A Sound of Thunder.

Review #2477: A Sound of Thunder.

Cast: 

Edward Burns (Travis Ryer), Catherine McCormack (Sonia Rand), David Oyelowo (Marcus Payne), Ben Kingsley (Charles Hatton), Jemima Rooper (Jenny Krase), Wilfried Hochholdinger (Dr. Lucas), August Zirner (Clay Derris), Corey Johnson (Christian Middleton), Heike Makatsch (Alicia Wallenbeck), Armin Rohde (John Wallenbeck), and William Armstrong (Ted Eckels) Directed by Peter Hyams (#233 - 2010: The Year We Make Contact, #326 - Timecop)

Review: 

Hey, ever read A Sound of Thunder? Well, there were rumblings of making a film adaptation of Ray Bradbury's short story of the same name (as originally published in 1952) since at least 2000, when Renny Harlin and Pierce Brosnan were tapped to work on it for Franchise Pictures, with Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer tapped to write the script (Gregory Poirier later worked on the screenplay to get credit with the duo, known for co-adapting Sahara). They wanted to fast-track production before a possible actor strike, but the following year saw Harlin taken out for Peter Hyams and eventually Edward Burns was cast over Brosnan, who wanted re-writes. Franchise Pictures went down under during post-production, which got in the way of a movie that was meant to be $55 million. In 2004, Franchise filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The movie was being filmed in Prague when an actual flood hit the area that saw re-scheduling and a post-production that went on for nearly two years. Previsualized software (and sub-contracted work) was used to basically save time what became a nightmare. This was the 18th feature film for Peter Hyams, who had previously started the 2000s off with The Musketeer (2001), which didn't exactly rock the world. After this, he made two more movies: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (2009), a movie that may actually have even less of a reputation than this movie, and Enemies Closer (2013), a film that had a limited US release; the then-66 year old also shot for Universal Soldier: Regeneration (2009), as directed by his son.

In the future of 2055...people spend money to go back in time to wait for a guy to tell them when they can shoot a dinosaur dead. Sure. It almost seems too easy to say this movie is really, really bad. There's something to be said about a movie that talks about "time waves" and "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" with the confidence that audiences would just accept the malarkey that comes across for a mess in both visuals and as a time travel movie. What you get here is a bland movie, one that has a handful of bad green screen effects and dopey-looking creature effects that would've seemed ripe for an Irwin Allen movie. But even if the effects were magical or invoked some sort of interest, it was not going to override the lack of an interesting story that can't really evoke the Bradbury story. The original story wasn't really much besides saying "careful about stepping on something, otherwise everything goes to hell because, that insect was important millions of years ago" (the name of the story came from the firing of a rifle), but here you get a movie where for whatever reason the changes to the timeline happen from wave to wave that makes plants and stuff grow weirdly. All from a mess-up where trying to shoot up a dinosaur that was planned to die (notice how shooting the gun doesn't have an effect on the stuff around the dinosaur). With how the characters have to go on a trip to see who messed up with the stepped-on thing, I wonder if someone watched The Warriors a bit too much. It also lacks an interesting hero or villain to really latch on to, and that's even with the presence of a white-haired Kingsley. Burns might as well be transparent with how he brings nothing to the table as the lead focus: there isn't a sense of guilt or adventure to anything he goes through, and McCormack can't actually make the consequences of time travel seem compelling either. You would think Kingsley would know better than to do stuff like this, but between him trying to be "funny" here and a "villain" in BloodRayne (2005), I suppose money does win out. The others don't end up any better, mostly being used to basically serve as fodder (given that the ending never seems in doubt, obviously the dead-count is back to zero). There just isn't anything to laugh with in terms of humor or anything to really gawk at for interest, and the climax is all about...using a few seconds to say the right thing and save the insect. As a whole, even when knowing that the film took years and years to actually realize its vision, there is no slice of hope to be found here with how bland and uninvolving it all is.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Twisted Pair.

Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist.

Review #2467: Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist.

Cast: 

Stellan Skarsgård (Father Lankester Merrin), Gabriel Mann (Father Francis), Clara Bellar (Rachel Lesno), Billy Crawford (Cheche), Ralph Brown (Sergeant Major), Israel Aduramo (Jomo), Andrew French (Chuma), Antonie Kamerling (Kessel), Julian Wadham (Major Granville), Eddie Osei (Emekwi), with Rick Warden (Corporal Williams), and Mary Beth Hurt (Pazuzu) Directed by Paul Schrader (#2290 - Cat People [1982])

Review: 

"I’m happy with the film. I realize its limitations. I realize that I made a film with a problematic commercial premise. Now, it may be a quality film, but there was no way this film was gonna go out and break box office records. Not gonna happen. Now the truth is, if they had tarted up my movie, cut it with some gore, done a misleading ad campaign, not shown it to critics, did a huge television [campaign], which is what they did for Renny’s film, they probably could have made somewhere in the same vicinity of money...But, I’m much happier having the film that I made exist in the form that I made it in rather than some tarted-up version I’d have to disown."

Exorcist: The Beginning was such a flop that Paul Schrader actually saw the film on opening weekend with William Peter Blatty and stated, "This is really bad. If it stays this bad, I bet there's a chance I can get mine resurrected." While Warner Bros. planned to give Schrader's film a direct-to-video release, Morgan Creek "generously" let Schrader do a limited theatrical release of his version, specifically a small amount of time and money to refine things (examples include that most of the music is recycled from the Harlin film and a lack of time to do ADR and color timing work). Tim Silano was approached to edit the movie but he insisted that Schrader be around to oversee it. Schrader, in seeing the nature of the Harlin film, went for "a little more leisurely" edit rather than the staccato cut he had done prior (the final movie was 116 minutes, which happened to be two minutes longer than The Beginning). Caleb Carr (who once called Schrader's original cut "one of the most inept, amateur, utterly flat excuses for a film that has ever been concocted") and William Wisher Jr were the only writers given credit for the screenplay. With a limited release in a few theaters (the same weekend as Revenge of the Sith) the movie was at least seen by people the way it should have been: not on the direct-to-video bargain bin; Schrader later called the experience as one he shouldn't have done, complete with saying he "got suckered". The Exorcist was not done being pillaged for new material, as a television series came and went in the 2010s before a new film came out with David Gordon Green's The Exorcist: Believer (2023), a movie that, you guessed it, paled in comparison to the original. 

