1974 film, but somehow that film had a raw energy to it that was unsettling and unnerving in what you saw and heard. This film, on the other hand, is everything you could see coming in a "Young Adult Horror Trap" movie, one that is somehow grisly in its levels of gore without being at all interesting in any sort of way with doing anything fresh. It is strange to watch another film set in 1973 that has the same narrator as a film made in 1974 that happens to be shot in a cleaner view by the same man as before only to see a movie that is pale in every facet. Biel (perhaps best known previously for starring on 7th Heaven) is decent, even if one knows from nearly the first minute that she is on screen that she is the Final Girl, but at least when Marilyn Burns was in the previous rendition, one got a real sense of fear and terror from her reactions to what was going on. Here you just see the motions. It is Ermey that nearly lifts the film from the doldrums of remake hell when it comes to the ham that arises from an obvious role that he chews with great interest. He slithers with good ol' boy nature that gives one a rise more than any other time in the film, and that includes the parts with Leatherface, who I somehow have forgotten about unlike the times spent in the first two features.

Obviously, one can't just do a shot-by-shot remake of the first but consider that the framing device of the original was a group of young folks were driving back in a van after checking to see if a grave was desecrated - now we see young folks driving to a concert after buying weed. In short, it is like trying to put ice cubes in soda to make it taste better...flat soda. You've got a good deal of the hallmarks present in other horror films with nameless youths, whether that involves the situation where it seems like the dolts should just leave but do not do so, the aforementioned supporting presence more interesting than the main people, the incredibly obvious Final Girl, a set place that seems to loom larger on the inside, a villain of fairly indestructible tenor (lose an arm and get back to me), and blah blah blah it is conventional stuff. The only people who could get into this are either folks who really appreciate having a watered-down version of something already seen before or ones who seem to believe that they really aren't watching a "safe" film of terror. They probably watch it with casual interest with friends. But for folks like me, who aim to watch (and talk about) as many films as possible on their own, this is nothing more than a boring disgrace that surprises in no regard. Perhaps one has better memories of the film when it was fresh two decades ago, but all I see here is mush ready to be pushed away.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Next up: The Undead.

Hulk.

Review #2039: Hulk.

Cast: 

Eric Bana (Bruce Banner), Jennifer Connelly (Betty Ross), Sam Elliott (Thaddeus Ross), Josh Lucas (Talbot), Nick Nolte (David Banner), Cara Buono (Edith Banner), Kevin Rankin (Harper), and Celia Weston (Mrs. Krensler) Directed by Ang Lee (#1525 - Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and #1564 - Life of Pi)

Review: 

"[The Hulk represents] the true self we are all hiding in the dark. When the audience sees it they will be dealing with their own Hulk, the unknown, the truthful self we try to cover up."

In the spring of 1962, the first issue of The Incredible Hulk was published by Marvel Comics. As created by artist Jack Kirby and Stan Lee; both were inspired by different things, with Kirby having witnessed a mother lift a car off her trapped child and Lee being influenced by Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The result was a character in Bruce Banner, scientist and man who turns into a large green monster when subjected to emotional stress (like anger). In 1977, the character was first adapted to live-action television, as devised by Kenneth Johnson that had Bill Bixby as Banner and Lou Ferrigno as the Hulk, which ran from 1977 to 1982 with a handful of television movies (1988-90) that has served as the iconic interpretation of the character in some eyes. Production for a film about the Hulk ran for a decade, as organized by Avi Arad and Gale Anne Hurd, who produced the film for Universal Pictures. A handful of writers came and went (stay with me on this), starting with Michael France, which then led to John Turman, then back to France again, then back to Turman, then re-writes by writers not given credit in the final result like Zak Penn, J. J. Abrams, Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski, then to Jonathan Hensleigh to try to write and direct, then back to France, then to Michael Tolkin and David Hayter, then to James Schamus (a frequent partner with Lee in writing and producing), and I think you get the point. Schamus, France, and Turman were given credit for the screenplay while Schamus was listed as the sole writer of story. At the helm as director would be Ang Lee, fresh off the success of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) who once told his star in Eric Bana that he was shooting the film as if it was a Greek tragedy (which would be in contrast to the Hulk aspects created by Industrial Light & Magic). While the film was a modest success with audiences, the next Hulk film would instead be a "reboot", which had Edward Norton as the star that resulted in The Incredible Hulk (2008).

