Why Did I Get Married Too?

Review #2512: Why Did I Get Married Too?

Cast: 

Tyler Perry (Terry Brock), Janet Jackson (Patricia Agnew), Jill Scott (Sheila Jackson), Sharon Leal (Dianne Brock), Tasha Smith (Angela Williams), Richard T. Jones (Mike), Malik Yoba (Gavin Agnew), Lamman Rucker (Troy Jackson), Michael Jai White (Marcus Williams), with Louis Gossett Jr (Porter Jones), and Cicely Tyson (Ola Jones) Directed by Tyler Perry (#872 - A Madea Christmas, #1979 - Why Did I Get Married?)

Review: 

Admittedly, Why Did I Get Married? (2007) was perhaps destined to make money. I called it a movie that "attempts at doing pop psychology with melodrama on the level of a soap opera or an off-kilter religious movie" (ironically, Perry took out a chunk of the church scenes from adapting his play into a film). You may or may not remember how the last film: four couples went on a week-long retreat in the mountains that saw the inevitable reveal of secrets that come with, well, people, I guess. It was chock full of surprises that came as such: secret VD, blame games over who couldn't protect their son from dying, bank account draining, would-be choking out moments and believe it or not, a divorce. Now the difference is they go on a week-long trip to the Bahamas for another retreat that reunites all the folks you saw the first time around. As is usually the case, Perry wrote and produced the film, which was basically as big a hit as the original movie was with audiences. Apparently, there are rumblings of a third of these movies (Why Did I Get Married Again, but, lol, Netflix) possibly coming in the near future. 

Technically, this is a worthwhile movie, if you like stuff that really is a bunch of hokum. It retains that strange achievement of being overblown in its melodrama for 121 minutes that manages to be ridiculous and yet too hollow to actually say anything about marriage that couldn't be boiled down to a Hallmark card. It strains to be funny when its melodrama is already ridiculous enough and it never really achieves any sort of meaningful drama, particularly since it is once again a movie where Perry and Jackson are basically overshadowed by White and Smith again. Consider this for a moment - what sounds more interesting: a couple that finds about "emotional cheating" (next you'll be telling me they were...writing messages in a bottle!), a messy divorce where a psychologist isn't so perfect, seething jealousy from the new guy in the married group, or the crazed paranoia of someone who believe their husband is cheating to where they track their resting heart rate. There is just something so insane about Smith and White interact with each other that could be thought of as irresistible in a way that seems far more in sync with what audiences think about marriages than whatever twaddle Perry & Leal are trying to pull. Some might say that Jackson pulls in the most interesting performance, but the bar is, what, still Poetic Justice (1993)? The only character that maybe goes through the idea of what might be an interesting story is with Jones in the realm of understanding what it means to be divorced...of course the actual story with his character is, no I'm not joking, his sudden diagnosis of cancer (yea, the character in the middle of the film is just...going to chemotherapy). Scott and Rucker just seem lost in the shuffle and in general the movie doesn't seem to know what to do with itself.  You might remember that there was progress to all of these characters in the first film, but it basically seems like we are watching caricatures (or perhaps a template for the subsequent TV spinoff) that do not have much to say this time around. As a whole, it may be more absurd in its melodrama, but it feels less accomplished than the previous film.* In general, it just seems like a wasted venture unless one is into the Perry pulpit, which I suppose isn't up my alley this time around. But so it goes.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night - Song of the day

*Nobody can go 0-for-4 in "good" movies, right? The Married films were on a DVD four-pack with I Can Do Bad All by Myself and Madea's Witness Protection, so we will see how that goes someday.

The Nutcracker: The Untold Story.

Review #2474: The Nutcracker: The Untold Story.

Cast:

Elle Fanning (Mary), Nathan Lane (Uncle Albert), John Turturro (the Rat King), Charlie Rowe (Prince Nicholas Charles "N.C.", the Nutcracker; Shirley Henderson as the voice of the Nutcracker), Frances de la Tour (Frau Eva / The Rat Queen), Aaron Michael Drozin (Max), Richard E. Grant (Joseph), Yulia Vysotskaya (Louise / The Snow Fairy), with Jonny Coyne (Gnomad), and Peter Elliott and Daniel Peacock (Gielgud; Alan Cox as the voice of Gielgud) Directed by Andrei Konchalovsky (#1876 - Tango & Cash)

Review:

“Our goal was to create a world in which fantasy was intertwined with reality, the way children experience the world. Toys spark their imagination, and we, like children, with incredible technology at our disposal, decided to play with these toys and give our fantasy absolute freedom."

