Final Destination 3.

Review #2596: Final Destination 3.

Cast: 

Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Wendy Christensen), Ryan Merriman (Kevin Fischer), Kris Lemche (Ian McKinley), Alexz Johnson (Erin Ulmer), Sam Easton (Frankie Cheeks), Jesse Moss (Jason Wise), Gina Holden (Carrie Dreyer), Texas Battle (Lewis Romero), Chelan Simmons (Ashley Freund), Crystal Lowe (Ashlyn Halperin), with Amanda Crew (Julie Christensen), and Tony Todd (voice of the Devil / subway train conductor) Directed by James Wong (#1749 - Final Destination)

Review: 

"I'm hoping they flip out. I hope they dig in and have a lot of fun. My fantasy is that when they go on a roller coaster, they stop for a moment and think about this film. Then they go, "Alright. I'm cool." And then they get on. I just want them to remember the movie when they go to the amusement park."

I suppose you could say this is where my expectations for the Final Destination franchise are firmly established in the position of "not hoping for really much of anything" department. As much as one really tries to avoid the judgement of "don't trash a movie for not doing the premise you wanted in your head", I really maintain that Final Destination probably could've really served with going with a nutjob for a lead that simply believes too much in the power of "saving people with visions*" (of course that makes for one idea, not a franchise, but horror franchises once came out of "what if a leprechaun killed people?"). The second movie almost had an idea with a survivor who'd rather be in the loony bin. Instead, here's a bunch of movies that go along the same path of one guy (or girl) trying to convince people to be careful of their lives because of how death is a force that just doesn't like being cheated. Or something, because even if you go through the climax with your head still on straight, you might just get cooked by a twist ending. Glen Morgan and James Wong, who had done rewrites to the original draft by Jeffrey Reddick (you might remember that he later regretted not having a physical antagonist for the franchise) for what became the first film back in 2000, returned to write the third film together, which they envisioned as a standalone movie that didn't need to deal with "returning" characters. Wong (fresh off the interesting reception of The One [2001]) served as director, his third as a director (he subsequently directed one more movie with Dragonball Evolution in 2009). It ended up being the biggest hit of the series at the time, with a follow-up obviously being wanted by New Line Cinema, which came with David R. Ellis directing The Final Destination in 2009.

Well, it's the same mediocre movie three times in a row, but at least this one sounds like it wants to have a bit more time chuckling at the absurdity of trying to help people out who really think you sound like a nut in saying "hey remember that thing we survived a few months ago, yeah, well, now you're targeted for death". At least there's an attempt to draw at something really frightening for having no real control...in a roller-coaster. In fairness, I've been at an amusement park exactly once in the past five years, and the one ride that spooked me the most was one where you slowly but surely swing and hang upside down for a moment in time. So yes, you get the buildup to the eventual disaster on the roller-coaster (as portrayed through a vision just like the plane crash from the first one and the car accident in the second one) before getting to the nitty gritty of how you can make 93 minutes seem pretty routine. Sure, Winstead leads the way with a bit of worried charm in trying to make sense of the frenzy that comes in random deaths such as tanning booths* that happen to look like the photos taken of people before they *didn't* stay on the doomed roller-coaster ride. At least her path starts with the road of grief (namely because this is one where they actually lost someone dear to them) before getting tangled in the mumbo-jumbo, complete with brushing off the initial "hey, maybe Death is doing something" spiel, which gave me a chuckle, as if the series yearned to be self-aware in the only one of the first five movies without the physical presence of Tony Todd (who this time is utilized for voices connected to impending disaster). The only other interesting idea is a grief-stricken character (evolving from goth boyfriend with lame quips, go figure) that actually has a bit of umbrage with our leads because hey, what's life for if the person you love couldn't hack their way out of Death getting back at them with a nailgun? The second one established "new life" being a loophole and "no you can't kill yourself, it's not your turn", for a second I thought we would see attempted murder to try and close the loop. The gore is about on par with the others in heightened absurdity (death by burns, heads going splat and other various ways to go). I suppose the ending wanted to top the other two in further mayhem with its conceit about "is it really over?", but it basically went in one ear and out the other as the final gasp of desperation to a checked-out viewer who has lowered the bar and gotten the bare minimum. For a series filled with missteps, you know what you're getting with the third movie, warts and all.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*No really, think about it. Imagine if you got lucky one time in being the big hero and saving people's lives, I think there's two ways that could really go for horror: you either go mad with basically thinking you cheated God and therefore feel that these people owe you...or maybe you decide that you did cheat Death and therefore feel bound to finish the job (and you can even put up the Rube Goldberg bullshit as "accidents" so nobody knows). 

*Why the fuck would you need to be tanner anyway? Is the sun really not enough for you? The reasoning probably makes about as much sense as willingly drinking hard liquor.

Snakes on a Plane.

Review #2571: Snakes on a Plane.

Cast: 

Samuel L. Jackson (Agent Neville Flynn), Julianna Margulies (Claire Miller), Nathan Phillips (Sean Jones), Rachel Blanchard (Mercedes Harbont), Flex Alexander (Clarence "Three G's" Dewey), Kenan Thompson (Troy), Keith Dallas (Big Leroy), Sunny Mabrey (Tiffany Engelhard), Bruce James (Ken), Lin Shaye (Grace), Terry Chen (Chen Leong), Elsa Pataky (Maria), Mark Houghton (Agent John Sanders), David Koechner (Rick Archibald), Bobby Cannavale (Special Agent Hank Harris), and Todd Louiso (Dr. Steven Price) Directed by David R. Ellis (#437 - Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Francisco, #2137 - Final Festination 2)

Review: 

Hey, this is a month dedicated to the flops from audiences in its time, and this technically counts. 20 years ago, New Line Cinema believed they were on the cusp of a pretty good hit on their hands with an "internet phenomenon"...and then it wasn't. I'm not kidding, there were magazines that put it on the cover and asked if the "Hokey Horror Flick" could "Change The Movie Business". The project was first discussed in 1999 after a Dreamworks executive in Craig Berenson read a script called "Venom" by David Dalessandro, an administrator at the University of Pittsburgh and first-time scriptwriter that had been inspired by reading an article about Indonesian brown tree snakes climbing on cargo planes in World War II and eventually was inspired to have a script, with, well, lots of snakes. Berenson found that script and on a "happy hour" type of party, he pitched it as "Snakes on a Plane" and thought, hey, maybe there is something to it, which is where he got the services of John Heffernan to work on the story. Years of pitching and re-writes (which added one more credited writer with Sebastian Gutierrez) eventually got it to New Line Cinema and Ronny Yu to direct and Jackson to star in it, mainly because of the title. Sure, they quickly lost Yu due to disagreements (which led to the hiring of stuntman-turned filmmaker Ellis, behind films such as Final Destination 2), and sure, New Line tried to rename the project "Pacific Flight 121" (others report it as "Pacific Air 121"), and sure, they initially aimed for a PG-13 rating even during shooting, but eventually there was a movie ready to go for people to speculate on (such as screenwriters) online. New Line aimed to engage with fan-generated speculation and take the movie seriously. Debuting for audiences (with no screenings for critics) on August 18, 2006 (other choices that month included films such as Barnyard, The Descent, Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, World Trade Center, Step Up, The Illusionist) and released on a budget of $33 million, the movie made almost double its budget that was labeled as just an "Internet-only phenomenon" and a "dud". Ellis directed three further films (one direct-to-video), with the last being Shark Night in 2011 prior to his sudden death in 2013 at the age of 60.