Maybe the timing just wasn't right for a mega-popular Hulk film. Schamus has been quoted as stating his fears about the potential of the film when it came time for the release of Spider-Man (2002) and the idea of the Marvel brand becoming a genre of itself. Honestly, I'm more surprised that he didn't take into account that Hulk was the third of three features released in 2003 that were based on Marvel characters, following in the wake of Daredevil and X2 (no points to which film is the better of those three). Of course, the real progenitor of making Marvel films goes first with Blade (1998), but that's another argument entirely (and yes, one shouldn't forget Blade is something I will argue in perpetuity); hell, it wasn't long after that Batman Begins (2005) came to give audiences a refined origin story to a familiar comic character. Honestly, the one film that I was reminded of when it came to certain techniques used to reach for a comic atmosphere was Dick Tracy (1990), although obviously the split-screen technique and psychodrama involving "the green monster in us" aren't exactly a clear match for the latter's attempt at style. The 138-minute runtime signifies two things: a movie that is somehow a bit too long and yet seems a bit lacking in the expectations department. It is a quality feature, because how could it not be with that level of casting and commitment, but it doesn't thread the needle on making its title character any more interesting than mild melodrama. Bana actually does make a quality presence to balance out this tragedy of man and beast, one who is vulnerable to the world in emotional distance in all of the facets that matter in viewing drama. He doesn't wash away from our mind when it comes to pass to actually see the motion capture Hulk (as voiced by Lee). Your milage may vary on how much of it you need to really see, but one thing I can say is that it certainly looks "interesting" when compared from day vs. night, which translates to "fine, just don't show me the Hulk fighting dogs again". I wish I could say Connelly and Elliott make the best of such mild roles, but that would be window-dressing for folks that are trying to sleepwalk through mildly involving dialogue. You could almost put anyone there and it might be the same result in mild lingering drama. Lucas at least seems venal enough to merit a ridiculous end-fate. It probably speaks something about expectations when the most interesting supporting presence is seeing Nolte chew all the scenery possible in power-mad haggard beardman of traumatic chaos. Oh sure, the climax is going to be a CG-muddle, but the buildup to Nolte deciding, yes, he can just chew on this little wire, is at least something to give me a smile (oh hell, you can play the angle of a man wanting to see his "real son", but the underlying curiosity of seeing Nolte engage in the role is always apparent, abuse or not). At any rate, the film is okay. Whether it is thought of as ahead of its time or a missed opportunity, it can be certainly be said that it is the perpetual misfit, one that is fated to stand out in its distinct stylings from other features of its time that cannot be tied down so easily as being any one thing. Being an average misfit isn't always a bad thing, so take that for what it is worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.

Redux #089: Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.

Cast: 

Arnold Schwarzenegger (The Terminator), Nick Stahl (John Connor), Kristanna Loken (T-X), Claire Danes (Kate Brewster), David Andrews (Lieutenant General Robert Brewster), Mark Famiglietti (Scott Mason), and Earl Boen (Dr. Peter Silberman) Directed by Jonathan Mostow.

Review: 

From my review on January 25, 2012: 

This is a film I had forgotten to review a while long ago (man that sounds redundant), and so I will do it justice. As such, let us see if this film is any better then the two before it. And in a few words it is not so. It's a decent film, as it has action to entertain you. The plot is not as interesting as the first two, but the film at least doesn't make that happen on purpose. It tries hard to revive the series, and it succeeds. The film isn't as good as the first two, but it is at least decent. This film basically sells all that the first two did in story all to just to revive this franchise, So...We have 3 films in which the Terminator is our real hero, and now we have a fourth on our hands. Who's the hero? Batman? Oh wait, that Batman...What's the name? Salvation. Huh. Fitting title, isn't it? This ends Part IV of Robot Week.

On July 2, 2003, the third film of The Terminator series seeped into theaters. You may remember Terminator 2: Judgement Day had come out in 1991, twelve years prior. James Cameron had made it with the idea that it would be the end of the series. Of course, he didn't own the franchise, but even he had an interest in doing another film by the time he was behind the studio park attraction T2-3D: Battle Across Time in 1996. The bankruptcy of Carolco Pictures created a conundrum of who would own what eventually led to Mario F. Kassar and Andrew G. Vajna spearheading an effort to make a third film (which meant paying its key star a good deal of money) rather than 20th Century Fox or Cameron. Schwarzenegger thought about rejecting the film before he was convinced by Cameron that if they had a good script idea and a ton of cash to pay, "don't think twice". The first draft was done by Tedi Serafian in 1999. In 2001, Jonathan Mostow was recruited to direct the film on the heels of his first two features as writer and director) that received attention with Breakdown (1997) and U-571 (2000). Right after he was brought in, he sought the help of Michael Ferris and John Brancato, a screenwriting duo that had also went to Harvard University with Mostow (the most noted of the screenplays written by Ferris and Brancato is probably The Game (1997)). While he knew that there would be immense skepticism towards the idea of a third film, he felt that the best way to disarm those people would be to make the choice to use humor, for which he has stated that some parts have not aged quite well with time. With a budget over $150 million, the film was a general success, although a fourth Terminator film would not come out until 2009, as done by new owner of the series in The Halcyon Company with an entirely new cast while Ferris and Brancato were kept as one of numerous writers.