It may interest you to know that Schrader once called The Exorcist "the greatest metaphor in cinema - God and the Devil in the same room arguing over the body of a little girl." The two Exorcist prequels basically run from the same start and end points with diverging ways to get there: a priest with a crisis of faith (1947/1949) encounters something in the midst of his time in Derati (British Kenya) that challenges who he is before he regains his faith. You could say that Blatty had a point in calling this film a "handsome, classy, elegant piece of work" while also noting that it can only go so far in trying to live up to its namesake. Both movies show Merrin have his faith shaken after being terrorized by a Nazi that has him choose people to die rather than see a whole group get taken out but this one starts with it rather than show it in parts as before. But here he is now an archaeologist that happens to find a buried church in Kenya, complete with having the exorcism target be a youth who goes from crippled to far more walkable by the time the effects (not quite finished, but hey) show up for a movie that at least tried to take evil seriously (before the loin cloth, anyway, that is when I start to chuckle). It is curious to see Skarsgård again hold up an Exorcist movie with the best performance, mainly because there is something to ponder in seeing one try to pick up the pieces of their faith with conviction that does at least make you believe he would be ready for what could happen next in say, The Exorcist. I guess you could say Mann provides the one supporting presence in either of these movies that is worth a glance, even if his role is mostly a whimpering one in the eyes of guilt (both movies end the same way for him anyway).You could say that the depiction of the military intruding upon the natives imitating what Merrin saw in the war is a curious one, but even then, it feels a bit polite when one is talking about evil (Merrin isn't exactly much better, at one point he wants people to work really really hard to dig out that church). I really wanted to like the movie, but there is a hollow feeling I get when watching the movie, it just doesn't feel nearly as tense or as interesting as it wishes to be in "angst". Schrader just seemed more interested in personal angst with Cat People and it also just seemed like a more well-rounded film. As a whole, Dominion holds up better as an overall movie than The Beginning, but neither movie really moves the needle on belonging as an actual prequel to The Exorcist. In their travels from finding faith through an exorcism, Dominion is mild in execution and altogether not as curious as it really feels like it should be, but it at least is entertainment when compared to the slop of Beginning. Pick your poison, I suppose.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

Review #2375: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

Cast: 

Robert Downey Jr (Harold "Harry" Lockhart), Val Kilmer ("Gay" Perry van Shrike), Michelle Monaghan (Harmony Faith Lane), Corbin Bernsen (Harlan Dexter), Dash Mihok (Mr. Frying Pan), Larry Miller (Dabney Shaw), Rockmond Dunbar (Mr. Fire), and Shannyn Sossamon (Mia Frye (Pink Hair Girl) Directed by Shane Black (#396 - Iron Man 3)

Review: 

"I have always assumed that in a very over compensatory way that I will come back tomorrow and the treasures will be gone. Then you have those days when you have not written for a while, you are a bit rusty and you think the vault is empty. Eventually you have to take a leap of faith. But I have never been too big on faith. Deep down I hope I have this overall positivism within. I have faith in life’s ability to provide terrific crescendos but there is also this nagging certain that what awaits me are these horrible pitfalls."

It sure has been a while since we talked about Shane Black. The UCLA Drama School graduate rose to prominence with a spec script he manage to sell to Warner Bros... which ended up being Lethal Weapon (1986). Well, okay, that isn't the whole story. For one, the Pittsburgh native actually had an interested in hardboiled fiction from his printer father before he went to UCLA for film, and while he liked to write from a young age, it was his friend Fred Dekker who inspired him to go for a living in the film industry by showing him a script he was doing. He worked as a typist and in data entry before his "The Shadow Company" script had gotten an agent and executives to basically guide him to do something for them, and, well, Lethal Weapon (among other observations)*. His first draft for the sequel (which was darker in tone that basically is referenced here) was not accepted, and he had lingering doubts in his confidence, but he followed this with scripts that got turned into movies with The Last Boy Scout (1991), a re-write of Last Action Hero (1993), and The Long Kiss Goodnight (1994). The relatively quiet reception to that script led to Black being disillusioned for a number of years. When he decided to try and write a script different from his usual stuff with a romantic comedy, he asked James L. Brooks for advice (Brooks apparently told Black that he "always pictured [Black] doing something like Chinatown which was character driven with a lot of twists") but found that the only way to solve his problems with the script was to make it a movie about a murder with detectives. The script, which was inspired by the 1940s novel Bodies Are Where You Find Them by Brett Halliday, ended up at Warner Bros. with Joel Silver (already familiar with Black in previous ventures) as producer; with a budget of $15 million, the movie wasn't a big hit at the time, but Robert Downey Jr called the movie "my calling card to Iron Man". Black would next direct (and write) with Iron Man 3 in 2013.

Admittedly, it is a shaggy type of neo-noir that balances its 103-minute runtime with varying levels of humor and enjoyment that comes from such a curious ensemble and style on screen. Far from just being a namedropping tribute (note the titles for its "chapters"), it goes and coasts in shrouding mystery and sharp amusement that may not be a great movie at first glance but sure is at least a good enough time to possibly encounter again anyways. Downey Jr** in particular seems to be having a fun time as a crook that is wrapped up in the growing hijinks that arise in overbearing people and situations and handles it with worthy timing (it helps to narrate the movie at times to general chuckling). We roll along with things just as Downey does in being quick on one's feet to make for a delightfully clumsy guy to follow along with. Apparently, it was Kilmer who suggested that his character should be gay (with Black being fine with a character that is going to kick the door down, gay or not). Obviously, Kilmer knew what he was doing in terms of matching Downey in pace and timing that has passion for what he does in terms of results that breezes through the film in a way that buddy films could only dream to have. Monaghan accompanies the proceedings with peppy charm that has enough of a curious rapport with Downey Jr to balance the movie out beyond the procedures that come in mystery without needing to go to all of the obvious romcom things. Bernsen lurks in the ground probably not nearly as much one might want to see, but he lingers enough to sell the trick that comes in looking past appearances and smiles while Mihok and Dunbar make for useful henchmen to pop in and out as well. In general, the movie does coast along with charm that eventually levels its machinations for a suitable enough climax with fair closure that at least lets the audience have the satisfaction in being on the ride without throwing out on their end, if you know what I mean. As a whole, Black's debut as a director works out the best in having enough charm from its main cast in hardboiled chuckles to make this a worthwhile recommendation for those looking for a little bit of everything.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Okay, there was also The Monster Squad and acting but blah blah blah, get on with it, right?

**Noted at the time for slowly making his way out of addictions rather than say, previous noirs like The Singing Detective (2003) or his Academy Award nominated role in Chaplin.

BloodRayne.

Review #2317: BloodRayne.

Cast: 

Kristanna Loken (Rayne), Michael Madsen (Vladimir), Ben Kingsley (Kagan), Michelle Rodriguez (Katarin), Matthew Davis (Sebastian), Will Sanderson (Domastir), Geraldine Chaplin (Fortune Teller), Udo Kier (Regal Monk), Meat Loaf (Leonid), Michael Paré (Iancu), and Billy Zane (Elrich) Directed by Uwe Boll (#1765 - In the Name of the King, #1924 - Alone in the Dark, #2144 - House of the Dead)

Review: 

I forgot that Boll wanted to be a filmmaker because he saw Mutiny on the Bounty as a kid...the Marlon Brando version. This was the third film in what you might as well call the Boll Gaming Cycle that came in the wake of House of the Dead and Alone in the Dark (2005). The movie is based on the action-adventure game series of the same name, which began in 2002 involving various locations being visited by a member of the "brimstone Society" to deal with supernatural creatures and Nazis. An "unrated" director's cut came out on DVD, incidentally, which apparently came out with a copy of BloodRayne 2 on it (incidentally, the series has had just one game released since the film came out). The next video game movie Boll did for theaters was In the Name of the King (2007). You might recognize that the screenplay was written by Guinevere Turner, who apparently delivered a first draft a few weeks late that Boll went right in to pick and choose what to use immediately (which was apparently 20%) for the actors to apparently take a crack at it. While the movie was a financial failure, Boll would direct two sequels for the direct-to-video market: BloodRayne 2: Deliverance (2007) and BloodRayne: The Third Reich (2011), in which only Michael Paré appears in each film of the "trilogy". 