Once upon a time, in 1816, E. T. A. Hoffman wrote a literary fairy tale called "The Nutcracker and the Mouse King" that was published in Berlin. Alexandre Dumas later did a retelling of the work in 1844 (a loose translation) before 1892 saw the premiere of a two-act ballet with music by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Apparently, the first feature film of the Nutcracker was in 1967 in Poland. There have been versions in stop motion (Nutcracker Fantasy [1979]), a version with the Pacific Northwest Ballet (Nutcracker: The Motion Picture [1986]), a 1997 short in IMAX, you get the idea. Apparently, Andrei Konchalovsky (director of films such as Runaway Train) had an interest in doing a film version for forty years, but plans finally came together in 2007. You might wonder what is different, well, it is The Nutcracker music to go along with lyrics written by Tim Rice (known for various things, such as the lyrics for The Lion King) that has the songs based on the dances of the ballet (songs such as "It's All Relative" ended up never getting a soundtrack album release); the movie is cited as a UK-Russia-Hungary production, as one does when filming in English. Apparently, in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, the movie was known as "The Nutcracker in 3D" while Russia called it "The Nutcracker and the Mouse King". It was first released on November 24, 2010 in Canada and the United States to the thunderous applause of nobody. Budgeted at roughly $90 million, the movie made less than a quarter of that back at the box office. Konchalovsky actually argued that the movie just didn't have good enough marketing in America (where it made little money) because the critics "completely misunderstood it" as a dreary movie rather than a "fun fairy tale", and Europe just didn't go to see it besides Russia. No movie with a noted reputation of being a flop is complete without some weird funding: the movie was primarily financed by VEB.RF, a Russian corporation chaired by none other than Vladimir Putin, and they actually sued the producers for unpaid loans in 2020 (in fact they helped to pay for the 3D conversion). The next to try a Nutcracker movie was in 2018, when Disney did The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, which was almost as big of a failure. At least Andrei Konchalovsky kept on directing, doing so as recently as Dear Comrades! in 2020, when he was 83 years old.

  

Apparently, Konchalovsky had to figure out the movie was about loneliness, specifically children who are not heard at home. If Roger Corman watched this movie, he probably would've shook his head at the idea of a movie like this being made for $90 million...because where the hell did the money go? 1920s Vienna could've easily be curtailed for setting this movie in dreary Anytown with how the movie operates. This is supposed to be a fun fairy tale? The movie where the rats are made to look like Nazis? The movie where one character is implied to Albert Einstein for no apparent reason? The movie where barely anyone registers a performance worth mentioning? As a fairy tale, it is a plodding movie, managing to evoke the smallest of interest in the alleged Christmas spirit. As a family movie, the 110 minutes move along with a good deal of nothing actually happening to really latch on to, particularly since the songs don't really make an impact. If the ballet feels like a Christmas tree in its majesty and sense of wonder, this movie basically is the equivalent of a rotted synthetic tree, filled with a whole lot of nothing. Even making fun of the Nutcracker for looking like they mugged Pinocchio (specifically from Shrek) feels like it is stating the obvious, at least when compared to the clown and a person in a monkey-suit. It isn't so much that the cast is bad as is the fact that they feel like cardboard with little to actually latch on to. Lane basically looks like he is staring at one's soul with an expression of "the money, the money, the money", while Grant is bafflingly in a father figure role when he probably seems born to chew the scenery of a villain (hey, I liked Hudson Hawk, sue me). Turturro has the look of Phil Spector but strangely sounds like Bernie Kopell from Get Smart that manages to evoke eye rolls rather than heightened interest. You could say it is meant to be campy, but it isn't particularly funny, at least when compared to his plan of blocking out the sun by putting toys in furnaces to make black smoke. You know, for kids! One wonders if they had a loose inspiration from Life Is Beautiful (1997), which was set mostly in a concentration camp where a father uses his imagination to shield his son from the horrors of the camp. The Producers (1967*) had the idea that if you flung enough absurd things, people will view something as a satire as opposed to being offended by what they saw. Here you get mecha-rat dog things and weird double roles because, uh, reasons. The Nutcracker: The Untold Story proves that you could fling middling visuals (in 3D!) and Nazi-rats to people and they would reject it out of hand rather than accept what the filmmakers were peddling (or smoking). As a whole, this is just a sad little misfire by someone who clearly thought they knew better in making a movie fit for families. The only people who ended up watching the movie either strove to check out the ballet or read the book just to get the taste out of their mouth.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Next up: King Kong Lives.