Truthfully, I feel more of an obligation to look back on films with milestones now more than ever to see just what I got right and wrong within my perceptions years ago. I didn't really have doubts about the first two Terminator films, those reviews were most re-done because I felt like it. But I was curious to see what I would feel about the third film, which is now twenty years old and is generally felt to be the peak for Schwarzenegger as an action star. One month after the release of the film, he made a run for the recall race for Governor of the State of California, which, well, he won. It is evident quickly that the movie is looking to be an entertaining movie in scale to make up for the obvious fact that it is the third film of a series where the last two are basically the best thing one could ever hope to make with the series. Of course, there is one other thing that sticks out to me when compared to the other two, but more on that in a bit. Honestly, I had a fear that I would think the film as too good to be true the next time seeing it. Hell, what do you know, I found it to be a delightful feature that might as well serve as the true example of a big-budget B-movie in all of its odd characteristics. The best of these are ones that don't shy away in embarrassment. Schwarzenegger was actually 55 at the time of the release of this film, but he still has the chops required to pull off the beat of "kicking ass" while also providing a bit of levity (shtick or not). Stahl was cast after a bit of time was spent in preproduction with original T2 star Edward Furlong only to see him deal with personal issues that had him leave. I think he does pretty well here, all things considered. There is a soulfulness needed to convey the tension of this character that is seen here as drifting aimlessly until fate steps in. He grows in to a role that is not so much about relating to Schwarzenegger again like the previous film but instead about relating to getting a grip beyond despair and moving forward. Danes makes a quality piece of the traveling trio, wrapped in a panicked and weary timing that obviously merits watching in further movies with screen time.  Loken says fairly little by the halfway point, which means a good deal of stone-faced watching for a role that makes for fairly decent menace when considering that the role probably has a body count comparable to a slasher. 

I enjoy the movie as a spectacle because it does keep momentum within its chase in a time where there was still practical use for staging and stunts that tries to keep everything wrapped under two hours. The sequence where one has to convince the other to not fail their mission (namely by killing them) is a fairly neat sequence to stand well before the climax, although obviously the initial chase is a good one as well. The climax ends where else but by having the world get nuked. Oh, yeah, it does that. Actually that is probably the best way to end the film and maybe set up another one, just clean the slate and establish, that, well, maybe there was a time for one to make a fate for themselves, but that some things are just inevitably over. The third Terminator film can't handle a comparison to the previous two Cameron films, but who honestly can? It still makes a quality blockbuster venture that saw its star get one more glow in the spotlight and deliver some entertaining spectacle for those who care for that sort of thing, which makes it all worth it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Underworld (2003).

Review #1916: Underworld.

Cast: 

Kate Beckinsale (Selene), Scott Speedman (Michael Corvin), Bill Nighy (Viktor), Michael Sheen (Lucian), Shane Brolly (Kraven), Erwin Leder (Singe), Sophia Myles (Erika), Robbie Gee (Kahn), Kevin Grevioux (Raze), Zita Görög (Amelia), Scott McElroy (Soren), and Wentworth Miller (Adam Lockwood) Directed by Len Wiseman (#320 - Live Free or Die Hard)

Review: 

Admittedly, making a movie that looks like it had a tryst with Blade (1998) and The Matrix (1999) (and perhaps The Mummy (1999)) sounds like quite the attraction for people that are curious about horror blend movies or perhaps folks that want to see what the hell can come out of a 21st century movie meant to deliver entertainment. The movie is directed by Len Wiseman in his feature debut. The Fremont native did film work on a number of Roland Emmerich films such as Stargate (1994) in property assistance before he became a music video director. The film began as a script by Kevin Grevioux (who also acts in this film), who was inspired by Romeo and Juliet alongside his study of microbiology at Howard University (which he graduated with a degree in that field before becoming an actor). Danny McBride, formerly a stuntman before being introduced to Wiseman by their mutual agent, was brought in to help with the script by the director, who also co-wrote the story that had each received screen credit, although McBride alone would write the screenplay, with he and Wiseman setting out to make a trilogy of films. Screen Gems. Distributed by Screen Gems on a budget of $22 million, it was a surprise hit that made four times its budget back, which would inspire a cadre of sequels and one prequel: Underworld: Evolution (2006), Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (2009), Underworld: Awakening (2012), and Underworld: Blood Wars (2016), with Beckinsale remaining the constant presence while Wiseman and McBride contributed to two of the follow-up films (with Wiseman serving as producer for the three others). It should be noted that the film was subject to a lawsuit by White Wolf, Inc and Nancy A. Collins, who each claimed that the film's setting was too similar to their respective works (Vampire: The Masquerade and Sonja Blue, respectively), which resulted in a confidential settlement.