It probably goes without saying that Boll has not managed to achieve anything in the manner of effective entertainment even when having a video game right there for adaptation. In the aim of blood, dirt, and sex, the success rate is about on the same level as an apple becoming a tomato (one interview had him stating it would possibly be two hours but it ended up being 95 minutes long). It certainly never seems sexy even with its attempts at doing so with leather outfits and I kid you not, hiring actual prostitutes to be in a scene (as one does when filming in Europe). The thing about Boll is that he seems to direct things as if it was a blunt instrument to plow through regardless of who is cast or the scenario. He has a lead actress in Loken that might as well be playing T-X from Terminator 3 all over again. He has a movie where one actor called it an "abomination" that still would say yes to being in another Boll movie. The best parts in the whole movie is either Meat Loaf lounging around with prostitutes or the bits and pieces where Madsen seems interested enough to actually make effort (probably the result of liquid courage, but I can think of worse ways to get through a film). It probably is most amusing to see Zane in the film when you have the whole context: Zane liked being with such a "decisive" director even in a small role and he apparently gave Boll the idea to use Romar Entertainment (which Zane was involved with) as a way to handle distribution of the film to a target of 2,000 theaters...only 950 theaters ended up getting the film on opening day and Boll later sued Zane (incidentally, Zane co-starred alongside Loken in Boll's Darfur film, released in 2009). Christian Slater might not be a particularly great actor, but at least him being in the aforementioned Dark film seemed to make sense. But Kingsley? An Academy Award-winning actor wanting to play a vampire deciding to join here? I suppose it must be a British tradition in the Michael Caine sense, but even Caine was better at this, because Kingsley barely delivers actual substance to what is meant to be a villainous role. One sees more effort in the makeup job than from Kingsley, who can't even play to the cheap seats for something funny. The movie is listless and barely seems competent to actually approach what you might call filmmaking. It just feels like a movie patched together, where even a sequence of someone trying to dodge traps (and water, because ooooh, water) has little weight to actually level attention to. The sex scene might actually inspire confusion over how it is staged more than anything, and yet somehow this is a movie that is more tolerable than Bolero (1984), even with all of the godforsaken wigs. As a whole, this is merely just a boring bad flick, not even measuring up to the lesser vampire movies you've probably seen before. It isn't completely incompetent as with some of Boll's previous line of work because it just is blah B-movie stuff that really should not have tried to be anything more. It is dull and goofy in ways that would probably be amusing with a couple of beers for the turkey night, I suppose.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Saw II.

Review #2102: Saw II.

Cast: 

Tobin Bell (Jigsaw / John Kramer), Shawnee Smith (Amanda Young), Donnie Wahlberg (Eric Matthews), Erik Knudsen (Daniel Matthews), Franky G (Xavier), Glenn Plummer (Jonas), Emmanuelle Vaugier (Addison), Beverley Mitchell (Laura), Timothy Burd (Obi), and Dina Meyer (Kerry) Directed by Darren Lynn Bousman.

Review: 

"When I watched the first Saw, it grabbed me because it showed real people put in real situations where they're forced to become monsters. This time, we really focus on Jigsaw, and the fans of the first film are going to get to see the man behind the madness."

As I'm sure you already know, the demand for a sequel to a successful film can lead to some interesting places. Saw (2004) was such a surprise hit that Lionsgate announced plans for a sequel for late October...2005. James Wan and Leigh Whannell were busy developing a film for Universal (the result was Dead Silence, which came out in 2007), but there was a way around that. Concurrently, Darren Lynn Bousman was pitching his script "The Desperate" to studios, but they did not bite on it due to the nature of violence present in the script to go with perceived similarities to Saw. David A. Armstrong, the cinematographer of the first film (who was being asked by Bousman to collaborate with him on said script), suggested that Bousman show the script to Gregg Hoffman, who had produced it with Mark Burg and Oren Koules. They felt that with a few modifications, this would serve as a good one to use for, well, you know. Of course, there was time to recruit Whannell into polishing the script (with input provided by Wan). The resulting success of Saw II was obvious, since Bousman would direct the next two sequels (2006, 2007) alongside Spiral (2021). 

I would say that the sequel is more of a newer model of the same slick machine that came with the first film, which was already a grab-bag of B-movie stuff that happened to have an interesting premise to go with a make-or-break climatic gut punch. It isn't exactly as good as the original, but as a pastiche of a different kind that isn't so reliant of say, Seven (1995), it is a gruesomely effective film in lending perspective with more time spent with Bell that makes for a useful curiosity upon the nature of those who really believe what they say when it comes to making others learn what it means to value life. Granted, the film jumps between him, Wahlberg, and the pursuit of a group of folks trying to make their way out of the house of traps and their own unsavory selves, but the 93-minute runtime seems just about right for the material needed. Actually, I kind of like seeing Wahlberg here, if only because he makes for an obvious mark to play contrast to Bell when it comes to pursuer and the pursued, for which he handles it with that raw sense of pathetic tough-guy quality that actually seems quite amusing. Bell may be confined to sitting around for his scenes (well Jigsaw does have a reason for that), but he still makes the most of it in proving the chilling quality required of someone who believes the only thing he has to lose is not trying at all to live, because having that killer survival instinct is all that matters in the end. The actual dwellers in the house, well, they are basically cut-and-dry, but that seems about on point in a B-movie sense, because the only familiar one obviously ends up being Smith (the key presence returning from the previous film-okay, there is Meyer too, but who do you remember more, a cop figure, or someone who survived a reverse bear trap?), although Franky G does make a quality brute adversary to the proceedings. The traps do prove interesting in the squeamish sense, probably best represented by a pit of syringes. At any rate, it is a leisurely good time for those who were totally fine with where the first film went with traps and the people that inhabited it because of their perceived failings in instinct or above, complete with a climax that straddles the line of clever and "okay, maybe a bit too clever" that would set the stage for what I'm sure would be another sequel of more elaborate ways of offbeat ways to show people at the weirdest when it comes to traps or twists. Well, as long as you don't pull the rug away, you have my interest.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1931.

Double Down.

Review #1925: Double Down

Cast: 

Neil Breen (Aaron Brand), Laura Hale (Megan), Mike Brady (Agent), Robert DiFrancesco (Agent), Bonnie Carmalt (Bride), George Kerr (Old Man), Maynard Mahler (Father), Rose Mahler (Mother), Marry Taylor (Senator), Alan Rogers (Director of the FBI), Huel Washington (Homeland Security Director), and Bill Frid (Director of the CIA) Written, Produced, and Directed by Neil Breen (#1767 - Fateful Findings)

Review: 

I am sure you remember Neil Breen, the filmmaker of movies bad enough for the Internet to turn him into an offbeat folk hero who has released five films (soon to be six, as announced on his YouTube page last month) as director, writer, and star. All of his films have been made on an extremely low budget, going from being an architect and real-estate estate agent to filmmaker, with this film being shot around Nevada as the first of his feature film career. Granted, Fateful Findings (2013) is one he is most notable for when it comes to schlock enjoyment, but one really should consider starting at the beginning. Hell, judging from his Twitter account, members of the MENSA Institute are apparently fans of his films and invited him to speak at one of their meetings. How can you not have curiosity for a director that uses an AOL account for emails? The common theme for these films evidently deals with supernatural events, government conspiracies, and loneliness. As the credits state, Breen was the musical director, co-editor, production manager, casting agent, and the catering man, while there was no lighting, make-up or hair. A reminder: his current last film could be bought for over 20 bucks ($28.95 domestic, $39.95 international - no subtitles!), but you can't even buy this film online, unless one happens to find a good print on the Web. Breen's second film would be released in 2009 with I Am Here ... Now, which had Breen play a cybernetic deity.