*Did you know Nathan Lane was in the 2005 edition of The Producers, the one that was based on the musical? 

The Wolfman (2010).

Review #2449: The Wolfman (2010).

Cast: 

Benicio del Toro (Lawrence Talbot / The Wolfman; Mario Marin-Borquez as Young Lawrence Talbot), Anthony Hopkins (Sir John Talbot / Wolfman), Emily Blunt (Gwen Conliffe), Hugo Weaving (Inspector Francis Aberline), Geraldine Chaplin (Maleva), Art Malik (Singh), Antony Sher (Dr. Hoenneger), David Schofield (Constable Nye), David Sterne (Kirk), and Simon Merrells (Ben Talbot; Asa Butterfield as Young Ben Talbot) Directed by Joe Johnston (#060 - Captain America: The First Avenger, #322 - Jumanji, #2023 - Jurassic Park III)

Review:

"We wanted to make it period but we didn’t want to go back to the period of the original, 1941. I wanted it to be very much a vision of Edward Gorey’s London, which is Victorian London. There’s nothing more gothic and shadowy and horrifying than that. They had already decided on that when I came on so it wasn’t my choice, but I thought it was the perfect period to go to. It’s all about the darkness. "

Well, the remake comes for every horror movie at some point. You might remember that George Waggner's The Wolf Man (1941) had been written by Curt Siodmak to a general success at the hands of Lon Chaney Jr as a star. Sure, the follow-ups with Chaney weren't so much direct sequels as basically shuffling chairs, but it did at least take a few decades to try and revamp the werewolf for a Universal horror movie, at least if one doesn't count stuff like The Monster Squad (1987) or Van Helsing (2004). Plans were first announced in 2006, and at least they got the star they wanted with Benicio del Toro from the jump. Mark Romanek was tapped to direct the movie by 2007 that saw him involved with pre-production (such as hiring Rick Heinrichs for production design to go along with location scouting)..he was out by 2008. Joe Johnston was hired to direct the film in February 2008, a couple of weeks before the film was to be shot in England, and he stated later that he took the job due to having a "cash flow problem"*. Rick Baker and makeup effects supervisor Dave Elsey won the film's only notch of mainstream praise for the makeup, although they were locked out of doing the transformation sequences, which was done in CG. While Andrew Kevin Walker wrote the initial screenplay, Johnston hired David Self to provide re-writes. The movie was delayed over and over again for release, going from late 2008 to early 2009 to, well February 2010. Made for a budget of over $100 million, the movie was not a success at the time, with the then-president of Universal Studios (Ronald Meyer) calling the movie "crappy" and among the worst movies they ever made (of course he thought Babe: Pig in the City (1998) belonged in the same category, so take those words with a grain of salt). For the DVD release, an "unrated director's cut" was included by Johnston, which added 17 minutes to the runtime that had been deleted so audiences "would get to the first Wolfman transformation sooner", which most notably had Max von Sydow and the origins of the silver cane-sword. 15 years later, Universal did a "reboot" with Wolf Man (2025). For the purposes of this review, I covered the uncut movie.