You know, I actually kind of dug the film in a weird way. Maybe the idea of combining vampires and werewolves (called Lycans) is a bit on the outrageous side, but I actually find it to my liking. Sure, one is quite aware of what they are getting themselves into with an action/horror hodgepodge like this, which kept my interest through its 121-minute runtime. It may be goofy, and it may not work for everyone, but I found it worth my time, although one would obviously have their hesitation about further films, regardless of how much they enjoy a bit of gun fighting and folks wearing black (leather or coat). The mythology is handled in a manner that invites interest without delving into parody or overt self-awareness, and it at least looks like you can understand this "war" without needing to strain your brain too much (one side was a servant, the other liked swords). Beckinsale is a solid lead to hold it together, steely in composure (perhaps from not getting to enjoy the sun) that can handle the action elements and the ounces of dramatic depth with the patience it all requires from her. A weaker actor would look foolish in that getup and then not make the lines stick beyond what they are written, but she seems to be having a blast with it that results in a worthwhile time. Speedman isn't as fortunate, but then again, he plays the part about exactly what you would think it involves in reserved patience when dealing with effects and some sort of story to get him along with a bit of chemistry shared between him and Beckinsale. Nighy may have a bunch of makeup on him, but when he does show up, he makes an engaging presence with an aura of arrogance. Sheen chews up the material handily when on screen for voracious effect that makes a useful adversary worth smiling about, while Brolly makes a quality cad for the proceedings, confidently pathetic in all the right ways along with Leder. As silly as it might sound to present werewolves as "Lycans", I did find that the story presented of them and their beastly defiance semi-compelling enough to go against the usual presentation of the wolf, and it also makes a useful contrast to the aristocratic vampire presented here (it has its own touch of cliche, but it is expected cliche). The conflict of trying to create extinction within endless warfare (in modern society, hidden to others or not) does execute itself with the right balance of cliches and flourish, with effects and action sequences that are handled to adequate effect. As a whole, it does all the little things to useful effect in terms of entertainment value without flubbing up in pale depth or pale mood to make the general target: something to watch if it suits your fancy, silly or not.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde.

Review #1861: Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde.

Cast: 

Reese Witherspoon (Elle Woods), Sally Field (Victoria Rudd), Regina King (Grace Rossiter), Jennifer Coolidge (Paulette Bonafonté), Luke Wilson (Emmett Richmond), Bob Newhart (Sid Post), Bruce McGill (Stan Marks), Dana Ivey (Libby Hauser), Jessica Cauffiel (Margot Chapman), with Moonie the Dog (Bruiser), and Alanna Ubach (Serena McGuire) Directed by Charles Herman-Wurmfeld.

Review: 

I'm sure you remember Legally Blonde (2001), the movie that dealt with forging a path for oneself with confidence that was pitched at one point as "Clueless meets The Paper Chase", based on the material of the same name by Amanda Brown. It was a feel-good movie that Robert Luketic directed as the feel-good legal hit of its time. Or something like that, because I remember it surely could have reached further in the departments of humor and legal mumbo-jumbo besides what it did. Yea, subverting the expectations of a perpetually smiling lawyer that bounces off snide comments as it was just another sunny day in lawyer land. It was more interesting in the small attempts at awareness rather than its goofy hand at comedy. The less you predict, the better it went. Herman-Wurmfeld is probably best known for this film alone, despite the fact that this was his third feature film (Kissing Jessica Stein (2001) had attracted attention on the indie circuit). Kate Kondell served as the screenwriter.

It is evident that someone watched Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) and thought, hey I can do a movie kind of like that, complete with cribbing footage from it too. But this movie has an idealism about it that manages to come off as the equivalent of too much cotton candy at the fair that only leads to simple vomit. It is a movie that seems to have been nicked and tucked in re-writes to where one would hope it is taken out to pasture with the mix of sitcom lines and characters to go with. absolute zero meaningful drama. Taking something like the issue of animal testing and making one bored to tears is quite the achievement in dubiousness. It begs for a cynical hand at the wheel to deal with politics or some sort of inspiration beyond cribbing dynamics from the first film in being yet another fish out of water story. Beyond (million dog) marches and congressmen changing their mind on things because their dog is gay, one simply finds themselves wishing these scenarios were, well, funny. Witherspoon fares the best out of everyone in the same way that a shirt with a dirty spot looks cleaner when washed but doesn't really get rid of the spot. The cheery disposition presented here only works to the fishbowl level of sitcom times here, where one would rather see more scenes between her and Wilson because of the interesting dynamic between sunny charm and a dry Wilson. Sally Field (accompanied by a goofy wig) seems lost with material that has her say at one point "don't worry Bob, I'll get her ... and her little dog too." At least the secret adversary mentor in the first film was suitable for what was needed. Here, she seems there more for name recognition and a nice check rather than something useable. King plays the snooty foil that was already done before in the first film, and it is evident that nothing really changes for the better beyond what you already know what is going to happen in bla-bla land that King can't elevate too much. Newhart as a doorman with key knowledge to help Witherspoon in the ways of politicking sounds like the lead to a joke, but this is one is at the expense of the audience who find themselves rolling their eyes at whatever paycheck was used to waste his time here. McGill is nice and dandy in the easy cliche role, one that might have been a better fit for the second lead role rather than Field in terms of smarminess...instead he gets to play a guy swayed in protecting dogs from getting animal tested because damn it he loves his gay big dog. As a whole, the original movie has been dissected and had some of its aspects repeated here within a fish-out-of-water story where the lead gradually wins the respect of her peers with her can-do attitude to adapting to the environment that uses her know-how (i.e. fashion sense) to get what she aims to do before giving a speech at the end while everything goes exactly right for her. It is the equivalent of chewing gum for 95 minutes, where one will find a bit of sweet release on two points: the one moment where chewing it is cool, and the moment when you finally decide enough is enough and spit it out. Folks big on the original might find something okay with this one, but others would do better to look elsewhere.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.