For a movie that shows at least a dozen people joining the body count movie, it sure doesn't feel like a horror movie (that "hokey" label seems more like a joke). The opening seems more of a reworking of the crap you saw in those Airport movies (27 minutes, mainly) but it eventually becomes obvious where they tried to shoehorn it being an R-rated movie (with the occasional shot of blood). It may interest you to know that most of the snakes in the film are either CG or animatronic, especially the ones that don't attack people or encounter Jackson. I suppose it could make a doubleheader with Cocaine Bear (2023) in the "hey, it's a movie with a title like that, why not?" department*, although most people probably are more spooked by bears than wondering about what type of snake is venomous. To be honest, as a person who actually has had a snake around their shoulders (as I vaguely remember from a trip to a nature center), I'll take the snake over flying right about now, trusting a tin can flying in the air where you could theoretically get blown up or deal with aircraft decompression or deal with, well, a crappy-made plane. I guess I'm stalling at trying to understand what all the fuss about this movie was, which, really, is it known for anything other than that one line said about 80 minutes into its 106-minute runtime about having had enough of these [you know the swear] planes on this ... plane? Anybody? It's an overgrown B-movie made for way too much money to be considered one that has exactly one joke (tongue in cheek because ha ha, get it, it's a movie that can be used in a punchline of a sitcom) and the bare minimum to actually have fun with. You've got three folks better known for TV (Margulies, Alexander, and Thompson*) paired with basically nothing from Phillips for a movie that thinks throwing snakes around the compartments and having the bare minimum of carnage is enough. Nope. I like Jackson, and he seems to be having some fun here, but this is a movie that begs to just be an Air Force One (thought be some as a Die Hard pastiche) ripoff rather than pairing him with basically nothing to really engage with (imagine if it was say...Gans Hruber threatening to release snakes from a time-controlled crate unless he gets money while also motioning to kill the witness anyway - it would be the most delusional movie ever). Creature features can't really reach the levels of Jaws (1975), so folks basically try to get on the level of trying to rise above say, Anaconda [1997] (honestly, that movie might be a bit more interesting, at least it has an actual adversary in the mayhem).

Oh, but you don't need to know much about their personal lives besides the intro, well, I want to at least feel like people are going to go through peril, and it's not saying much when Shaye's character going down under is the highlight of seeing sacrifices and "into the jaws of death" moments (you could count a yapping dog being thrown into the path of a snake, but, well, really?). You'd think going around using a taser on snakes and having a kickboxer character would be enough, but it just feels like a movie going through the motions with an assured feeling of doing enough without actually proving anything. The snakes just aren't that spooky enough to make me unsettled beyond the "will they take down any of the comedy relief?" (get it, the musician with guards is actually a germophobe? get it? get it, one of them gets bit in the ass? get it? get it, the movie rests on the power of PlayStation* flight simulating? get it). There are certain movies that feel like "fast food movies" that basically go through you with one viewing and satisfy the bare minimum, and some of them accomplish the job of satisfying the general expectation laid out by its viewer (action movie with explosions, horror movie with scares*, whatever). Snakes on a Plane just feels like microwaved leftovers: you've done this before and you just don't feel like it matters to actually do it again (to say nothing of those mockblusters that come out from folks such as The Asylum - a waste of time if there ever was one!*). Some movies can get on by with an decent lead among its cast and middling tension, but this is one that has no actual fangs in it that results in an overhyped, overblown mediocrity.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Next up: who knows? 

*Also the department of "includes kids in the peril but in the mildest possible way that totally isn't cowardly". 

*The three in particular for 2006 was ER*, One on One and Saturday Night Live. Anyway, The only modern TV show I really got into when it was *new* was Lucifer (before Fox was too stupid to cancel it) and The Blacklist. as for Margulies, what the hell is a The Good Wife?

*Lmao, Nintendo forever.

*I don't care what they say, you do have to be a bit scary in your horror movie. 

*Sharknado was made for television but at least that went into a few theaters for midnight showings. But most of their crap goes direct-to-video, which is something I explicitly do not aim for. 

Underworld: Evolution.

Review #2527: Underworld: Evolution.

Cast:

Kate Beckinsale (Selene; Lily Mo Sheen as young Selene), Scott Speedman (Michael Corvin), Tony Curran (Markus Corvinus), Derek Jacobi (Alexander Corvinus / Lorenz Macaro), Steven Mackintosh (Andreas Tanis), Shane Brolly (Kraven), Bill Nighy (Viktor), Zita Görög (Amelia), and Brian Steele (William Corvinus) Directed by Len Wiseman (#320 - Live Free or Die Hard, #1916 - Underworld, #2388 - Ballerina)

Review: 

Admittedly, I was a bit hesitant to actually get back to the sequel to Underworld (2003), mainly because I had a funny feeling it was going to sink below the level of the first movie, which surprised me in being average goofy entertainment that was at least endearing for one watch. You've got leather-clad folks, guns, and some war that tries to make werewolves sound cool by calling them "Lycans", how could one go wrong? You might remember there was a vampire assassin and a vampire/lycan hybrid that had to run off because of the death of an elder vampire and the accidental spilling of blood onto a sleeping vampire elder. For whatever reason, now there is a talisman in the proceedings to go along with tombs and family reunions. Len Wiseman and Danny McBride returned to write the story together while McBride wrote the screenplay. The relative success of the film with audiences obviously led to further films. Wiseman and McBride ended up contributing to the next Underworld film, a prequel directed by Patrick Tatpoulos with Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (2009). The next sequel came with Underworld: Awakening in 2012.

It really does sting sometimes to say that a movie is just not that good. Sure, it isn't in the bottom of the barrel and it definitely has some appeal for those who got really into the idea of leather-clad slugfests with ideas of "lore"...but it just rings hollow in the final result in trying to pursue the series as a "franchise". Beyond the blue filter that basically pervades one's eyes over and over, the movie crashes and burns at the feet of being so scattershot that it actually almost becomes funny in spite of its overblown seriousness. You get a prologue set in 1202 to look at three vampire elders (with only one of them actually mattering for the movie at large, since one of them died in the first movie), with one being the son of an immortal and, oh, the brother of the first big bad werewolf. This wolf is put in what is supposed to be a forever jail to hide away from the immortal vampire. You get further explanations (read: ramblings by a vampire historian that we first see with Lycan women) that make you realize that this is going to be one of those fetch quest type of movies but with less Gothic wannabee fun, where only Mackintosh or Jacobi seem interested. As it turned out, this was the last of the movies with both Beckinsale and Speedman, as the latter did not reprise his role for any further films. Even with the sex scene they share together (or whatever you want to call a scene with the most select type of skin shown), they have about as much chemistry as lettuce on a sandwich (nuke the plant from orbit). You would think having a ship in the film (immortals have to go around on their boat miles) would be really big, but nay. You don't even get to have the air of a respectable actor such as Jacobi* for so long because hey, gotta focus on the hybrid stuff, because Curran sure isn't going to provide menace in hybrid-infused world domination. Hybrid hybrid hybrid, hmm? The movie may be a bit gorier and maybe may work better for those who like to see a few computer creatures that look decent if you actually watch it at night, but calling it a junk movie might almost be a compliment for those who know what they are getting into. Being a notch below a movie that was average as the day that it was created is a negative thing, but at least you can say they tried.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Derek Jacobi, otherwise known as the only interesting incarnation of the Master in the 21st century, and yes, I'm still mad his incarnation got killed off that quickly. Sorry, I meant Sir Derek Jacobi, famous Tony Award-winning actor. Hey, I don't do the theater.

Saw III.

Review #2269: Saw III.