There are varying story beats in each film, as in both movies the Talbots are reunited to bury a newly deceased brother and both movies involve a climax of father and son confronting one another. Of course the older film used fortune tellers and even a spell to get to where it is, but there you go. Honestly, I get why some wouldn't be particularly big on the movie, but...I kind of liked it. Sure, you get the Gothic sensibilities of murky colors and period stuff (set in the final years of the 19th century in jolly ol' Victorian England) to go with CG effects, but it is a neat little romp that gave me what I was hoping for: a charmer. You can't exactly top John Landis' An American Werewolf in London (1981) or even Joe Dante's The Howling (1981), but you can still have a bit of fun anyway. It is a bit cut and dry with what to expect from a werewolf movie, what with the big thing about full moons, having one's clothes still wearable even after being a wolf (okay that was in the 1940s movie too), and naturally: not really going too hard about a woman falling for a man with big fur (okay I don't care about the last part, but maybe there are werewolf movies where people care about romance). But, really, how much "tension" do you need in a movie where you know there's going to be R-rated wolf-tearing? Johnson may have done the movie strictly for the money, but I think he did fine with the situation presented in making a useful thrill ride. Del Toro does a reasonable job with the material provided, managing to balance the tightrope of man and monster for decent tragedy that isn't making one just think back to Chaney. Hopkins chews the scenery up in hearty conviction to make the family drama of the food chain (and who merits being on top) a fashionable one to watch. Sure, they might overshadow Blunt, who tries her best to sell why anyone would in fact cling around to the situation presented that is sometimes believable (I suppose anyone can fall for those stuck in a situation they can't control). Weaving plays a character with a name inspired by the actual chief inspector Frederick Abberline, a prominent figure in the investigation of Jack the Ripper in 1888. He doesn't get much to really do but is at least fashionable for the eventual climax. In general, the movie rests on building to hairy mayhem and a few fashionable Gothic sensibilities that I was generally on board with. It never really kicks into high gear, but it satisfies most of the boxes one would hope to see in wolves and action, complete with finding a way to have two wolves face each other in good ol' fashioned hokum. Quality wise, it probably is a smidge about The Curse of the Werewolf (1961) for wolf movies and in general is about on par in the "amp up old monsters" category with The Mummy (1999). As a whole, The Wolfman is a fine remake, doing most of what you would hope to accomplish with taking a familiar focus and giving it some fresh air that may be worth looking into beyond calling it a missed opportunity.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Apparently it was four/three weeks of prep time. Cinematographer Shelly Johnson stated that he had two weeks of prep time here: The American Society of Cinematographers | Bad Moon Rising: The…

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

Review #2408: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

Cast: 

Michael Cera (Scott Pilgrim and Nega Scott), Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Ramona Flowers), Kieran Culkin (Wallace Wells), Anna Kendrick (Stacey Pilgrim), Brie Larson (Natalie V. "Envy" Adams), Alison Pill (Kim Pine), Aubrey Plaza (Julie Powers), Johnny Simmons ("Young" Neil Nordegraf), Mark Webber (Stephen Stills), Ellen Wong (Knives Chau), with Satya Bhabha (Matthew Patel), Chris Evans (Lucas Lee), Brandon Routh (Todd Ingram), Mae Whitman (Roxanne "Roxy" Richter), Keita Saito (Ken Katayanagi), Shota Saito (Kyle Katayanagi), and Jason Schwartzman (Gideon "G-Man" Graves) Directed by Edgar Wright (#971 - Baby Driver, #1537 - Shaun of the Dead)

Review: 

"We thought it should play out like a musical in a way in terms of the fights are not dissimilar to the songs. I always thought there were a lot of martial arts films that were like musicals, so we wanted to take that further. Ya know, in a Gene Kelly film when he performs an amazing routine, at the end of the scene no one goes, 'Oh my god, that was fucking amazing!' The song is about something, and then there might be some dialogue at the end that is also about that theme. And that's kind of how this works where people have these huge fights – and it's kind of like how it is in the books – where everything goes back to normal, and there's a little reaction to what just happened, but there's no sort of mourn the dead."

Yes, it is weird to see how time flies by to say a movie from the 2010s is now 15 years old. It serves as an adaptation of the series of graphic novels of the same name that had been published in six volumes from 2004 to 2010, as written and drawn by Bryan Lee O'Malley, who had been inspired by various works ranging from Ranma 1/2, Koudelka (layouts) and other manga. Around the time after the publication of the first volume came the inklings of maybe adapting it to film, and Edgar Wright (of the then-released Shaun of the Dead, which naturally was followed up with Hot Fuzz [2007]) was approached and he liked the idea because he liked the books, with one factor being that he noted that with a few exceptions*, there hadn't been a "bigger film that dealt in sort of like a comedy comic book film...combining the mundane with the fantastical.". Wright and Michael Bacall wrote the screenplay for the film while O'Malley was involved with "bits and pieces" of the process (in particular, the ending had influence by O'Malley over the original planned ending, since the movie was coming out in the wake of the release of the last volume in July of 2010). The movie was inspired by a litany of movies ranging from Danger: Diabolik [1968] to Phantom of the Paradise [1974] (particularly with its villain, consider that). Apparently, Universal Pictures didn't know how to market the movie to audiences; the movie was first screened in July of 2010 before being released in theaters starting with America on August 13, 2010 and it was not a major success at the time. However, as one probably guessed, it has developed a following. The entire cast reprised their roles for an animated TV show (Scott Pilgrim Takes Off) that had a handful of episodes in 2023.