Review #1724: Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.

Cast: 

Johnny Depp (Captain Jack Sparrow), Geoffrey Rush (Barbossa), Orlando Bloom (Will Turner), Keira Knightley (Elizabeth Swann), Jack Davenport (Norrington), Jonathan Pryce (Governor Weatherby Swann), Kevin McNally (Joshamee Gibbs), Lee Arenberg (Pintel), Mackenzie Crook (Ragetti), Zoe Saldana (Anamaria), David Bailie (Cotton), and Greg Ellis (Officer) Directed by Gore Verbinski (#140 - The Ring (2002) and #1557 - Rango)

Review: 

The movie is based on the theme park ride of the same name (which had originated at the original Disneyland in Anaheim in 1967). It was the second theatrical movie to be made by Disney based on one of their rides, which they started with Mission to Mars (2000) that was followed by films such as The Country Bears (2002); of course, while Pirates is the only one of these theme parks to have more than one feature, Disney has continued to mine the depths for further attempts, judging by the release of Jungle Cruise this year. Perhaps it seems strange that folks in the film industry thought this would be a flop on release. Pirate movies were not exactly high in demand at the time, since there had not been a wildly successful pirate film since the 1950s, and not even Disney was entirely confident in having Depp as its star, because one supposes that his reputation was more suited for cult favorites (which amuses me greatly); incidentally, Depp's desire to work with Disney was actually because he wanted to star in one of their animated features. At any rate, Disney at one point in time had to convince themselves to not simply make the film as a direct-to-video product (imagine the title pirate being played by Christopher Walken...or Cary Elwes!). However, producer Jerry Bruckheimer (known for various blockbuster films such as Top Gun) stayed firm with making a big budget movie that could compete with all of those other blockbusters (well, this was 2003), and it was his persistence to keep on with keeping the concept art going that convinced Michael Eisner (the CEO of the Walt Disney Company at the time) to not cancel the project after seeing said designs; he was grousing about the idea of spending so much money (to which Bruckheimer stated that his competitors were spending $150 million), although Eisner did have one other point in trying to eliminate more ties to the park-ride. Of course, there were plenty of casting ideas. Can one really imagine Robert De Niro as the lead? The original story idea came from three executives at the company (Brigham Taylor, Michael Haynes and Josh Harmon); Jay Wolpert was brought in to write a script based on the ride in 2001, while Stuart Beattie would be brought in the following year for the piracy angle in re-writes (to add on to the lead discussion, Beattie wrote the script with Hugh Jackman in mind). Bringing in Jerry Bruckheimer to produce the movie certainly helped, because he did not want a straight pirate movie. Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio (best known for their contributions to film scripts such as Aladdin (1992) and Shrek (2001)) were brought in to provide re-writes, since they had an interest in providing a supernatural angle to a pirate film; Wolpert, Beattie, Elliott, and Rossio each received a story credit, with the latter two receiving credit for the screenplay. 

What can I say that hasn't been said? It is a blockbuster, one that is wrapped to the gills in adventure and interest that proved to be the big ship movie for its year and ultimately its era (with apologies to Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, which is a better overall movie, but each are pretty good to spend time with). Who better to see a 18th century pirate and think the best parallel to said figure is a rock star? The movie has its edges of camp with eventful performances without becoming a silly parody or one that loses the plot, making a fine homage to the classic adventure flicks of the past while managing to stay relevant in the art of not seeming like an overt bland copy (albeit with the modern habits of trying to stuff oneself with fights on fights, or at least it seems like the modern choice for it, if you know what I mean). It is Depp that dominates the movie in curiosity, as one has already guessed. He has a daring spirit that coasts through the film with tremendous timing and swagger that certainly seems to have all the charisma the film needs (amusingly, Eisner actually thought upon seeing rushes that he was drunk); there just wasn't a pirate like the one that Depp brought onto the screen. Rush delivers well as the other piratical presence, broad and fun with needs to happen in those moments spent playing against either Knightley or Depp, having it what it takes to make a worthy adversarial presence that keeps attention without bluster. Bloom and Knightley aren't lost in the proceedings, however. For one thing, Bloom has what it takes to play the pent-up angle without looking lost (i.e. channeling a tiny bit of the Errol Flynn spirit), and this of course includes the time spent with a sword, naturally. Knightley partakes in the curiosity with spry athleticism and worthy enough timing to keep up that proves for a worthy result. Davenport and Pryce play the straight angle (wigs and all), and for the most part that works out for a few little moments of dry interest, which works fine when it comes to scenes spent either on wood or other things. There are quite a few worthy character presences here that keep the film light on its toes for useful interest, mostly in the case of McNally. As a whole, it proves interesting in its attempts to make a by-the-blows adventure ride of a film, which work out well for the most part.  Of course, it does prove a bit packed at 143 minutes (which is somehow longer than the aforementioned Master film), but one can at least see where all the adventure can lead to, whether that ranges from CG undead pirates to various other moments. It doesn't raise the bar for adventure movies or even CGI spectacles, but it at least serves its purpose well, and it does indeed make the curiosity grow for just where one can go with a curious lead actor and a hodgepodge of folks to engage in piratical spectacle.