Cast: 

Tobin Bell (Jigsaw/John Kramer), Shawnee Smith (Amanda), Angus Macfadyen (Jeff), Bahar Soomekh (Lynn), Donnie Wahlberg (Eric Matthews), Dina Meyer (Kerry), Leigh Whannell (Adam), Mpho Koaho (Tim), Barry Flatman (Judge Halden), Lyriq Bent (Rigg), J. Larose (Troy), Debra Lynne McCabe (Danica), and Costas Mandylor (Forensic Hoffman) Directed by Darren Lynn Bousman (#2102 - Saw II)

Review: 

"The Saw films are not just gore films. They actually have a story underneath it, and a lot of times, a very complex story. "Saw III" is a much more complex film than the other two, dealing with back stories and relationships and flashbacks, and all this other kind of stuff, and I think you cross over and you get those people as well. I think that a lot of people can find something to grab onto and relate to in the "Saw" films. It's crazy though."

If you remember correctly, Saw II (2005) was a film that had molded from a spec script named "The Desperate" by Darren Lynn Bousman into something worth following up James Wan's Saw (2004), albeit with a few suggestions by Leigh Whannell. The success of the film had rumblings of a sequel, but the three were not particularly keen on doing it. Gregg Hoffman, who had produced both films, died a few months after the release of Saw II, and it was his death that had led to the group deciding make the film for him. Whannell wrote the screenplay while co-writing the story with Wan; this was the last of the series that they would write for, while Bousman returned to direct the fourth film and Spiral (2021). Evidently, the filmmakers aimed to do a sort of "father-daughter love story" between our two main focuses in Kramer and Young (as played by Bell and Smith). This intercuts with the last two films to go along with about three different plot threads, taking moments in-and-out with Wahlberg (as seen first in II), the story involving MacFayden, and the story involving Soomekh having her life connected to the life of Bell.

Ultimately, it tries to bite off more than it can chew in being both sequel and prequel to events that really, really, really needed focus. The time spent with Soomekh in order to set up how she is mixed in with Bell and Smith, actually has an interesting idea: keep him alive and you stay alive, because if you fail or try to run away, boom you go. This is cut in with a "test" involving MacFayden, who actually has his own kind of interesting idea: when confronted with people who you associate with the death of your son, will you let death come to them in these contraptions? (one involves dumping guts onto a chained guy unless you burn stuff, which is grossly cool). You may or may not guess where the ending might have everything come together...but man this is a mess. You have three (or counting the Wahlberg stuff as "interesting", four) interesting ideas for a film all being jumbled into a film that tries to retroactively play with what happened in the first two films (and let's not forget, this was done before Saw X decided to play itself between I and II). It doesn't help with the quick cuts (for a "dynamic feel"), which has somehow managed to irritate me the most here, particularly with its 108-minute runtime (there are other versions of the film by the way, such as a two-hour director's cut and an "unrated cut"). 

It might seem weird to dwell so much on its story, but the film doesn't have enough tension to get away with its attempts at tricks (complete with baiting for a sequel). The attempt at framing these films as one involving a man coping with his impending death by deciding to become a man of tests and lend that legacy onto a chosen one could be a fun one, but it seems more framed that way to make up for a lack of cohesiveness in every other department. The most interesting lead presence not named Bell was Carey Elwes, and that was two films ago. Sure, Bell is still a highlight (to go along with a spry Smith), and Soomekh is fine, but it is a very played out movie. It baits itself for a follow-up feature despite, well, *killing* off important people in it! You'd think with that little montage of images in the climax that one would be finito, but nope (judging by the sheer fact that there were four further Saw films in the next four years, one could guess that the wheels of trying to connect the films even further in "flashbacks" were on steroids). In conclusion, there are moments of interest within getting to see a few grisly traps, but it is clear that the series has continued to have diminishing returns in a middling swansong from its original creators.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest.

Review #2205: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest.

Cast: 

Johnny Depp (Captain Jack Sparrow), Orlando Bloom (Will Turner), Keira Knightley (Elizabeth Swann), Stellan Skarsgård (William "Bootstrap Bill" Turner), Bill Nighy (Davy Jones: Captain of the Flying Dutchman), Jack Davenport (James Norrington), Kevin McNally (Joshamee Gibbs), Jonathan Pryce (Governor Weatherby Swann), Lee Arenberg (Pintel), Mackenzie Crook (Ragetti), Tom Hollander (Lord Cutler Beckett), Naomie Harris (Tia Dalma), Alex Norton (Captain Bellamy), David Bailie (Cotton), Martin Klebba (Marty), David Schofield (Mercer), and John Boswall (Wyvern) Directed by Gore Verbinski (#140 - The Ring, #1557 - Rango, and #1724 - Pirates of  the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl)

Review: 

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) was a hit so obvious that a plan to make back-to-back sequels was, well, a match made in pirate heaven, compete with retaining the services of its director Gore Verbinski to go with a screenplay done by Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, who had been two of the credited writers behind the original (as one remembers, there had been re-writes on that film, but Elliott and Rossio would write all except the last one together). The first sequel would feature working ships (as opposed to shooting on just one location) that would lead to various action set pieces, such, as, well, a bone cage. Of course, it was Verbinski who wanted the members of the ship to be composed of physical (sea) creatures rather than ghosts that Rossio and Elliott had in mind, complete with most of said things being played through CG, with the exception of makeup (such as extensive prosthetics and motion capture that sees one actor wear dots that then has CG added) for two of them. Shot for over $200 million, the second part of the back-to-back production came out with Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (which shot its ending just a few days into shooting the second film because of the nature of filming in certain islands) the following year.

I suppose 150 minutes is not a surprise length for a film that is the middle film of a trilogy that basically arose from the deep (read: money). Obviously, it can't have as much magic as the original did when it comes to being a CG spectacle, but I think you can imagine the appeal that lies within a committed crew in the art of wanting to execute entertainment in the useful sweet spot of the mid 2000s. It is an oiled machine that believes itself to be well-oiled enough to throw around several threads that it can dangle for a later setup, whether that involves the importance of sand, British people being weird, or the finer points of sea dwelling that makes for a reasonably fine experience. Granted, it isn't as "pretty good" as the previous film, but it provides enough spark to latch a hook for at least one more go-around the wheel because of the various desires that you would see coming from a film title meaning to get the eye(s). It never wanders away from trying to deliver something interesting to hear or see on screen, which is semi-effective. Verbinski once described the challenges of balancing Depp with the others as him being the spice in a "garlic milkshake". That probably works best when describing the aura of Depp in a role of the scoundrel among a litany of straights and other various creatures that he plays with the right blend of conniving charm. He walks the fine line of adventure with a swagger that seems to enjoy the idea of yanking the chain of others around him, regardless of if they are friend or foe, if only to avoid the end of all the mythmaking. He plays it with no sense of tiredness to it, jumbling through chases with a certain gaze that seems to be looking past the sword. Bloom and Knightley are in their own different interactions with Depp (as shaped by making sure to not have them all together for a good while), which is generally worth viewing, as evidenced by the amusing fight that breaks out in the sands where Knightley is watching a fight with the temper that arises from the clash of egos in sand. Skarsgård and Nighy make for useful newcomers to the series that aren't completely lost in the (interesting) effects around them, with the former making a useful player in the shaky bond of father and son (with Bloom) and the latter being a compelling adversary (Nighy has stated that rather than an accent of Dutch, he favored a Scottish one) of cruel fun. There are no weak spots among the rest of the gang of rogues and other such things, whether that involves the consistent pro in McNally or seasoned ones such as a ravished Davenport or those providing levity such as Arenberg and Crook. The staging of the action works fairly well for what is necessary in swashbuckling in the fashion of interest that takes a giant wheel and has fun with that. As a whole, it is a solidly fine sequel that plays the middle ground for pirate action with just a bit leftover to bubble over for looking at the next installment with curious interest.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Miami Vice.

Review #2091: Miami Vice.