I sometimes wonder if Breen (who was apparently in his mid 40s when making this film) is actually writing subliminal fan fiction of himself in the same way that Tom Laughlin did with his hacky Billy Jack movies. It is a vanity project of the weirdest order. Wrapped within conspiracies is a lead "hero" character in a movie filled with black-and-white morality. This is the kind of movie where a married couple targeted for death shoot themselves rather than get murdered by our lead hero, who in a later scene is seen putting his military medals on a denim vest (with a Purple Heart!). Hell, Breen is playing a guy that eats a lot of canned tuna and has a shield that keeps him safe while living in the middle of the desert, and he tests out anthrax by putting some of it in a lake with fish in it! You dwell on the weird stuff he does rather than the fact that this is a guy getting to play a hacker agent that is the most talented ever that can control computers with gloves that could hold governments hostage with biological bombs (as told to us in voiceover, which accompanies the whole movie). You could list a whole bunch of silly things: the first 18 minutes of a 93-minute movie pass before anyone besides Breen says a word, you get to see him talk to his parents in Heaven and possibly cure someone of cancer, a lady hired to distract a guy as a hooker, red Ferraris, slow montage of a man walking down a mountain to start the movie, I think you get the idea. The only way to watch this movie is by accepting the absurdity in all of its ironic form. I would rather watch five Neil Breen movies than five Alone in the Dark (2005) movies, so I guess that makes a recommendation: one star for Breen getting his start in making an indie hustle for the Internet to give attention to, and that is about it. He is the pinnacle of outside art, one who probably believes that we live in a simulation and enjoys making movies in a way that only he understands.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Concorde...Airport '79. 

Alone in the Dark.

Review #1924: Alone in the Dark.

Cast: 

Christian Slater (Edward Carnby), Tara Reid (Aline Cedrac), Stephen Dorff (Commander Richard Burke), Frank C. Turner (Agent Fischer), Matthew Walker (Professor Lionel Hudgens), Will Sanderson (Agent Miles), and Mike Dopud (Agent Turner) Directed by Uwe Boll (#1765 - In the Name of the King)

Review: 

“You feel the failure already in front of you.” 

You know, there are little things you can dwell on every time you see a film by Uwe Boll. For one, he actually published a dissertation that resulted in him holding a PhD (for narrative structure in TV and literature!). But yes, Dr. Uwe Boll did grow up with a love for film, shooting films on handheld cameras when he was a teen in Germany. Hell, he two whole documentaries dedicated to him and his film "process" (one aptly titled Fuck You All: The Uwe Boll Story), so obviously there is something to look into when it comes to a man who clearly doesn't take criticism siting down (or retire easy, as evidenced by his return to filmmaking after spending six years...in the restaurant industry). Remember that Boll was in the midst of his video game movie phase, one where he resolved to make his movie fast and cheap. This film was no different: seven distinct scripts were in circulation for this film with no consensus for which one would be used. Of course, maybe it would have worked out better if they went with the one done by rookie writer Blair Erickson, who came up with a first draft that aimed for a thriller with horror in the shadows...which Boll decided needed to be done on a different level that turned it into an action film. You have four production companies: Boll KG Entertainment, Herold Productions, Brightlight Pictures, and Infogrames Entertainment, all part of an adaptation of the video game series of the same name that was developed by Infogrames in 1992 all about a private investigator looking at a haunted house with undead creatures. With the movie, here is a detective of the paranormal for our lead...a survivor of evil experiments that make him sense spooky stuff and heighten his abilities (hence why he can do a ridiculous somersault kick from the ground). Yes, a movie about a long-lost Native American tribe that believed there was a door between two worlds and a totally secret Bureau 713. Oh, and an evil scientist is there or something.

Sure, his non-video game films may inspire interest in the idea that they may show some sort of passion from its director. But only misery exists in this film, and God knows misery loves company. Boll may think that his critics were out to get him because of his ways of making films, but...yeah man, making a bunch of crappy movies with the mood of a funeral parlor is not going to do any favors. Putting a text crawl in your movie (read by Boll himself!) because test audiences didn't know what the hell the movie was about only speaks misery. How can you take a movie seriously when the gaffes pile up more than the dead bodies? How do you make a scene where a guy is saying he is showing three pictures to someone but is shown presenting four pictures? How can you make a movie where the visible bullets (light in the dark shots) are shown to miss their targets completely? How do you have an actor play a dead body and then not cut away when they are tilting their head? These fundamental errors compact a movie that maneuvers through 96 minutes of screentime with pacing that can only be described as "constipated". Even B-movies have some sort of charm to carry whatever bullshit they want to peddle in weird horror enjoyment, but all you get here is a movie that has the charm of an Internet hack getting punched in the face. It actually is a contest to see who comes off worse in the acting department: Slater, who looks like he wants to sleepwalk the entire movie on autopilot, or Reid, who says her lines with zero conviction while being hamstrung by the most perplexing lines ever put on film (the one about asking why you would put all the pieces of a puzzle far away from each other is extra primo); go figure, the one thing that Boll talked about with Reid is the fact that he couldn't get her to participate in a scene where she takes her top off - yeah, because that would've totally helped. A broomstick and a bucket have more connection than these two, and the one who ends up with the most "interesting" performance is Dorff, chewing at the scenery whenever he is able to appear on screen in ways that would make a drill sergeant blush. Walker isn't even a real "mad scientist" to make fun of, acting with the urgency of a man taking his sweet time to drink coffee at 6am. The effects are laughable, reminding one that even a man in a trash bag would be more convincing than this CG mess, and it amusing to see monster action in the dark that looks worse than a quick-time event in a video game. The attempt at sequel-baiting with the last shot (after stating that the whole city was evacuated...seemingly in the span of a day) with the most blatant rip-off a better movie in years is the final nail in the bed of rakes that has no redeeming features except for people who want to see crap in the crappiest of ways possible. I just can't see myself giving myself a star for this movie, and I would like to congratulate Uwe Boll for joining the zero-star club that makes him part of such company such as James Nguyen, Rick Sloane, and Coleman Francis. Enjoy the honor and for the rest of us, pick literally any other movie than this.

Overall, I give it 0 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: On the third day of Turkey Week, Double Down.

The Descent.

Review #1904: The Descent.

Cast: 

Shauna Macdonald (Sarah Carter), Natalie Mendoza (Juno Kaplan), MyAnna Buring (Samantha "Sam" Vernet), Saskia Mulder (Rebecca Vernet), Alex Reid (Elizabeth "Beth" O'Brien), Nora-Jane Noone (Holly Mills), Oliver Milburn (Paul Carter), and Molly Kayll (Jessica Carter) Written and Directed by Neil Marshall.

Review: 

"I very specifically set out to make the scariest movie I could. There was malicious intent on my part, I wanted to scare the shit out of people.”