 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World.

Review #1627: Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World.

Cast: 

Russell Crowe (Captain Jack Aubrey), Paul Bettany (Dr. Stephen Maturin, Surgeon), James D'Arcy (1st Lt. Tom Pullings), Edward Woodall (2nd Lt. William Mowett), Chris Larkin (Capt. Howard, Royal Marines), Max Pirkis (Blakeney, Midshipman), Jack Randall (Boyle, Midshipman), Max Benitz (Calamy, Midshipman), Lee Ingleby (Hollom, Midshipman), Richard Pates (Williamson, Midshipman), Robert Pugh (Mr. Allen, Master), Richard McCabe (Mr. Higgins, Surgeon's Mate), Ian Mercer (Mr. Hollar, Boatswain), Tony Dolan (Mr. Lamb, Carpenter), and David Threlfall (Preserved Killick, Captain's Steward) Directed by Peter Weir (#960 - The Year of Living Dangerously, #1185 - Witness, and #1519 - The Truman Show)

Review: 

"Peter Weir's film is brilliant. An exacting, detail oriented, epic tale of fidelity to Empire & service, regardless of the cost. Incredible cinematography by Russell Boyd & a majestic soundtrack. Definitely an adults movie." - Russell Crowe

The sea epic is a tough task to get right, when you think about it. This is a film that spends over 80% of its time on the water that is an interesting curiosity: a booming studio epic that received notice from audiences but stands on its own sealegs as a stand-alone adventure (in other words, a film that a studio liked in counting the profits but not like all the way to go back again into the well). It's a shame too, because it ended up overshadowed by a certain other film involving ships and spectacle in the same year that inspired a franchise despite being adapted from a theme park ride (Pirates of the Caribbean). With this one, it is a loose adaptation of the Aubrey-Maturin series (named for the two main focuses in a ship captain and naval surgeon/spy, respectively), a collection of works done by Patrick O'Brien (who reportedly wrote his works with ink and quill). The British author wrote twenty complete novels over the course of thirty years (with an incomplete work at the time of O'Brian's death in 2000 being released four years later). The script, written by Peter Weir and John Collee, takes elements from several novels of the series, ranging from the first novel in Master and Commander to The Far Side of the World. The series was noted for their attention to detail with naval jargon alongside the depiction of numerous events that occur in the 19th century (primarily with the Napoleonic Wars), with O'Brien drawing from the exploits of commanders such as Horatio Nelson alongside research of The Naval Chronicle that dealt with detail about the lives and battles involving members of the Royal Navy.

What can one expect for a film that starts with a opening text that describes the ocean as a battlefield? Quite a bit, actually. We have a film that took measures to recreate a man-of-war alongside having a replica mounted on gimbals in a large tank to go with digital rendering (most notably with the USS Constitution, turned into a French vessel - incidentally, The Fortune of War, O'Brien's sixth work in the series, depicts the ship in battle) that certainly compares relatively well with Weir's previous output of work that was quite eclectic (this was his 13th film, with his next one being seven years later). Weir (who also served as a producer) knows what he wants from his actors when it comes to trying to make an engaging spectacle of leadership and camaraderie come across without lingering on cliché or seeming dull with its 138 minute run-time. It certainly is easy to see why an actor like Crowe or anyone with his flair for adventure would enjoy this film, because it appeals to the curiosity that a youth or an adult can have about history or strategy in leadership (in that sense, one could think about Star Trek, since it took inspiration from another sea-faring novel series just as famous with C. S. Forester's Horatio Hornblower). Granted, it isn't the kind of film that can be digested for those lacking patience or perhaps something more than the sea (such as say a smart mouthed pirate), but it has a great look and sound that really will make one believe they are in a 19th century ship trying to do the impossible. I don't think it sells each and every breath-taking moment, but it certainly will prove enough for those with the disposition for it. Crowe certainly grabs the lead role with the confidence required to make the film his own without suffocating it with brutish cliché or being overwhelmed by the sense of being the man of the moment that could be thought of as having the aura of a performance from a war film (besides, one of the most famous lines about every man expected to their duty for England came from Nelson). Bettany follows along with useful enterprise, one with dutiful interest that goes with Crowe in interesting sync with each other in terms of friendship that makes for a few stirring moments of interest, with the operation sequence (involving surgery on oneself to the look of his friend) probably being the best highlight. The rest of the actors do well in filling the spirit of what is needed in a ship adventure: stories to tell besides being on the cannon or clutching a post in water, whether that means strong quiet types like D'Arcy or youthful presences like Benitz and Perkins or established elder presence with Innes to carry the tension and leave the film on fine shoulders. One gets to see a rousing sea battle without too much warning for its opening act alongside cat-and-mouse tactics of ship faring and even a bit of time spent in the Galapagos Islands, and it ultimately results in a messy (in the right way) climax between two ships that closes itself with a hint for continuing pursuits in the sea without having to shake your head for it. It proves to be one of the unsung heroes of entertaining epics - interesting for those who like to see details and respect play out in a film on its own terms that leaves it to imagination for adventure that makes a pretty good time for those who seek what it wants to show with good reason.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

House of 1000 Corpses.