It probably is a movie that gets better and better for those who really like what the movie is selling in terms of light fun in an era where people still wondered what the hell was the difference between "geek" and "nerd" anymore. It probably helps that there was a pretty talented cast involved* who happens to be pretty enjoyable to view on screen. For me...it was fine. It rides a good deal of highs and a few lows for 112 minutes that generally has the enthusiasm to make one at least see themselves somewhere in the entertaining ensemble and visual sequences. You might as well call it a distinct comic or also video game movie with the fact that it actually takes the time to look like a comic (i.e. sound effect onomatopoeia) to go along with its video game logic with, well, handling action sequences. You either roll with its punches (some visual and some in jokes such as tricking a vegan into drinking half-and-half) or, well, you don't. Call it silly, but it does take a bit of time to really, truly, root for that title character. At least his hang-ups are more interesting to think about in everyman weirdness than say, Woody Allen*. Actually, I take that back, it does take a bit of time to also appreciate Ramona beyond calling her a flake (and in turn, calling Scott a little worm)*. But I like Cera and Winstead just fine, so there's that. It's an interesting push-and-pull thing where one is juggling seeing the life of our guy and the folks around him, and I think it works out pretty well in the fact that there isn't a weak spot amongst the folks. In particular, it is fun to see Culkin and Plaza every now and then because of their natural timing that just is really funny in snappy charm (look, how many folks have lines where they are censored with a black box on purpose). Chau actually is a bit funny in her own path of realization beyond just hanging around in the ides of youth and so on. Of the group of "Evil Exes", Evans and Schwartzman do stick out the best, namely because there are a handful of laughs in bravado from the former and the Phil Spector imitation in the latter that keep the movie rolling along just right. It is a movie that has a boundless charm that with the right mindset in mind for the viewer would be enough to deflect any lingering quibbles with the movie. Lack of stakes? Eh, its a movie about a guy getting a hold of himself beyond just having the same expectations of oneself that happens to need to turn opponents into pixels, stakes are for "suspense" movies. It just happens to be a movie fit for casual enjoyment, and it likely developed a cult following because people really did come around to viewing the movie for all of its little quirks that is admirable to see in commitment. Fifteen years later, we may very well see further people get latched onto the movie and its grabbing of the times it was made in a further interesting light fifteen further years down the line.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Specifically, Ghost World and American Splendor, as noted here.

**Imagine saying a film had two future Academy Award winners in its cast and it is located in the supporting cast with Culkin and Larson.

***I will state that I did know exactly one person who liked changing their hair color to blue. She liked women and even shacked up with a married person. It's too bad she was a flake, she seemed like a friend at one point in time.

****Speaking of people with an "interesting" attraction to young women. Okay, I stretched that joke, but I don't like that little cretin.

The Book of Eli.

Review #2175: The Book of Eli.

Cast: 

Denzel Washington (Eli), Gary Oldman (Bill Carnegie), Mila Kunis (Solara), Ray Stevenson (Redridge), Jennifer Beals (Claudia), Evan Jones (Martz), Joe Pingue (Hoyt), Frances de la Tour (Martha), Michael Gambon (George), and Tom Waits (Engineer) Directed by Albert and Allen Hughes.

Review: 

"Allen deals with the actors, I deal with the technical side. Outside of that, we both do everything. I think it came up that way because I went to film school (at Los Angeles City College) and learned more of the technical side. Film school was just putting names on things me and my brother were already doing, different ways of doctoring up stuff. But even when we work together on the set, we both have opinions on each others' area."

Sometimes it matters to be two of a kind. The Hughes Brothers, composed of Allen and Albert, were born in Detroit but raised in California with a clear interest in film from a young age (as helped by their mother, who bought them two VHS machines and a video camera when they were 12). They honed their craft with music videos. At the age of 20, they made their first feature film with Menace II Society (1993). They followed this with Dead Presidents (1995), the documentary American Pimp (1999) and From Hell (2001); Albert moved to the Czech Republic in 2004. At any rate, this film was written by Gary Whitta, but re-writes were done by Anthony Peckham. This is currently the last film made together by the Hughes brothers, although each have continued to direct for separate features and television, such as The Defiant Ones (2017) and Alpha (2018), respectively.