Hey, sometimes you have to do a British horror film that isn't just a Hammer movie. This was the second feature film of Neil Marshall, born in Newcastle upon Tyne, England. He wanted to make movies since he saw Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), which led to spend plenty of time with an 8mm camera and eventually study in film school before he got to do freelance work as an editor (such as with Killing Time (1995)). In 2002, he had his first chance to direct with Dog Soldiers, an action-horror film that made quite an impression. In fact, it was the success of that film that inspired him to make the film, since a reviewer asked when a "Brit" was going to make a really scary horror film again. After pitching an idea of a zombie oil rig movie went south, a three-hour train journey inspired the idea that became this film, with a co-producer being the one that came up with the idea of the main cast being all women (interesting to note the fact that we have to note this at all, but here we are). There are two endings in the film, with one being incorporated in North America (as distributed by Lionsgate) that aimed for a less depressing ending in order to get a wider release by basically cutting 30 seconds of the original ending (which depending on your perspective could actually be the happier ending). By coincidence, this film was released less than a month before The Cave, a horror movie about...well, you know (this movie was hurriedly shot in January and February for release in July). In 2009, a sequel called The Descent Part 2 was released, with the editor from the first film in Jon Harris being the director while two of the original cast members return. Marshall was a producer on the film, but he described in later years as "totally unnecessary".

Sometimes you need something that can have fun with making a horror film intending to aim for claustrophobia that exceeds the expectations by its premise for a delicately terrifying horror film. Seemingly inspired by Deliverance (1972) and The Thing (1982) without becoming pastiches of them, Marshall managed to make a movie that ruminates about the nature of grief and self-preservation that takes risks for the benefit of the patient viewer. It's the kind of movie that you can interpret through its title (without sounding embarrassing, of course). It has capable characters that seem like real folks before it veers into the parts of the creature feature that does have blood but not at the lose of the blood in one's head. In this case, it involves dwellers (appearing pretty late in the 100-minute movie) that look like cavemen that never left the caves (or Nosferatu (1922)) without having to spend much time on mythmaking besides what you see and hear from the mazes in caves that has quality lighting. Hell, even the climax is swift in execution, finding the right time to close things out without stopping dead in its tracks. One isn't too far removed from terror, whether that involves murky monsters, splatters of blood, or bones being set. In that sense, Macdonald does well in conveying the shaken build-up of someone filled with isolation and trauma that we care about in the descent towards in both cave and mind. Mendoza plays the other part of the descent in terms of self-preservation that is just as convincing to make an interesting look at a fractured pair of people without beating one over the head with it. They are a shaky duo of friends in all the right ways when it comes to seeing and hearing fractures.  The others do fine, although with a movie that does have a body-count, you can only roll with certain folks for a certain amount of time - Noone was probably the most interesting in terms of daredevil charm. I admire the attempt at showing a trip through trauma in all the forms it encompasses (such as old memories stinging in one's head or awkward reminders), it makes the endpoint all the more compelling. As a whole, it does invite plenty of chills for those who do not imagine themselves as fans of being in a tight space without much lighting (as captured brilliantly in sets). The climax is swift in ways you usually don't see in a horror movie (regardless of which cut you see), aiming for stone cold starkness and hitting the mark on that regard, if only because it seems like the kind of movie that earns its ending without being overblown about it (sure, there's a sequel, but why the hell does that matter?). As a whole, I enjoyed the movie in its imperfections and successes, one that sticks the landing in churning fears by finding the right story beats to embrace and dodge without mockery or stumbling in the ways that matter. Fifteen years has only made this seem better as a quiet gem, clearly.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Devil's Rejects.

Review #1756: The Devil's Rejects.

Cast: 

Sid Haig (Captain Spaulding), Bill Moseley (Otis), Sheri Moon Zombie (Baby), William Forsythe (Sheriff Wydell), Ken Foree (Charlie Altamont), Matthew McGrory (Tiny), Leslie Easterbrook (Mother Firefly), Geoffrey Lewis (Roy Sullivan), Priscilla Barnes (Gloria Sullivan), Dave Sheridan (Officer Ray Dobson), Kate Norby (Wendy Banjo), Lew Temple (Adam Banjo), Danny Trejo (Rondo), and Diamond Dallas Page (Billy Ray Snapper) Written and Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007), #1590 - House of 1000 Corpses, #1751 - Halloween II (2009))

Review: 

I will give credit to Rob Zombie in one aspect. Anybody who can generate enough interest to get a bunch of folks interested in making horror movies with familiar faces and premises that border on halfcocked and half-original for over two decades certainly merits curiosity. At least this time around one will not be able to see the film as just some sort of offbeat take on horror films like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), if only because Zombie has decided to take inspiration from other features that range from Bonnie and Clyde (1967) to Badlands (1973). The art of the grotesque has taken its talents to the road, you might say. Technically speaking, it is superior to House of 1000 Corpses (2003), even though the only thing those film have in common is Haig-Moseley-Zombie as the main focus (i.e. no weirdo travelers or even the use of Karen Black, who apparently demanded too much money to return to the role now played by Easterbrook). Experienced horror folks will be right at home with a film like this, one that rolls with brutal swings without having many hitches in its step. Zombie has a knack for making the detestable come off as curious, which I suppose helps when trying to do a psuedo-70s movie (I say this since one really does have to put on a few blinders again when trying to buy this as 1978), complete with a selection of songs that differ from the earlier approach of having Zombie doing his own music (which is fair on its own, but sometimes you need old-time music).

What can I say? If you deliver a fine time with people worth caring about or creepy scenarios with a useful payoff, you have the formula for what a good amount of folks want in horror, and this movie manages to accomplish that in spades by improving on what had been done before from Zombie (and the films he dabbles in cribbing from) that proves gruesome and curious at the same time. It makes for an interesting 107-minute run-time, that much is for sure. If you like seeing Sid Haig in a demented role that inspires a few dark chuckles, you will certainly get what you want here; the best scene might be when he is "borrowing" a car and he asks a kid why they aren't too fond of clowns....so he lets him go and tells him he better have a good reason when he comes back (or...oh hell, you know). Moseley follows along with a terrific role of brutal effectiveness, one that can equally serves as the mark of a devil's servant along with dutiful straight man to this cadre of eccentrics, who can go from bloody events to wanting ice cream in a few minutes. S. Zombie certainly has improved on the wicked allure from two years prior with an added sense of menace that means there is no weak link among the main folks when it comes to unbalanced tools unlike anybody you've seen before. Think about it: we are following some very violent folks for most of its run-time, and yet the folks we are watching are fairly interesting in those moments spent together that muddles the line of what you might usually see from films in the genre, particularly when contrasted with the other side of the coin in the pursuer and the one being pursued. Forsythe (told to base his character as a combination of Lee Marvin and Robert Shaw) certainly homes in the right sense of demented rigidity that makes him a worthy piece to the proceedings, a tool of obsession that has a few moments to let out worthy enjoyment, particularly with the setup for the climax. Foree does pretty well in amusing relief, resonating well when paired with Haig for a few interesting lines together, while the others in the supporting cast are fair for what is needed. Honestly, while I appreciate the build to the climax when it comes to throwing the depravity on its head, I think it nearly stumbles with its resolution (remember that it wasn't exactly just three folks in the last one...), but I do think the final shot will likely resolve that doubt for the most part. If you are squeamish when it comes to certain kinds of horror, it won't prove much for your fancy, but I am sure you know where you want to see in your horror movies anyway. The next film in the series (called the "Firefly trilogy" by some folks) would not happen until 3 from Hell (2019), but at least one knows that The Devil's Rejects has managed to fare well as when it comes to the curiosity of this being the most interesting work that Zombie accomplished in his first few years as a director in executing depraved sequences with useful timing and folks to hold it all up.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Well, here is the end of another month (and one week) of horror. 27 films that ran the gauntlet of the 20th and 21st century. I hope you folks enjoyed the largest effort of Movie Night's near eleven-year history for concentrated writing about horror; sure, there will be a handful of horror-ish movies covered in the next few months, but suggestions are always welcome. 