Review #1590: House of 1000 Corpses.

Cast: 

Sid Haig (Captain Spaulding), Bill Moseley (Otis), Sheri Moon Zombie (Baby), Karen Black (Mother Firefly), Chris Hardwick (Jerry Goldsmith), Erin Daniels (Denise Willis), Jennifer Jostyn (Mary Knowles), Rainn Wilson (Bill Hudley), Walton Goggins (Steve Naish), Tom Towles (Deputy George Wydell), Matthew McGrory (Tiny), Robert Allen Mukes (Rufus), Dennis Fimple (Grandpa Hugo), Harrison Young (Don Willis), William Bassett (Sheriff Frank Huston), Irwin Keyes (Ravelli), and Michael J. Pollard (Stucky) Written and Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007))

Review: 

"The first film I directed, which people seems to love, is just a calamitous mess. Well, when it came out it seemed like everyone hated it. Now everyone acts like it’s beloved in some way. All I see is flaw, upon flaw, upon flaw… upon flaw.”

Sure, there have been quite a few directors that came across film after having made a name for themselves with another form of media. But how many were musician-turned-directors? Rob Zombie (born Robert Cummings) is one such director. He grew up with an three-pronged fantasy of being like Alice Cooper, Steven Spielberg and Stan Lee, having grown up with an interest in horror as a young child, noting the boom of horror in the late 1960s with media that ranged from The Munsters to magazines like Famous Monsters, although other favorites later included Dawn of the Dead (1978) and Westerns. The Massachusetts native attended both the Pratt Institute and the Parsons School of Design for a time before coming up with the idea for what became the band White Zombie in 1985, which he co-founded with Sean Yseult. Alongside others in the band, they contributed four albums over the next thirteen years, eventually finding recognition for their heavy metal sound, with Zombie directing the music videos. His first album after going solo was influenced by classic horror films (complete with some songs having samples and quotes from his favorites) while also doing work for various media (including animation for Beavis and Butt-Head Do America in 1996). He expressed an interest in directing in 1997, with an actual plan to have him write and direct a sequel to The Crow (set in 2037, I kid you not) before it was shelved. He worked with Universal Studios in designing a haunted maze attraction in 1999, and it was its success that led to them wanting to work with him on a film (thought of on the spot while designing another attraction), which he started directing in 2000. The resulting film did not please Universal, who shelved it in fears of receiving a NC-17 rating due to its violence (an Adults Only rating, as if Universal decided releasing a violent horror film was suddenly too much) before Lionsgate Films eventually signed on to release it, with this serving as the first of so far seven theatrical films directed and written by Zombie.

One can see the influence of films such as The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) and Spider Baby (1968) while also seeing the drive-in qualities that make a gritty and weird experience. Is it for everyone? You best believe it isn't for everyone, because for some it will feel tedious even at 89 minutes for where it wants to go in the art of the grotesque, a film that seems constricted by its influences to be anything more original. On the other hand, there are arguments to be made in favor of Zombie and his direction (alongside co-contribution to the music with Scott Humphrey) when it comes to his mix of horror and dark humor with ghoulish charm, which is why it has proved to have a cult following (alongside two sequels released in 2005 and 2019). I can firmly state that while it may not be exactly as well-developed as something like say Motel Hell (1980), I found enjoyment with its vision of macabre thrill and a fairly consistent cast to make it a worthwhile effort. I found it to be pretty enjoyable, in the sense that it made a madhouse worth investing time to look into without being driven senseless into gore without something to go along with it, even if it isn't exactly the most subtle horror film (its setting of the 1970s is believable to those who want to pretend it looks like that era). To start off, one goes with the first focus-point in Haig, the actor-turned-hypnotherapist-turned actor again (going from blaxploitation and heavy roles to horror). He mainly has three scenes to highlight, but he sure makes them ones to enjoy in ghoulish curiosity, amusing but effective in keeping you on your toes (he, alongside Moseley and S.Zombie, would feature in both sequels). Mosley (best known for his role in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986) alongside other cult horror films) proves just as fiendish in grabbing attention to creep on one's shoulders, demented but useful to what is needed from him. S.Zombie (a dance choreographer and fashion designer that has featured in each of her husband's films) does fine with providing wicked allure for what is needed here, wrapped in terror just like the others that holds well with other fellow familiar actors in horror, such as the case with Black (long noted for work in independent films alongside horror fare), soothing but just as out there with the other members of family creeps (one that seems reminiscent of the Mansion family, what with Zombie inspired by recordings of them for the rants presented here). The other side of the action is the doomed travelers, which is mostly amusing to think back to the faces that eventually found prominence beyond horror, which involves Wilson, eventual star of The Office (2005) and Hardwick, comedian and podcast host (if one is into that sort of thing...no comment). They, alongside Daniels and Jostyn are just fine, in a room temperature kind of charm. I mean, we're watching a haunted ride of ghoulish people that murder people, the least one can do is make sure we aren't taken out of the experience with some jarring seriousness or bland set-ups for body counts. In that sense, I found it to be just enough to win out in the end, despite my reservations about its unwieldy consistency, which may seem like an excuse for Zombie to show off with references or in its weird cuts to those who desire more. It is exactly the kind of weird drive-in charm that makes Zombie an interesting face in horror cinema, one with a passion for the genre that yearns to creep its viewers out to their enjoyment (whether squeamish or not). It's a love it or hate it kind of movie - and I'm just fine with what it is.