Really one could just interpret the film as a slightly less hokey version of The Postman (1997). Think about it: both movies involve a wandering drifter with a particular vision in mind on their travels that run into someone wanting to maintain control of their part of a post-apocalyptic America that eventually leads to some sort of semblance of hope (hey, one gets a statue and the other gets a gravestone after doing what they set out to do), and both happen to feature a musician in a bit part. Of course, one has hand-to-hand combat and a runtime under two hours (118, but still) with this film, which is set...30 years after some sort of thing happened. Honestly, it probably would've looked the same regardless of if it was 5 or 10 years, but so be it. The result is a mildly involving attempt at parable that comes and goes on just how much one is interested in its eventual climax, which, well, is more a Western than anything (Pale Rider (1985) referred to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse in its title, chew on that). The blind leading the blind, in good ol' browns and greys with some brand references (just how big were iPods anyway?), I think you get the idea of where things will go besides the part that really attracts my attention: a few moments of kick-ass with the hands. Of course, Washington is pretty good as the headline enigma to hold the film as long as it can, which exudes faith in the assured manner that fits what you would picture in your head in terms of trying to stay on the path that seems most obvious to him. That, and, well, he does make a quality presence to see handle a bunch of fools in their place that would fit a samurai film. Oldman handles the other side of the coin in just how much knowledge can lead a man on a certain path, which mostly involves craven nature, and this is mildly successful. It isn't exactly a role begging for scene-chewing, because Gambon and de la Tour can do that instead. Kunis makes a blank slate that may or may not work depending on one's patience for, well, seeing where a slate goes for a road movie. The film gives me more of a chuckle in its attempt at playing bleakness and religious nature in a familiar package that is only as good as the commitment to make it something worth sticking with. As a whole, it meanders in a certain type of meandering that could only come from something that is hazy in both construction and look that works best for those who don't look for the obvious signposts but instead just sit for the ride and relax.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Red (2010).

Review #1824: Red.

Cast: 

Bruce Willis (Frank Moses), Morgan Freeman (Joe Matheson), John Malkovich (Marvin Boggs), Helen Mirren (Victoria Winslow), Karl Urban (William Cooper), Mary-Louise Parker (Sarah Ross), Rebecca Pidgeon (Cynthia Wilkes), Brian Cox (Ivan Simanov), Richard Dreyfuss (Alexander Dunning), Julian McMahon (Vice President Robert Stanton), Ernest Borgnine (Henry, the records keeper), and James Remar (Gabriel Singer) Directed by Robert Schwentke. 

Review: 

Red (standing for Retired: Extremely Dangerous), if you didn't know, was originally a comic miniseries (or as the film credits put it, a graphic novel), done by writer Warren Ellis and artist Cully Hamner that was published from 2003-04 by Homage Comics (a subdivision of comic imprint Wildstorm, which in term was a publishing imprint of DC Comics until its shutdown in 2010). So technically speaking, one is dealing with a comic book movie, although it apparently is lighter in tone (as scripted by Jon Hoeber and Erich Hoeber) than the actual comic, judging by the cursory glance at the plot (Ellis once stated that while the script wasn't exactly the book, he felt it wasn't a bad script, noting the tight casting). This happened to be released in the same year of The Expendables, which also recruited a bunch of familiar names for an action film with a few select quips (which incidentally had Willis in a cameo). This was the fifth feature film for its director in Schwentke, a West German graduate of Columbia College Hollywood.