Cast: 

Colin Farrell (Sonny Crockett), Jamie Foxx (Ricardo Tubbs), Gong Li (Isabella), Naomie Harris (Trudy Joplin), Ciarán Hinds (FBI Agent Fujima), Justin Theroux (Detective Larry Zito), Barry Shabaka Henley (Castillo), Luis Tosar (Montoya), John Ortiz (Jose Yero), Elizabeth Rodriguez (Gina Calabrese), Domenick Lombardozzi (Detective Stan Switek), Eddie Marsan (Nicholas), Isaach De Bankolé (Neptune), John Hawkes (Alonzo Stevens), Tom Towles (Coleman), and Mario Ernesto Sánchez (El Tiburon) Written and Directed by Michael Mann (#1531 - Ali, #1631 - The Last of the Mohicans, and #1713 - Manhunter)

Review: 

"I don't know how I feel about it. I know the ambition behind it, but it didn't fulfill that ambition for me because we couldn't shoot the real ending. But whole parts of the film are very evocative to me still, especially when it comes to the romance. It was about how far somebody goes when they’re undercover, and what that really means because, ultimately, who you become is yourself on steroids, manifested out there in the real world."

Believe it or not, I had been waiting for the right to do this film, because I actually had watched the television show for the curiosity roughly a year ago. Honestly, the curiosity was not so much for the perceived "style" but for the odds and ends that come with trying to wedge in certain guest stars and situations to fit the procedural. Show creator Anthony Yerkovich claimed his inspiration was hearing about asset forfeiture when it comes to confiscating drug dealer properties for use, but I think you can see how the rumor that it came from a memo that said "MTV cops" endures. He had wrote over two dozen scripts for the serial procedural Hill Street Blues, but he has been quoted as saying that he actually had collected info on the city of Miami when working on Blues, even calling it a "sort of modern-day American Casablanca" while noting the wide variety of people that lived there to go along with the service industries for the drug trade. Undeniably though, it was probably the performances of its two leads in Don Johnson and Philip Michael Thomas that probably made the show endure as well as it did to run from 1984 all the way to the very first few weeks of 1990. Yerkovich created the show and had executive duties for the first few episodes before leaving to leave it in the hands of Michael Mann (creator of Vegas (1978) and a couple of films) as executive producer, which he would do for most of the run. A great deal of expense was taken to do an episode of the show, whether that involved fancy cars, song licensing, or painting exterior walls to film in Miami. There are a handful of episodes one could probably mention to talk about to describe the cliches (favorable or not) that came with the show, but "No Exit" (guest starring a pre-Die Hard Bruce Willis) is probably the best example of the show in its prime. Evidently, the basis for making a feature film adaptation came because Foxx, who had starred in Mann's Ali (2001), suggested the idea. Perhaps it is irony that the production of what is considered one of Mann's average films eventually led to the creation of his most polarizing films. A "director's cut" version of the film takes the 132-minute runtime of the original to include a few contextual sequences along with trimming certain bits to make a 139-minute cut (probably the most noted thing is that Nonpoint's 2004 cover of Phil Collins's "In the Air Tonight" plays more clearly). Of course, nothing can erase the fact that the departure of Foxx from filming abroad (because of an incident in the Dominican Republic) led to the curtailing of the planned ending (which evidently would have been filmed in Paraguay) for a rewritten one.

This was the ninth feature film for Mann, and it was a mild success with audiences at the time. The reputation of the film has certainly lent to interesting perspectives with the passage of over a decade since its release, which has softened the middle-ground view of the time. The style and aesthetics of the film certainly lends plenty of credit for a film that really verges itself on the passion of not really trying to pay attention to its attempt at a "ripped from the headlines" story that has the pacing of a hamster on a deflated ball. The show had a main character who lived in a boat with an alligator, the film basically is just two guys who might as well be named Man A and Man B. That doesn't mean I dislike the film, because it is still fairly interesting as a curiosity when it comes to ideas about flawed men trying to live flawless lives of deception and enterprise. It meanders, but it means well. Going into it with minimal knowledge of the show probably works out better for all involved. Whether because of the curtailed ending or not, Foxx somehow suffers in comparison to Farrell when it comes to trying to grasp a useful performance that isn't just "adequate". Strangely enough, Farrell is the one most prevalent in saying his displeasure with the film, stating it as some sort of "missed opportunity" when it came to the friendship meant to be portrayed between the two characters (of course, the fact that he went to rehab right after production probably doesn't help). manages the look of a man who is truly conscious of just what it means to be alive in that game of trust that seems to enjoy the rush of it but also looks like he is being eaten on the inside because of the grind that comes with those moments of where the truth lies. The romance between him and Gong. They may not look like the ideal pairing, but that's the point, its like a crash of waves that only a surfer could want to take no matter the highs and lows that come with it. Foxx, well, hmm, yea, maybe he really should have thought twice about wanting a Vice film. It's not so much that he doesn't really capture the tone of the original (as set by Thomas), it just seems that he is in autopilot, as if the only thing that mattered was to simply be there to say a few lines and boom, there's a partnership of deception (the dynamic between him and Harris doesn't even me blink, but then again I barely remember that there is supposed to be a supporting cast around Crockett and Tubbs 25% of the time in the actual show). Both of the leads seem a bit distant in that regard, but I think you can let it pass if you let the movie pass through. If not, try another buddy film. So yes, it isn't really a straight-line show adaptation, because if that were the case, the one-note capture of folks (in relation to show counterparts) such as Henley would bother me more. At least Ortiz makes a suitable adversary when it comes to players and aggressors of trust. In the end, "time is luck", and that means a film that tries to hold itself to the vibes of the moment for interesting style and a few useful action cues to cover what is neither a masterpiece or a bad time but is instead just fine. If you really care about the intricate vibes that make style and culture to walk over a mild storyline and mid acting, well, then you have quite the curiosity here. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Marie Antoinette (2006).

Review #1823: Marie Antoinette.

Cast: 

Kirsten Dunst (Marie Antoinette), Jason Schwartzman (Louis XVI of France), Judy Davis (Anne de Noailles, "Countess of Noailles"), Steve Coogan (Florimond Claude, Count of Mercy-Argenteau), Rip Torn (Louis XV of France), Rose Byrne (Yolande de Polastron, Duchess of Polignac), Asia Argento (Madame du Barry), Molly Shannon (Madame Victoire), Shirley Henderson (Madame Sophie), Danny Huston (Joseph II of Austria), Marianne Faithfull (Empress Maria Theresa), Mary Nighy (Princesse de Lamballe), Jamie Dornan (Axel von Fersen), Al Weaver (Charles, Count of Artois), Sarah Adler (Maria Theresa, Countess of Artois), Sebastian Armesto (Louis Stanislas, Count of Provence), and Clémentine Poidatz (Marie Joséphine, Countess of Provence) Directed by Sofia Coppola (#700 - Lost in Translation)

Review: 

“I’m so happy it has an audience now because at the time it was not successful. People didn’t go see it; they didn’t really know what to make of it...It means a lot to me that it continues to live on.”