Well, it's November 7th. I'm glad to have reached just as many films done in the week following Halloween as it was for the year before with five, and I hope you enjoyed Halloween: The Week After Part II. You can always throw suggestions in for horror films to be done any time of the year, but it is fun to make time for ones to really highlight in the month of fear alongside my personal extension week - enjoy the fun. There may or may not be another themed week coming up before the year ends, so stay tuned.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Cold Mountain.

Review #1536: Cold Mountain.

Cast: 
Jude Law (William "W. P." Inman), Nicole Kidman (Ada Monroe), Renée Zellweger (Ruby Thewes), Eileen Atkins (Maddy), Brendan Gleeson (Stobrod Thewes), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Reverend Solomon Veasey), Natalie Portman (Sara), Giovanni Ribisi (Junior), Donald Sutherland (Reverend Monroe), Ray Winstone (Teague), Kathy Baker (Sally Swanger), James Gammon (Esco Swanger), Charlie Hunnam (Bosie), Jack White (Georgia), and Ethan Suplee (Pangle) Written and Directed by Anthony Minghella.

Review: 
"I had never thought of myself as a director and found out that I was not. I am a writer who was able to direct the films that I write."

Writers matter to a good film, particularly ones that happen to direct it as well. Minghella had aspirations of playing music prior to going to the University of Hull, playing in a couple of bands at keyboard that credited writing songs as a precursor to writing plays (once stating that he saw his early plays as "being a format for music"). His first film came at the age of 24 that was filmed in his native Isle of Wight in under three weeks with A Little Like Drowning (1978). His studies in drama led to graduation from there before attempting to study for a doctoral thesis (with his big influence as a writer being Samuel Beckett) alongside lecturing at the school for a few years. He moved himself to writing for television for the BBC and ITV alongside doing his own plays and adaptations by the 1980s, which did receive notice, although it was Truly, Madly, Deeply (1990) that proved important, since it went from being made initially for television to being given a theatrical release that resulted in praise. His time spent adapting The English Patient to film in 1996 resulted in tremendous audience and critical favor. Before his untimely death in 2008, Minghella directed seven features while also serving as producer for several other films and doing work on the board for the British Film Institute.

This was Minghella's sixth feature film, and it is an adaptation of the 1997 novel of the same name by Charles Frazier, who loosely based it off the service of William P. Inman, a member of the 25th Infantry Regiment in North Carolina that Frazier has stated is his great-grand uncle. There have been quite a few war romance films that try to carry a torrid romance into an odyssey where the time spent together is just more lasting than the segments involving war (with the despair of said war being right there as well). This is basically right in the middle of quality in terms of epics, handling itself well in style and occasional moments of inspiration that cloud over its expected glacial pace and decent splitting of narratives that is best suited for seeing its supporting characters from time to time in the fields of North Carolina (or more specifically, Romania) for 154 minutes. I wish I liked the film enough to really call it good, but I at least get why it could prove more satisfying for those who seek it out. Law does just fine with a capable element of conviction in keeping level with evoking some level of quiet range that handles courtship and war just fine. Kidman, handling the other storyline of a film that needs to handle yearning alongside farm trouble, does just alright in tender care for drama that basically works out decent chemistry with Law in that we do generally await to see what happens next. Zellweger however proves the most interesting in generating a resourceful performance that shows some humor alongside resilience despite only showing up in the movie an hour into obviously dire proceedings. Gleeson provides a warm presence to otherwise dour times, while Hoffman and Portman make momentary appearances and do fine with they need to run with, while others such as Winstone seem really lacking in time needed. Honestly, while I do note the fact that there are quite a few films that can utilize two-and-a-half-hours for well effect and the fair performances here, I just only see a decent movie that seems a bit cold to me in being anything other than just careful in treading the waters of what you might already know about brutal wars and romances that are just too much for anyone to stay put and so on and so forth. It reminds me of what a good copy of a lost painting done from fairly accurate recollection - on the surface it looks nice and could probably pass for a classic, but if you look at it a little bit more you just might see it as just fine. In any case, it sweeps the board with fair flourish that will entertain those looking for what it yearns to show in passion and style that will win admirers in the art of patience or for its particular brand of telling said story more than those who don't find it as well-meaning.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.