You get what you pay for when it comes to recognizable names maneuvering their way through an ensemble designed to draw smiles without too many story beats to count on (in other words, smiling at Borgnine is more interesting than the climax reveal). By this point in his career, Willis was 45. In the decade of the 2010s, he would do a variety of action appearances...alongside plenty of direct-to-video work ("on demand", specifically). It probably isn't a surprise that Willis was the prime actor in mind when it came to casting, since his sly charm is suitable for what is needed here in the small parts before the action pastiche moments come around, which turn out fine (modern movies have certain aims and limits, remember). Freeman doesn't exactly have much to really do here, seemingly overshadowed by the eccentrics like Malkovich with calmness that only works to a certain extent, likely because the film pulls a fake-out involving the character being "dead" for a time. Malkovich makes for a paranoid ham for some splendid amusing moments, which work out for the best without turning into a drudge. Urban lumbers through as the foil for most of the film which works out for engaging action moments. Parker seems bemused just to be there, contributing a few chuckles while having a quirky chemistry with Willis that at the very least doesn't become consumed in all the cliches needed. Mirren seems pleased to be there with graceful engagement that works when finally presented as the last piece of the ensemble for useful effect. One could only hope for further time with Dreyfuss, who has exactly two scenes with a bit that seems honed right in with cliches from the 1980s that is lost in the shuffle. Granted, the movie is going for a light touch when it comes to story, but still. One knows Cox is putting on an accent, but he seems firmly game to make the bit count, which works pretty well for those small moments with Mirren. 

The 111-minute run-time is fairly serviceable, in that the film manages to have enough action set-pieces to go along with occasional chuckles without slowing to a halt too many times, although the climax does nearly slug itself out with abrupt set-ups to nearly derail it. Honestly, the movie is fine. Granted, it might not exactly win many favors as an action spectacle, but it is at the least something that proves suitable for enjoyment with fair style and sly charm. Technically speaking, this is a cast that might have been really, really captivating a couple of years ago, if only to note the names that come together to (put it lightly) "kick ass". It moves through the cheesy aspects with an awareness that it is meant to be that way, not trying to take itself too seriously, which results in a decent movie with only a few surprises but a suitable ensemble film. It could have been better with the number of names involved, but the fact that it slugs through the finish line without many stilted bumps in terms of action sequencing and light touches means that it will prove worthy of your time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Predators.

Review #1722: Predators.

Cast: 

Adrien Brody (Royce), Alice Braga (Isabelle), Topher Grace (Edwin), Walton Goggins (Stans), Oleg Taktarov (Nikolai), Louis Ozawa Changchien (Hanzo), Mahershala Ali (Mombasa), Danny Trejo (Cuchillo), Laurence Fishburne (Ronald Noland), with Derek Mears, Carey Jones & Brian Steele (the Predators) Directed by Nimród Antal.

Review: 

Well, I suppose the Predator series needed to do something again to maintain relevancy. Robert Rodriguez had a script in mind for a film in the franchise since 1994, right around the time he was developing Desperado (1995), which he described as just a writing assignment (i.e. one that was designed to try to entice Arnold Schwarzenegger, albeit with no budgetary limitations); 20th Century Fox didn't have interest for fifteen years, and while the treatment wasn't actually used, Rodriguez did serve as producer (using his company Troublemaker Studios). Alex Litvak and Michael Finch served as writers for the film, while Hungarian-American director Nimrod Antal found his way through to serve as director; he was best known for his feature debut Kontroll (2003), which received international notice. Honestly, the movie sure has a thing for killing off the most interesting seeming people. On one side, you have a wacko Fishburne and his imaginary friend in a glorified 15-minute cameo, then on another side you have a guy with three fingers that can still use a sword that doesn't talk much, and another side you have Danny Trejo playing Danny Trejo. But sure, go ahead with Topher Grace as the totally innocent one among these weirdos. I think you can take three guesses who ends up persisting through to at least the climax, and the only curiosity is to see exactly how predictable it can get. That isn't to say that Brody is the wrong choice for what is needed, because the filmmakers wanted to home in reference points in from the first film without having a burly lead, which I can get behind. Technically speaking, the only memorable film involving the title creature is the first one, so that is a slight point. Of course, by trying to hone so many nods and references to the film from 23 years prior, the actual movie one finds is just incredibly average in comparison. 