Oh sure, the Coppola name may be a connected one in cinema, but it doesn't hurt to see the promise of another Coppola making their mark on film. Born in New York City, Sofia Coppola actually became involved in film from a young age, dabbling with a number of appearances in the background of several films done by her father Francis (her first film credit as writer would be as co-writer with her father on "Life Without Zoë", a segment for the anthology New York Stories in 1989), although she also had plenty of her own interests (such as design, photography, and music) while growing up in California; her most notable film role was in The Godfather Part III (directed by F. Coppola) in 1990. She had a handful of interests, but filmmaking would prove to unite all of her interests in a way she wanted, and her first film was Lick the Star, a short done in 1998. Her first chance to direct and write in features came with The Virgin Suicides in 1999 (with F. Coppola's encouragement as co-producer); the film received notice on release in the festival circuit, and her next film would go further. Lost in Translation (2003) won Coppola an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay (to go alongside a nomination for Best Director and Best Picture). The film utilizes the 2001 novel Marie Antoinette: The Journey by Antonia Fraser as the historical material used for the story of Antoinette, and Coppola wanted to make a portrait of the historical figure that did not aim for a traditional biopic and instead aim for a more intimate look of the world of that time; in other words, both the novel and film would end up telling the story of Antoinette without anticipating her ending or reference the sentence she is unfairly associated with ("let them eat cake", a phrase she never said at any point in time). In addition to writing the screenplay, Coppola also served as a co-producer. This was the third film that Coppola has directed over her two-decade career. The film made $61 million on a budget of $40 million while cultivating a divided response from audiences. Fraser noted the differences between her book and the film while saying that she adored the film, for what it's worth.

If you did not know, Marie Antoinette was the Queen of France from 1774 to 1792, having been sent from her native Austria to France at the age of fourteen to secure an alliance between the two countries, which resulted in marriage to Louis XVI (they would not consummate the marriage for eight years); she died at the age of 37 under the French Revolution by guillotine (as was the case with her husband Louis XVI). The storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789, the state prison by the kings of France, is commemorated as the country's national day (France would have a long history of changeover in the next century, which included three Republics and two Empires as Louis XVI was not the last French monarch). Look, do you want a cast's cast for this film or not? Any movie that dares to have Rip Torn play a king and dabble on for moments to chew on as a "randy" King in the first half is clearly on the right track. Dunst makes for a splendid lead performance, one that captures the contradiction that comes with being a young royal with expectations thrusted upon them, one who is whisked away from all she knows to serve strange people in a country that seems so far away when kept in a palace where people are expecting you to have children before you are even 18 while gossiping about you and your "foreign" status; there is a certain angst present within all of the glamour seen, if only because one can only do so much to distract themselves (whether that means wanting candy or not), and Dunst shows the patience required from balancing impulse and dignity, whether that involves life in the Palace of Versailles trying to play nice or time spent in the Petit Trianon for ease away from burdens (such as with supposed affairs). Schwartzman plays well in the curiosity that comes with tenuous chemistry shared with Dunst that reminds one of a janitor trying to find the right broomstick (or in this case, key) for the task required, which results in a few laughs for useful effect, since he seems more adept for locks and hunts rather than the prowl of the bedroom. There is a handful of faces to see through the film that provide a few useful or amusing moments, and this mostly falls on the shoulders of Coogan or Torn, which works out without distraction. Davis and the others do fine in carrying the background among all the pomp and circumstance that make for a worthy paradox (or satire), because Shannon and Henderson essentially remind one of high school gossipers. The film is quite wonderful to gaze upon as expected, most notably with the costume design by Milena Canonero and cinematography by Lance Acord, as each help to make the film an arresting experience to view in a way that movies are meant to do.

As a whole, I think this is actually a pretty underrated movie, one that seems quite relevant and interesting despite the passage of over fifteen years and other costume dramas. Yes, it is a glossy historical movie, but it is a glossy historical movie that manages to be an engaging look into the world of 18th century France and the royalty that feels more apart of the country rather than actually part of it (of course it isn't like the film is a defense of the kingdom over rioters); it is a film that utilizes a stylized interpretation of the doomed queen and privilege to worthwhile effect. It captures both aristocratic fun and the loneliness that comes on the other side to useful effect. It never wastes its 123 minute run-time on sanctimony, serving instead to show its lavish atmosphere (rising and falling) in all the right places with a charming lead that makes for a curious film involving womanhood that makes for a modern hidden gem and a worthy third effort from Sofia Coppola.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Well, we have reached another end of March. It was quite interesting to do another themed March involving women directors, one that saw a handful of captivating perspectives that one would only hope we will see some of again next year. Suggestions are always welcome when it comes to theme months, so we shall see where the wind blows next time. 

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby.

Review #1706: Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby.

Cast: 

Will Ferrell (Ricky Bobby), John C. Reilly (Cal Naughton Jr), Sacha Baron Cohen (Jean Girard), Michael Clarke Duncan (Lucius Washington), Leslie Bibb (Carley Bobby), Gary Cole (Reese Bobby), Jane Lynch (Lucy Bobby), Amy Adams (Susan), Andy Richter (Gregory), Houston Tumlin (Walker Bobby), Grayson Russell (Texas Ranger Bobby), David Koechner, Ian Roberts & Jack McBrayer (Hershell, Kyle & Glenn), Pat Hingle (Larry Dennit Sr), Greg Germann (Larry Dennit Jr), Molly Shannon (Mrs. Dennit), Ted Manson (Chip), and Rob Riggle (Jack Telmont) Directed by Adam McKay (#526 - Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, #693 - Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues, #1574 - The Big Short)

Review:

There are just a few movies that are inevitable to watch, as I've said before. I was waiting to do this film for quite a while, so why not today - the fifteen year anniversary of its release? It's strange to say this, because I've had a strange time of memories when it comes to NASCAR. Honestly, I remember being a fan of racing as a kid, mostly because my dad was fan of the sport (particularly with Dale Earnhardt, as I recall); I haven't kept up with it as much, but I find it an interesting curiosity (granted, this also applies to the Indianapolis 500 but not so much with Formula One). Honestly, it is probably an interesting task to try and make a worthy movie about stock car racing when the argument about the best one at that point was between Days of Thunder and Cars (of course, one could be charitable and add The Last American Hero)? But hey, one needs a good ballad involving Talladega Superspeedway and the art of racing in the hot sun and hoping to avoid "The Big One", as the saying goes. The idea for the film came to Ferrell and McKay when the former was working on Elf (2003); despite not being huge fans of the sport, they soon got swept up in the phenomenon involved with the track experience (incidentally, Ferrell actually studied sports information at the University of Southern California). This is the second of five collaborations between director/writer McKay and Ferrell (who had met on Saturday Night Live, as McKay worked as a writer and Ferrell as a performer), who each wrote the script for this film. 

It doesn't take too many words to say that I enjoyed this one. It has fun with the sports movie formula (specifically the biopic angle) by coming off as fairly authentic in its enthusiasm for the sport (one filled with cars driving for brands, if you remember) along with having a well sense of timing and improvisation that one can see with the end credits and its various takes on certain little moments that never rides a gag for too long or overstay its welcome in 108 minutes. It rides the wave of clichés well, extolling itself about family and the spectacle of victory without condensation or fluff. Ferrell plays the title role with great relish, confident in his timing that lends itself to plenty of zingers and brash charm beyond just the race track. Reilly makes a worthy counter to Farrell, a useful second fiddle with earnest infectious charm, while Cohen zings his way through eccentricity as the main foil that plays to consistent chuckles when paired with Farrell in any type of scene, which either involves a friendly conversation about broken arms/crepes to the nature of needing to beat the other at driving. Duncan was always a solid character presence, and he certainly makes his little moments count for what is needed, made clear with an amusing sequence where he and Reilly try to "gently" help Farrell's character out of a chair and end up with two knives. The rest of the cast make it count fairly well with chuckles and warmth, whether that means with the transient (and brilliant) Cole or zippiness in Adams or even with the snappy Tumlin & Russell (Bibb and Lynch each serve as worthy counterparts to Ferrell, lest I forget). Germann rounds it out as the occasional straight man (paired at times with a spirited Shannon, naturally) that fits the film to a T with amusement that keep the film on its feet without seeming beholden to desperation; the races don't dominate the focus of the film, but one gets their fill and enjoys what they see from Talledega and perhaps sees the appeal of what draws folks to a place in Alabama every year. As a whole, it moves through its arc of rip-roaring racing and humor with plenty to offer for those who seek a feature that has not lost any steps to time that might be McKay and Ferrell's most solid work together, one for the folks who desire a bit of speed in their lives along with someone to go with it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Glory Road.