The Ring Two.

Review #1755: The Ring Two.

Cast: 

Naomi Watts (Rachel), Simon Baker (Max Rourke), David Dorfman (Aidan), Elizabeth Perkins (Dr. Emma Temple), Gary Cole (Martin Savide), Sissy Spacek (Evelyn), Ryan Merriman (Jake), Emily VanCamp (Emily), Kelly Overton (Betsy), James Lesure (Doctor), and Kelly Stables (Evil Samara) Directed by Hideo Nakata (#1747 - Ring (1998))

Review: 

"To me, I wouldn't look upon myself as a horror film maker somehow. But whenever I make horror movies, ideally I would like my audience to be really scared and to keep the scariness inside them at least for a few hours, or possibly a day or so. That happened for Ringu, or the American version."

Sure, there are a few ideas you could do when it comes to a horror movie that involves people watching a tape and dying seven days later. Of course, in trying to draw from the double-edged sword of being the sequel to an Americanized remake of a Japanese horror film, one can see where the clichés may fall in, but it is striking to see that this came from the director of the original theatrical feature that started it all with Hideo Nakata. Actually, Nakata wasn't the first one in mind for the sequel, since he actually had wanted to venture past being known as a horror filmmaker (he did a handful of dramas in his native country). It should be noted that he appreciated the 2002 remake that had been done by Gore Verbinksi, one that certainly had more room to expand on what had been done before while standing on its own. After attempts to bring in Noam Murro (a commercial director) failed, Nakata was tapped in. It should be noted that a short film called Rings is included with the DVD of this film, featuring Ryan Merriman, Emily VanCamp, and Kelly Stables that deals with a cult of kids that like to share the experiences they have with the tape (which if you remember has to be passed on to someone before a week is over)...of course no one has apparently seen day seven, but I'm sure you know where that would go, as the story for the short film closes with the opening scene of the theatrical film. Of course, the only ones to return from the last one is Watts, Dorfman, and Stables (well, she was the stunt person for Samara, but now she replaces Daveigh Chase in playing the overall character). Nakata really thought that this triangle of characters would hold up for a script he believed was "very simple but very strong" (one that would be different from his own Ring sequel, which he had done in 1999, just to remember). Ehren Kruger returned to write the script for this film (having done the 2002 film); Nakata would not return back to the Ringu series until Sadako (2019), incidentally.

It is maddening to see just how much of a letdown this movie is, one that seems to be the bastard son of good intentions and studio notes. The aforementioned short film (16 minutes) is both a blessing and a curse, because it actually proves more intriguing than the feature film (110 minutes) that comes after it. No seriously, the premise of the short film seems more interesting to make a feature out of rather than the collection of clichés that come from the overall movie; imagine having folks that are trying to play chicken with death. Instead, the feature has shifted its focus from a killer tape to a hodgepodge that seems reminiscent of The Exorcist more than anything (at least that didn't have CGI deer). Trying to escape just doing a re-hash of what happened before has only resulted in a hollow experience that does nothing particularly new or particularly worthy enough to care, particularly since the triangle just can't keep interest up to begin with. This isn't to say that Watts does a terrible job, but she seems constricted here, mired in a mystery readily apparent to the audience way before the character figures it out. Dorfman is mildly interesting, but the moody tension that had been present the first time around just doesn't stick as well here; the case worker segment is an especially apparent waste of time in that regard, since it wastes Perkins in a shocking amount of time (hell, it uses Cole for just one scene...for attempts at humor!). Baker has the apparent charisma of television static on a clear night, while Spacek is more amusing in her one-note scene than anything. As a whole, most of this proves quite pointless, from its attempts to building lore that doesn't really go far to having its interesting scenes start and end the film (the climax certainly doesn't leave much to draw from the well, at least). There is nothing here that seems readily tense or interesting enough to hold an entire experience, and it perhaps is not surprising that there would not be another sequel in the American line for over a decade. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The circle of five reviews in three days is nearly complete. Halloween - The Week After Part 3 ends the same way 2020's version ended...with a Rob Zombie movie...The Devil's Rejects.

The Ice Harvest.

Review #1616: The Ice Harvest.

Cast: 

John Cusack (Charlie Arglist), Billy Bob Thornton (Vic Cavanaugh), Connie Nielsen (Renata Crest), Randy Quaid (Bill Guerrard), Oliver Platt (Pete Van Heuten), Mike Starr (Roy Gelles), Ned Bellamy (Sidney), T.J. Jagodowski (Officer Tyler), and David Pasquesi (Councilman Williams) Directed by Harold Ramis (#138 - Bedazzled (2000), #208 - Caddyshack, #342 - Groundhog Day, and #804 - National Lampoon's Vacation)

Review: 

"This movie is about people who've lost any sense of meaning in their lives."

One wonders where the time goes when it comes to films that can be defined by one word: "should". But why don't we do a few pleasantries first, since this does fall somewhat into the yuletide spirit (a sort of alternative to the alternative of films set on Christmas Eve), and it can be said that there are some promising names involved. This was the tenth of eleven films directed by Harold Ramis, although it is one of four that he did not also write the script for, with writers Richard Russo (a fellow novelist in his own right) and Robert Benton responsible for the script (they had worked together previously on Twilight seven years prior, since Benton directed that film alongside adapting one of Russo's books into a film). They wrote the film as an adaptation of the novel of the same name by Scott Philips, which was written in 2000 as his first work (incidentally, the Wichita native had done a brief spell as a screenwriter), which he thought was unfilmable (he ended up liking the adaptation, so that is one relief). A book review from the New York Times had attracted Benton and Russo to doing a script, and Ramis eventually was brought in to do a film made with cheaper budgeting than usual for director and stars for Focus Features (who greenlighted it after six weeks for $14 million). There were a few differences made from novel to screen, such as the time (originally 1979) and the dynamic between Cusack and Platt's character (which went from brother-in-laws to friends who each were married to the same person).

So yes, there is that magic word that goes for this film. It should be better, honestly. Namely, it should be funnier, but if that option seems a bit locked out, then one should hope for a darker movie instead. This was the only film Ramis did that resembled a film noir, and it sure is a shame to see those results play out here. Simply put, it is a shaggy dog noir that seems to parade itself for 89 minutes with pacing equivalent to a fish in a tiny glass bowl. Dissapointment has never tasted so cold, particularly because one should know better when it comes to making an interesting experience with a cast like this. The performances are here and there, fleeting in those moments of actual, meaningful, useful, time to highlight. Cusack does fine in digging through the molasses, one who mixes smarm with dogged hope in the face of seedier folks around him. In other words, he comes off fine being the most likable one of the group. Thornton comes and goes with a lead heart towards scuzziness that seems to merit more interest, as if somehow he seems more interesting to see in the seen/unseen aspects of below-the-belt demeanor. Nielsen is okay, but one doesn't really seem grabbed by her as any sort of fatale presence, where one feels that they are instead waiting for the train to come in instead, as if vacancy is the one thing needed in a quasi-noir. Platt turns out to have the most presence in the film (obvious when playing a drunk), but while he is amusing in parts, one tunes him out gradually in the same way they might do if having to see an intoxicated fellow around them for nearly an hour. Of course there is Quaid, who in theory could have an interesting performance in booming presence....he doesn't show up until the last twenty minutes, and one wishes for something more from seeing him in one room and just that. Starr and Bellamy do fine in those small parts of amusement (with the former relegated to mostly voice duty, such as a bit when trapped in a box), so there is that for a positive, in the sense that mediocrity doesn't strike in every aspect of the movie. As a whole, it is an okay movie that should know better, one that seems vacant in either comic or dark aspirations, a movie that will come and go for 89 minutes with the bare minimum in shaggy dog ambition that is more bland than bleak to really be interesting to talk about beyond just the simple word of "should" to describe it. In other words, it should be more interesting, it should have a better pace, it should be anything else than it ultimately turns out to be, and it should be recommended for those who have an average streak with talented folks that should do better.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

King Kong (2005).