Review #1664: Glory Road.

Cast: 

Josh Lucas (Don Haskins), Derek Luke (Bobby Joe Hill), Mehcad Brooks (Harry Flournoy), Austin Nichols (Jerry Armstrong), Jon Voight (Adolph Rupp), Evan Jones (Moe Iba), Red West (Ross Moore), Schin A.S. Kerr (David Lattin), Alphonso McAuley (Orsten Artis), Sam Jones III (Willie Worsley), Damaine Radcliff (Willie Cager), Emily Deschanel (Mary Haskins), and Al Shearer (Nevil Shed) Directed by James Gartner.

Review: 

"I certainly did not expect to be some racial pioneer or to change the world." - Don Haskins

Sometimes, it is necessary to do a bit of a history lesson with a film, particularly one near and dear to my interest: sports...Texas Western was the first team from my home state to have won a NCAA Tournament (and the only one until Baylor in 2021), and they did so with a historical distinction as the first all-African American lineup to play in the Championship, which they did 72–65 over Kentucky on March 19, 1966. As one should say for any movie based on a true story...send in the fact checks. After all, we are talking about a movie with the same producer behind Remember the Titans (2000) in Jerry Bruckheimer, which has its own shares of dubious playing with the facts (particularly if you had asked one particular player).  Yes, one can say "it's just a movie", but one will always want to find the truth anyway...saying that you are a movie, not a documentary is hogwash - at that point, you might as well just say you aren't a slide-show too (trust me, there are other sports movies that merit this kind of skepticism...like Rudy). Consider the first point, in that Haskins actually arrived at Texas Western (now the University of Texas at El Paso) in 1961, not 1965. Those four years are important to note, because in that time there was a trend-setter in field of college basketball in Loyola University Chicago (as coached by George Ireland) - the 1963 team was the pinnacle of a program that was the first to start an all-black lineup in the NCAA (doing so in 1962), and the title game for that year would feature lineups with a majority of African American players as starters (four for Loyola, three for Cincinnati, who went to three straight title games in five straight appearances in the Final Four); if one wants to relate this to the Southeastern Conference, one of their programs in Mississippi State didn't even play in the NCAA Tournament until playing Loyola in the Sweet Sixteen because of said prejudices against lineups like Loyola (interestingly, 25 programs played in the '63 tournament but only 22 played in the '66 tournament) - the conference did not integrate until the following year. Why stop there? The University of San Francisco won titles in 1955 and 1956 with famed players like Bill Russell, K.C. Jones and Hal Perry. Nolan Richardson, a pioneering coach in his own right for Arkansas, got his start in college basketball as a player for...Texas Western, in the same year that Haskins was hired. Consider the stage and time: the NCAA University Division Basketball Championship Game (as it was called) wasn't even broadcast on national television, instead being shown by a company called Sports Network Incorporated (thankfully, the tape of the game is intact). The slam dunk would be banned by the NCAA for a period of years starting in 1967, and there was no three-point shot (take a guess which was which with these stat-lines: 22-for-49, 28/34 free throws, 27-of-70, 11/13 free throws). Checking the score-card reveals an easy slip: Texas Western never trailed after they went up 16-11. Heck, the first game of the year for the Miners isn't even correct, as it depicts a tough four point win over Eastern New Mexico...they won that game by 49 points. Interestingly, it covers the East Texas State game as being a road game...it was actually the second game of the year (in El Paso, not two weeks before the Tournament; the university, now known as Texas A&M–Commerce took umbrage with the filmmakers for what they felt was liberties taken with them in that game/after the game)…the five point struggle was actually 22. At least it reflects the last game of the year okay, in that they lost the same day that Kentucky had lost...but it was a two point loss, instead of the runaway loss portrayed here. Honestly, if you are going to make a sports movie, perhaps don't show the scoreboard with blatantly wrong scores - I don't care if it was done to add drama or not, it just seems ridiculous to make such bizarre moves. The nail in the coffin is the game versus Kansas (the third of five games played by Texas Western), for which it depicts the blunder by Jo Jo White as ending the game...nope. Besides, Haskins and his team wasn't exactly a Cinderella story. By the time Haskins had started his fifth season as head coach, he had led them to appearances in the postseason three times while going 78-25 (Haskins, in over three decades of coaching, would go 719–353 as coach; incidentally, if you are curious about Rupp and his own legacy, he went 876–190 in four decades as coach for Kentucky, who after years of trying to recruit to integrate with a great talent and not simply one for the bench, managed to do so in 1970, the season before his retirement).

Amidst all of this is the fact that we have a rookie director in James Gartner at the helm. It is the only credit that he has in feature films, as he is generally more known for work within commercials. The film takes material from the 2005 novel of the same name that was written by Don Haskins and journalist Dan Wetzel, with the screenplay adaptation being done by Chris Cleveland, Bettina Gilois, and Gregory Allen Howard - you may recognize the latter name as one of the key writers behind Remember the Titans (2000) and Ali (2001), for which we have mentioned before has its own little quibbles in facts.  One thing that I can personally say is this: It is irresistible, at least for me anyways, to see a team take a blue-blood program to the cleaners and win as Texas Western did, because one has to have their little moments, albeit with a very formulaic movie. It tries to find a balance with its cast and the significance of the moment in the struggle against prejudice over something as simple as just playing the game of basketball on their terms. In that sense, some players will stand out better than others, such as Luke or Kerr, who each prove quite entertaining in charm and in awareness when it comes to showing the degrees of college life, which makes one take perspective. Probably the one interesting scene that involves the team comes before it gets rolling, which involves a game of playing trash cans for fun - curious, yet far more interesting than something like the scene of the night before the title game with Lucas telling his team who he will start and why (I included that quote in the beginning of this review for a reason, and that is because Haskins picked his five on who was best to play and that was it). Lucas seems to follow the lines of Disney sports movies with tough-minded coaches (such as Remember the Titans and Miracle (2004), for example), one that feeds upon discipline that proves quite laconic at times. It is a decent performance, one that reflects Haskins that just seems to also reflect other sports movies of its ilk for better or worse (Deschanel, his on-screen wife, might be confused for a shadow with how the film shows Haskins at home with his family in those small moments, but that is neither here or there). Voight (remember him from his turn in Ali? Here's another makeup show) certainly has an interesting task at hand. He isn't exactly an adversary to the main task at hand but rather is like the dragon waiting at the end with a fire to win that can be seen from the drawl and expressions. I think he does fine with the role, one that provides a contrast and similarity with Lucas in the pursuit of victory with bare tinges of anything other than desire for victory. Look, at the end of the day, we have a movie that is 106 minutes that is okay with what it does. One gets a feeling for the feeling of the time without being smothered in patronization for it, and the basketball action is engaging enough for those who care about that sort of thing. If it makes folks want to check further into basketball history within the context of its times and pioneers to go with it, I think that will prove more than enough in generating solid entertainment.

Congratulations go out to Baylor University for having won the NCAA championship tonight. It took a bit longer to get this review out in order to accommodate a bit of research, but I am sure you folks will understand.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Departed.

Review #1544: The Departed.

Cast:
Leonardo DiCaprio (William "Billy" Costigan), Matt Damon (Colin Sullivan), Mark Wahlberg (Sean Dignam), Jack Nicholson (Francis "Frank" Costello), Martin Sheen (Capt. Oliver Queenan), Ray Winstone (Arnold French), Vera Farmiga (Dr. Madolyn Madden), Alec Baldwin (Capt. George Ellerby), Anthony Anderson (Trooper Brown), Kevin Corrigan (Sean Costigan), James Badge Dale (Trooper Barrigan), and David O'Hara (Patrick "Fitzy" Fitzgibbons) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver, #992 - The King of Comedy, #1276 - Mean Streets, #1463 - Raging Bull, and #1496 - Goodfellas)

Review:
"It's the only movie of mine with a plot."

There really is no such thing as too much of one director, so it only makes sense to cover another film of Martin Scorsese in yet another prime classic to represent another decade of work, with this being his 20th feature. The film is based on the Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs (2002), which dealt with infiltration into a Triad as the first of three films (with the other two being done in 2002 and 2003 respectively), and it has subsequently been remade in other countries like South Korea and Taiwan, with novelist/screenwriter William Monahan tapped to write and eventually Martin Scorsese to direct (citing his love of White Heat (1949) that the script reminded him of), which was his second remake of a previous work (the other being 1991's Cape Fear).

What we have here is a cat-and-mouse game of tremendous excellence, one that carries itself with great pacing (as done by the usual Scorsese collaborator in editor Thelma Schoonmaker) that makes a 151 minute tale with dual storylines come together with great stature and blazing skill that captures its aspects of crime splendidly while also having a great look upon identity and what it means in various degrees for others. DiCaprio rolls greatly in a panic-attack kind of performance, one that wraps himself in a world all too ready to consume one in power and lose their sense of self in their identity in society, balancing that line of being a tool for both sides with the precision and excellence we expect from someone as confident in pulling off that edge as he is. Damon has a similar challenge in a role that reflects greatly in the other side of calm adversarial power, one who just as much at the mercy of his masters as DiCaprio that desires to escape this part and attain more and more within vain effort. Wahlberg (chosen after others like Denis Leary and Ray Liotta could not take the role) does fine in basing a man of bruising authority with snappy righteous timing that counters along with the main duo or Sheen & Baldwin with the right sense of rough honesty. Nicholson took on the role (after first choice Al Pacino declined) after some prodding because he was looking to play a villainous role again (equating this role to the ultimate incarnation of evil), which was inspired by real-life gangster Whitey Bulger. He does quite well in portraying someone wrapped with so much power and command that shows all the hunger and paranoia that comes from trying to keep it in check, and he clearly seems to be having a good time weaving this role together with the time he has as a twisted sort of father figure to the two main leads. Sheen does alright here with resonating authority that only needs a few connective moments with DiCaprio to make it all come together, although I do admire one small sequence with Nicholson and him in their engagement of taunting the other. Winstone follows along terrifically, doing menace with interest that never wavers whether in the foreground or background. Farmiga goes along with careful touch, operating her moments shared with DiCaprio and Damon with countering grace and capability. Baldwin is generally interesting in those little moments shared with the actual investigation.

On the whole, I enjoyed the film because of what it shows about the push for trying to be something one is not that never seems used to spread out into overuse of violence or become just a show for hammy acting to take place. It is an enjoyable movie for all the nitty-gritty ways it goes through  its narrative with well enough talent on and behind the camera to elevate what could have been a standard crime film into something that grabs you every step of the way and never lets go in all the right ways. Tense, riveting, and always on the move towards something useful with a wide range of good actors, The Departed is a triumph for Scorsese, his cast, and his crew that all reaped the benefits of being the best of its year in 2006 with deserved stature.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Inside Man.

Review #1543: Inside Man.

Cast: 
Denzel Washington (Detective Keith Frazier), Clive Owen (Dalton Russell), Jodie Foster (Madeleine White), Christopher Plummer (Arthur Case), Willem Dafoe (Captain John Darius), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Detective Bill Mitchell), Carlos Andrés Gómez (Steve), Kim Director (Stevie), James Ransone (Steve-O), Bernie Rachelle (Chaim), Peter Gerety (Captain Coughlin), Victor Colicchio (Sergeant Collins), and Cassandra Freeman (Sylvia) Directed by Spike Lee (#1255 - Do the Right Thing)

Review: 
"I hope they're doing it because they love it, not because they want to be rich or famous. Not that those things can't happen, but the main reason, the focus is, "This is what I want to do for the rest of my life and I love it." Not to say that you don't want to make money, but the passion should be driven by your love for that particular thing that you're doing. "

It took long enough to get to just one Spike Lee film, so it obviously was going to be a short time before finding another one to cover as a meaningful look upon a director as interesting and progressive as he has proved throughout over 20 films directed in nearly four decades of work. Born in Atlanta, but raised in Brooklyn, Lee attended Morehouse College and New York University Tisch School of the Arts, studying mass communication and film, and he made his first short film with Last Hustle in Brooklyn (1979, inspired by the blackouts in New York City alongside block-parties involving disco that made him want to be a filmmaker) and his first student film in Joe's Bed-Stuy Barbership: We Cut Heads (released in 1983 as his thesis film that won a Student Academy Award). She's Gotta Have It (1986) and Do the Right Thing (1989) would each serve as defining points for Lee (the former as an independent success and the latter as likely one of the best films of the 1980s) in his movement to features that he has also served as writer or producer for a majority for as well doing his own documentaries (with his first being 4 Little Girls (1997) about the 1963 16th Street Baptist Church bombing) all through his own film company in 40 Acres and a Mule Filmworks.

The genesis for the film came from a first-time screenwriter in Russell Gerwitz (who studied computer science and law but worked in the retail clothing business) who was inspired by his vacations around Europe to do a film script (with five years of writing and help from Daniel M. Rosenberg), and it eventually found itself with Imagine Entertainment, with Lee being tapped to direct because of desire from Imagine to work with him (along with Ron Howard deciding to direct Cinderella Man instead). Sure, one could believe this as a potential great thriller. It obviously is very sure of itself in its tricks of the camera and plot that builds for that inevitable last turn for its climax and so on and so forth. In terms of its inspirations and attempts at a twist however, it probably ranks just as decent as The Usual Suspects (1995) in actually pulling things together to make it actually work beyond a cat-and-mouse game with misplaced mousetraps present (while also being inspired by Dog Day Afternoon (1975), which goes okay). The performances generally outweigh the way the script wants to weave its tricks and thrills, which means that it is a fine movie, but it certainly could have been a more interesting one. Washington (in his fourth collaboration with Lee) is fairly up to the task of handling his end of the proceedings with reasoned consistency as the anchor that holds everything together in tension and charm one expects from him. Owen does alright, having to balance a role with a good deal of time spent in a mask that nonetheless makes for a conniving counterpart with the goal of merely committing the perfect robbery, handling that with at least enough to make me believe most of that idea. Foster is fine in a vague kind of role that keeps her in relaxed authority fixing things behind the scenes in sequences shared either with Washington or Plummer, who slides by as a creature of privilege. Dafoe and Ejiofor do alright with their moments with Washington in the usual moments required from being on the beat with tension, even if it seems like one wants to see more of them, really. One thing that is generally different is the inclusion of post-break-in testimonials from hostages as interviewed by the police that are inserted from time to time (with their own type of lighting) in the film, which either helps the film in establishing little cues to follow or seems a bit distracting that depends on the viewer and their perception of what needs to be there in 129 minutes. Of course there's also those little moments beside a heist that are alright, such as a scene involving a kid and violent games (think of the children and how violent games affect them, oh the shock), which just inspires a "sure, uh huh" response after making sure it wasn't supposed to be amusing, alongside other things. For me, the whole film verges on how much composure and stakes actually hold up in the long run. For me, it holds itself a little too much in achieving its promises with execution to what I need to care about: I wish I really cared about this heist more than just the usual curiosity, because it tries hard to really move beyond straight thriller stuff but ultimately is just kept in standard gear but with a respectable director behind it instead. If you like what you see in its performances and see past its smokescreen to what really matters, you might find something really worthwhile for a watch, which is all that really matters.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

16 Blocks.

Review #1542: 16 Blocks.