Review #1540: King Kong.

Cast: 

Naomi Watts (Ann Darrow), Jack Black (Carl Denham), Adrien Brody (Jack Driscoll), Thomas Kretschmann (Captain Englehorn), Colin Hanks (Preston), Jamie Bell (Jimmy), with Andy Serkis (Motion capture of Kong / Lumpy), Fred Tatasciore (Vocal sound of Kong), Evan Parke (Benjamin "Ben" Hayes), Kyle Chandler (Bruce Baxter), John Sumner (Herb), Lobo Chan (Choy), and Craig Hall (Mike) Directed by Peter Jackson (#1486 - Bad Taste and #1507 - Heavenly Creatures)

Review: 

"No film has captivated my imagination more than King Kong (1933). I'm making movies today because I saw this film when I was 9 years old. It has been my sustained dream to reinterpret this classic story for a new age."

I don't know if you needed to hear another description of King Kong (1933), but most probably know it as a great classic, one that has tremendous stature as an adventure in its revolutionary effects for the time (done in stop-motion and miniatures by Willis O'Brien and his crew) that can still hold its own in entertainment after over 80 years since its release. Granted, not every aspect of the film has exactly aged gracefully (with the occasional wooden actor or so), but it definitely stands true in the ace of films that came in subsequent years involving its titular gorilla. Its sequel (Son of Kong, released the same year!) was a rush job that did not capture the magic of what made things special from before. King Kong vs. Godzilla (1962), while fairly decent in entertainment, is a hodgepodge of ideas that benefits its latter monster in every which way (particularly with its effects) as a Toho film (I haven't see their other production in King Kong Escapes, which is a co-production with Rankin/Bass of all things). The 1976 remake of the film was described by me as a "jumbled flow of effects and 70's style filmmaking that can be hit or miss", which translates to just not being good enough (Jackson described it as a disappointment as a kid and later called it "kind of kitsch"). I suppose it only makes sense that if someone wanted to make another King Kong film, it would have to be something really intriguing for a big effects director to make on a big budget and big scope. Jackson called the 1933 film his favorite, and he had been offered the chance to do a remake by Universal Pictures that would've been released in 1998, but worries by the studio over the upcoming releases of Godzilla (1998) and Mighty Joe Young (1998) led to them stalling by 1997, with Jackson going on to do work on adapting The Lord of the Rings to film. The success of those films led to Universal approaching Jackson to do the film he wanted, with a budget that would reach over $200 million by the time it was released, with Jackson co-writing the effort with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens.

Why don't I first start with the stuff easiest to highlight. I do applaud the idea of keeping the film in the 1930s, mostly because we are talking about a film needing a reason to go to a strange island to do a movie and find a big gorilla - it would seem a bit clunky to do that in 2005 as opposed to 1933, I assert. There is great care done here to make a worthy period piece in the costumes and feel that I appreciate more than if it was just a monster film lost in itself, particularly since it fooled me a bit with its digital effect enough to make not make fun of it as a bluescreen-fest. Kong himself is a tremendous accomplishment, as they have captured a great effect that towers well over everything present. The advent of these effects and having gorilla footage to study means that Serkis accomplishes wonders in a motion capture body suit that goes with Tatasciore in vocals to make a useful curiosity. Watts handles the challenge of spending a majority of time with Kong with resilience and charm that make for an interesting 1-2 act that makes a special bond with Kong that doesn't seem forced or ridiculous. Black (weird wig and all) is generally enjoyable, seeming to have a grasp on the manner of Orson Welles with some of the drive and compelling spirit of a carnival barker that doesn't seem too much of a cheesy bit. Of the others, I would say probably Chandler has it best, mostly because he seems to be having fun playing a ham without doing a wink to the audience. 

Ultimately, it seems Jackson wanted to have his cake and eat it too in every minuet detail, considering the run-time of 187 minutes. It becomes a case of excess overriding an epic that can only go so far for enjoyment before bashing you over the head with what is believed to be needed in a remake. It seems more prescient in keeping a mix of wooden acting with fair acting than it does in making a period piece I actually want to see play all the way out for three hours (which can be extended 20 minutes longer in an extended cut if you are into that). The easiest thing to get out of the way immediately is one shining fact: Nobody, and I repeat, nobody, needs a whole thing about the backgrounds of the ship crew going to Skull Island, because very little people will actually care about it. The performances for these folks are...okay, but do I need a scene of someone discussing reading Heart of Darkness? How about details of someone being a World War I veteran? Cannon fodder-I mean creature fodder doesn't need this much time, because I am here to watch a gorilla and some creatures along with some sort of affinity between gorilla and woman, thank you very much. Of course the true offender in all of this is Brody, who easily hands in a bland performance without even having to reach the gorilla, and it is so baffling to see him present in a film that begs for some sort of charisma or interest from him when trying to act with Watts. By the time the film trudges onto the island and delivers some creatures to us, one is just begging to not have to hear from most of these folks ever again. One can appreciate the nuance of seeing vine action between creatures that we know aren't really real as opposed to having to pretend to care about a conversation about bravery or the dealings of the ship - Somehow, I remember Kong: Skull Island handling all of this significantly better twelve years later. If I don't think about the fluid quality of acting and see Kong, it works out only to the point of making an average film because of its obvious length. I almost wonder what would happen if you made a film just set on the island with no buildup on the ship and go from there (I shudder to think about a line-for-line remake of the 1933 film, although this takes lines from that film). But at least the climax back to New York works itself out in being interesting and capturing the spirit of tragedy when it comes to gorilla-on-plane action, wonderful in its execution that gives Watts and Serkis their moment to do what is needed (and keeping Brody chucked to the short-shrift where he belongs) before that repeated line to close out this film as was done before comes up. On the whole, I liked most of what I saw in the parts that matter to make a film worthy enough for a recommendation, even if its test of scope and patience may prove frustrating for others. Jackson wanted his tribute to the original mean something, and when compared to films that came following from that model, I'd say he made a commendable effort worth some credit in innovation. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Good Night, and Good Luck.

Review #1539: Good Night, and Good Luck.

Cast: 
David Strathairn (Edward R. Murrow), George Clooney (Fred W. Friendly), Robert Downey, Jr (Joseph Wershba), Patricia Clarkson (Shirley Wershba), Frank Langella (William Paley), Jeff Daniels (Sig Mickelson), Tate Donovan (Jesse Zousmer), Ray Wise (Don Hollenbeck), Alex Borstein (Natalie), Thomas McCarthy (Palmer Williams), Rose Abdoo (Mili Lerner), Reed Diamond (John Aaron), Matt Ross (Eddie Scott), Grant Heslov (Don Hewitt), featuring archive footage of Joseph McCarthy, Liberace, Roy Cohn, and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Directed by George Clooney (#851 - The Monuments Men, #1187 - Leatherheads)

Review: 
"I'm not a snob, I like entertaining films as well. But when you do a film like this, or like Three Kings - films that get you in a bit of trouble - it's fun to open up a debate." - George Clooney

It helps to make a message movie if you have enough talent or know-how to get it done right, so it figures that George Clooney wanted to add directing to his foray in addition to acting. The Kentucky-born Clooney attended Northern Kentucky University and the University of Cincinnati (studying broadcast journalism with the former) before dropping out and doing odd jobs like selling shoes before being inspired to take up acting, which resulted in him getting a variety of small roles on TV and film beginning in 1984 that included stints on shows like The Facts of Life (1985-87) and Roseanne (1988-91) before hitting a breakthrough with ER (1994-99) and subsequent film work with From Dusk till Dawn (1996). This is the second film that Clooney was director for, with his debut having been Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002). Clooney also served as a co-writer with Grant Heslov (who also served as producer of the film) while being paid $1 each for acting, producing, and writing in order to help with the budget.

In theory, this could make for a pretty good civics lesson in terms of film quality. It yearns to cover a subject probably not too familiar to younger audiences in the Edward Murrow/Joseph McCarthy conflict in regard to journalism and fear in a different time for belief when it comes to the Red Scare. Granted, I am familiar with it in part because of a recent television episode I saw this year depicting McCarthy on American Experience (the one and only show on PBS currently running that I would keep with me on an island), but here we are. What we ultimately have here is an effort that looks the part and surely could teach the part...but just isn't quite as great as it really could be. I applaud the use of black-and-white (filmed in a greyscale set while done through desaturation after production for release on B&W print stock), in that it does make a modest attempt at period piece drama without looking like a desperate attempt at emulating 1950s/60s films like 12 Angry Men (1957), this much is for sure. But if I really desired a throwback to an older era in terms of style or substance, by goodness I would just watch those films in how they constructed their story instead. It yearns so desperately to be thought of as a film to ponder discussion about fear and ethics within the workplace and beyond, but it just seems lacking in fulfilling all of its desires beyond platitudes that seem too hagiographic to actually say something about Murrow beyond the obvious (which will surely rank differently with either admirers or detractors of him).

It is the idea that it could bring about holding one to honesty and being careful about what is told to us in media that is more attractive than what really gets shown, and the style + acting is the thing that braces things from collapse. Strathairn practically blends himself perfectly into the role, deftly doing well with what is given to him in capturing succinct dignity that carry the re-creation of words from the past without trouble, albeit with one significant quibble. Technically speaking, everyone else is fine, but they all fall into the same trap with Strathairn: in following along with its singular focus on its subject matter without much else room for context, the lives of the folks we are following seem practically empty in comparison, as if these people didn't have lives beyond the news. For example, Downey Jr and Clarkson's little chemistry involving them having to hide their marriage from work is an interesting one with a few little "cute" moments, but they as a whole don't contribute much else besides that to the film in terms of charm or substance. Clooney follows along the action with Strathairn fine, but there's always that sinking feeling that he will just blend into the background and you wouldn't even notice/care, as the nuance slowly morphs into something else. Langella is interesting to view, but he seems more deserving of further substance beyond carefully cut moments. Others provide jumble words about come and go fine, but one is begging for a longer focus or at least something to draw upon that doesn't feel like a point-by-point film of events.

The historical quality can prove interesting (for better or worse) to view in the classroom, particularly with its usage of vintage footage of McCarthy (which is better in some way than having an actor try to replicate him). Of course, the whole part about See It Now being reduced from its regular weekly slot happened in 1955, not immediately after the McCarthy episode (which was attributed to its low ratings in prime-time, including a loss in a primary sponsor in Alcoa, as compared to his "lite fare" Person to Person, which lasted longer). The film even starts with an inaccuracy involving listing Murrow's accomplishments before he starts his speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Association in 1958 by listing "Harvest of Shame" - which wouldn't air for two more years (dramatic effect staging is one thing, but it really is a bit dubious when trying to stage Murrow's speech about "wires in a box" with date misremembering). The See It Now show (broadcast March 9) probably hastened McCarthy's demise, but one bigger key would be something more indirect - ABC's decision to air the hearings of McCarthy vs the U.S. Army live gavel-to-gavel beginning in April (with that key moment of asking about "having no sense of decency" being in June - if one goes by records of polling of McCarthy however, he reached his peak of opinion approval in January of 50% before dropping negative by April). 

Again though, it all depends on how much one can really cover of the perspectives of that time and place. In this sense, what we have here is a film that runs way too short at 93 minutes, as if the footage involving depth and awareness ran off a cliff. This isn't so much a period classic as it is one that desperately requires citations and books to run parallel with it. This is an example of a film that will either stick in one's minds as something to ponder on with worthwhile discussion on the merits that land or one that will fester in the frustration of what didn't land. Call me an iconoclast or stubborn, but this film just didn't work enough for me in freeing my quibbles with its deluge of style over substance and scope that make it any better than if one simply picked a different way to experience history and the discussion that comes with it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)

Review #1256: Mr. & Mrs. Smith.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (John Smith), Angelina Jolie (Jane Smith), Vince Vaughn (Eddie), Adam Brody (Benjamin "The Tank" Danz), Kerry Washington (Jasmine), Keith David (Father), Chris Weitz (Martin Coleman), Rachael Huntley (Suzy Coleman), and Michelle Monaghan (Gwen) Directed by Doug Liman (#1064 - Jumper)

Review: 
What can you really expect from a summer blockbuster like this one? Perhaps it is good that I didn't have many expectations for one aimed to deliver action and laughs, as it makes the disappointment over the final result less awful to bear. If I actually felt something of interest over these characters when it comes to the action scenarios or the sitcom-level atmosphere besides it, this could actually fit just fine as a neat gem to eat popcorn with. As is, it i's just a mediocre product that feels like it should be much better, headlined by a cast that seems like it wants more to do. Sure, you could say that Pitt and Jolie make for a decent team, but they just seem stuck in something more pale than Lethal Weapon 4 - at least that film's highlight wasn't a dance between its main two characters. Chemistry is one thing, but how about a script with something more substantial to go with it? This is especially apparent when it comes to the scenes beside the action sequences, where there isn't really anything too funny or charming, where the lines feel like they want to be yukked out on a sitcom than an actual film. Even the therapy scenes seem bereft of something interesting to write something about. The action sequences are alright, but nothing too special to really write home about. I never really feel that either of them are in any actual danger, especially for its climax. Obviously they aren't going to hunt each other down, so why would I think a bunch of spies are going to finish the job for them? It just seems ridiculous to begin with that they could actually hide this sort of info from each other for years - actually, what exactly is the film's endgame if their agencies went to go take them down but failed the first time? An episode of Get Smart probably has more personality with their agency than this film, honestly. Vaughn gives off a few laughs in the brief time he shows up; Brody is essentially an afterthought until he has to deliver a key plotpoint before the climax. Washington and David aren't too particularly involved with things too much to make highlights of. On the whole, the film likes to talk a big game with trying to mix action and comedy, but it sure comes up flabby in the final result - it fits more for background noise than something really put on for involvement. I would say that this should be expected from someone who gave us Jumper (which can also be said for its writer, Simon Kinberg), but this actually was the film done by Liman three years prior. Imagine going from this to Jumper. If you have to make a mediocre product that will make a bunch of money and being just okay, this is probably a decent example of that scenario.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.