Cast: 
Bruce Willis (Det. Jack Mosley), Mos Def (Edward "Eddie" Bunker), David Morse (Det. Frank Nugent), Jenna Stern (Diane Mosley), Casey Sander (Capt. Dan Gruber), Cylk Cozart (Det. Jimmy Mulvey), David Zayas (Det. Robert "Bobby" Torres), Robert Racki (Det. Jerry Shue), Patrick Garrow (Det. Touhey), and Sasha Roiz (Det. Kaller) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, #547 - Superman, #619 - Maverick, #731 - Lethal Weapon 3, #734 - Lethal Weapon 4, and #1452 - The Omen)

Review: 
"I think as filmmakers, we all kind of reflect who we are, what we stand for, how we treat the whole relationship of motion pictures. My wife is a really great producer, and she always says to me, when you’re making a movie, and you’re hiring the director, invariably, the director’s personality comes across on the screen."

Perhaps the saying that goes right with this film is that some old habits die hard, particularly when it comes to prominent actors or directors. This is the 20th feature film directed by Donner (and first since Timeline three years prior) and as of now is his last effort as director. This is the third writing effort of Richard Wenk (Vamp (1986) and Just the Ticket (1998), which he also directed) with the original intent of also taking on directing before Donner became interested in doing the film himself. What better pairing for an action thriller than usual favorite Willis, child-actor-turned-rapper Mos Def and Morse (best known for St. Elsewhere and various character roles)? Sure, why not a film about keeping time and focus on just a few characters. Of course the film has also been compared to Clint Eastwood's The Gauntlet (1977), which from a description I read about the film involved a weary cop trying to escort a witness (a prostitute, who he falls for) to survival while dealing with trouble from cops (hence a "gauntlet" of them). I don't know if that film has its own shuffling of clichés like this film does, but then again one wonders when they will get tired of cop movies like if the talent doesn't live up to standard. But there's a simple fact that remains when it comes to films in the 20th or 21st century: it may be familiar in the faces or some of its story beats, but I generally found this to be a decent experience, one that hits the right boxes with a charming enough main trio and enough competent moves to justify its 102 minutes despite being one of Donner's most average works.

One starts easily with Willis, who certainly has had quite a progression of curiosity and charisma since his days of Moonlighting and Die Hard in the 1980s. He eventually progressed to a version of the weary cop routine in Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995, a film that either ranks as the best sequel to the original or as the silliest) and other various roles that make for an interesting way to age as an actor, which when given focus can result in something interesting. In this sense, he seems to be having a good time in making a weary role like this work with conviction. He moves on the edge with burnout that nevertheless is easy to go along with without falling into disrepair. Def (who had a few supporting roles in films like Bamboozled (2000) and Monster's Ball (2001) alongside TV work) follows along with another cliché as the motormouth accomplice, but this works itself out in that Def actually proves himself quite well in making a rapport with Willis stick with care and honesty that make a few worthy barbs and other moments that help to sell a film about trying to make change in their life stick. Morse proves a worthy enough adversary (or at least one that follows the idea of a person that we can at least believe thinks they are right without dismissing it immediately) in carefully-planned menace that generally keeps things rolling in pursuit that sells himself well without having to ham things up or become an action cliché to be ignored. On the whole, the film moves along with a reasonable pace and handling of its characters with enjoyment and patience that tries to find itself out of the muck of the genres it is in alongside burst of sentiment and just ekes out safely with at least some basic satisfaction. For me, I thought it was a fine movie, wrapped in a degree of familiarity that will either make for an alright time or will just hamper it in mediocrity. Whatever works best is the way to go, I would say.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Little Miss Sunshine.

Review #1541: Little Miss Sunshine.

Cast: 
Greg Kinnear (Richard Hoover), Steve Carell (Frank Ginsberg), Toni Collette (Sheryl Hoover), Paul Dano (Dwayne Hoover), Abigail Breslin (Olive Hoover), Alan Arkin (Edwin Hoover), Bryan Cranston (Stan Grossman), Beth Grant (Pageant Official Jenkins), Wallace Langham (Kirby), Matt Winston (Pageant MC), Julio Oscar Mechoso (Mechanic), and Dean Norris (State Trooper McCleary) Directed by Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris.

Review: 
"We felt it was important not to put window dressing between the audience and the characters. We love style but there's a place for that, and sometimes you want the picture to be transparent, for the characters to come through and feel connected and not removed"
"Or distant. What interested us was making a film that was all about the performances. Just the people on that screen."

There have been quite a few film debuts featured before, but how many have their directors and writer debut in the same film? California-born Dayton and Faris both attended the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) with differing interest (film school for Dayton, dance with Faris). Both met in 1978 when he filed a few of her performances. Dayton and Faris soon found opportunities to direct music videos together (alongside other things like commercials) with bands such as R.E.M. and The Smashing Pumpkins starting in 1982, with their work receiving notice such as two Grammy Award wins. They were offered opportunities to direct films with The Mod Squad (1999) and Bad Boys II (2003) that were presented as "style-driven" but they declined (while stating that this film has a "restrained" style, with mood driving the visuals). To put it in perspective the challenge that results from first-time directors/writers trying to get their vision done, this film took nearly six years to go from an initial script by Arndt (who had worked as a script reader and assistant to Matthew Broderick before deciding to take up writing) written in May 2000 to years of shopping around production companies like Focus Features before Marc Turtletaub decided to fund the film himself (at $8 million) to be done in the span of 30 days in 2005, which would include a re-written ending weeks before release the following year.

What we have is a film made about on the fringe of a winning-obsessed culture with a couple of misfits. Not losers mind you (because loser people would just abandon others, whether family or friend), but people who undergo change in ways they couldn't imagine for themselves on a worthwhile and bitingly amusing journey, which makes for a worthy road movie that ultimately is a meaningful winner that lands a majority of its punches in misery over time. It packs itself with a cast that seems to have spent their time before filming in getting a feel for their characters as a family that lesser actors would've just made seem like clichés but are instead malleable enough for turning well-done comedy and drama. Kinnear is particularly adept at heading the film with a tremendous performance, wrapped in Type-A desperation that exemplifies a devastatingly amusing look upon the drive to be thought of as a winner at all costs in all of its pathetic turns (such as point blank talking about eating ice cream will gradually make you fat to your kid). Carell proves just as well in providing a well-wrapped sense of depression and sharp sense of irony that makes a terrific little act when paired with Dano, who has the interesting task of spending half the film in a vow of silence (which naturally makes for one great scene in the second half). Collette holds the film together as the wavering center in pragmatic conviction that shares just the right sense of calm weariness to make a dynamic performance with her own moments to contribute. Arkin does well with what he is given in the habits of a spontaneous old man with a few amusing moments in choice words that generally hit the mark (Academy Award worthy is up to your perception, however). Breslin delivers a well-spun performance filled with sunny charm and brave temperament that makes for the favorite to watch hold her own amongst the older actors in this misfit group. Cranston and others do fine in small moments, such as his turn in elevated arrogance to selling motivational speaking. The film moves at 102 minutes with level-headed patience towards pathos and its road along to a pageant that might as well be a representation of life being like a pageant in who falls in and out of the margins of what we call success and what matters most with family. Naturally it results in a biting and fairly outrageous way to close its setup that makes the hallmarks of a worthy satire that will make one wince just as much as chuckle with good reason and clarity that make a worthy film for those in the mindset for a film like this.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.