To be fair, the movie has interest to generate, mostly with the fact that there are a few predators to look for that don't look like CGI abominations. Besides, I find they are more interesting than the ensemble cast turns out in the overall endgame, mostly because one wonders how much of a movie could be done with just the feuds between the predators as a whole. Ah, but one needs things to seem just a bit familiar to make sure you aren't watching something that dares to not sequel-bait itself. I don't even think Alien vs. Predator managed to bait itself as much as this one did, but then again it is amusing to think of one movie trying to ignore the other that really are more alike than they think (in terms of overall energy, not so much in plot). The actors are okay, but the script gives them the bare minimum to work with when it comes to anything besides cursory moments (and swearing, but that is probably expected and/or easy to see coming). As such, Brody is okay with the strong silent type that comes from a lead role intending to be a stark difference from the usual leads in the series, but really it just means that one is begging for someone with a bit more charisma than just wry disposition (i.e. dry), where grunts and gravel voices go about as far as a heavy weight put into a kiddie pool. Braga plays the peacemaker to these cardboard figures, and that is basically more of a shrug than a compliment from me. Grace is the odd duck for a movie that thinks it is going to really be clever with using him for the climax. This works about as well as you think: not very well. He isn't a bad actor, but it is such an obvious role. Goggins is kind of interesting, in that one could probably make more out of the fact that a guy playing a killer/rapist is the most interesting presence in a film like this. Taktarov and Ozawa are there to say a few words, but the latter at least gets to have an interesting sword fight. This was actually an early role for Ali in a decade that soon saw him turn into a star; naturally, this means he plays someone with the bare minimum personality slated to vanish (ditto for Trejo). Honestly,  Fishburne and his one note weirdo role is more interesting in the span of nearly 10 minutes than anything else in the film- and it isn't even that drawn out! The movie runs at 107 minutes, which is a fair pace despite my middling feelings on the matter. By the time the movie tries to bait a further adventure into the middling lives of gravel voiced elite killers, I was pretty checked out. I didn't hate what I saw, but honestly, there just isn't anything here that really stuck with me. It may be better than previous features with the Predator, but that isn't saying much. To me, this is barely better than if someone had just remade the original movie, but at that point one might just stay home. Green blood may look gooey, but that isn't enough to make a proper gore film. Well, the film was fairly successful upon release (making three times its budget, which was $40 million), and yet the next film in the series (The Predator, I am not joking) followed along different lines in its story, and it probably doesn't help that only two actors have ever been in more than one Predator film. Honestly, the only thing this will inspire is the argument that one could just stick with the original feature and not lose a beat. Having an admiration of the original film is a nice ambition, but it does not ultimately make for a nice effort.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Other Guys.

Review #1707: The Other Guys.

Cast: 

Will Ferrell (Detective Allen "Gator" Gamble), Mark Wahlberg (Detective Terry Hoitz), Eva Mendes (Dr. Sheila Ramos Gamble), Michael Keaton (Captain Gene Mauch), Steve Coogan (Sir David Ershon), Ray Stevenson (Roger Wesley), Samuel L. Jackson (Detective P.K. Highsmith), Dwayne Johnson (Detective Christopher Danson), Lindsay Sloane (Francine), Natalie Zea (Christinith), Rob Riggle (Detective Evan Martin), Damon Wayans Jr. (Detective Fosse), and Viola Harris (Mama Ramos) Directed by Adam McKay (#526 - Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, #693 - Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues, #1574 - The Big Short, and #1706 - Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby)

Review: 

Well, if you can make a movie that has fun with the conventions of the sports movie in stock car racing and make it intriguing for the whole family (at least the teenager kind), why not do a buddy cop movie? The idea for the film sprung from a dinner that McKay had with Ferrell and Wahlberg, as McKay noticed the chemistry present between the two that seemed ripe for a project. Of course, with the handful of buddy cop movies present, having it involve white-collar crime probably seems to prove an interesting way to mark it away from other examples (like 48 Hours or even stuff I haven't seen like Hot Fuzz) or seem too much like a copy of something like Law & Order (I joke, but listen carefully to who narrates the film anyway). This is the fourth of fifth collaborations between Ferrell and McKay, and it is the only one with Ferrell not serving as a co-writer (in this case, McKay wrote it with Chris Henchy), although he did provide input on ideas.

As a whole, it certainly has its hits and misses when it comes to landing its gags and moments, but it manages to land enough times for 107 minutes to make a somewhat worthy story about the ordinary (at least, for the police); it rides the clichés out for enough humor to make worthy entertainment, one that doesn't suffer when compared to McKay or Ferrell's other works. McKay certainly has an eye for trying to make each of his films have their own distinct little features that don't keep him pegged as just an improvisational director, and this works to his advantage when it comes to keeping interest on the level for the story at hand without being derailed by distractions. The film rides hard on how one views the chemistry between Ferrell and Wahlberg. It takes a bit of time for that dynamic to really hit it off, but it eventually gets its footing down with how they click within their differences (namely in their neuroses of manners and temper). While I might be more curious as how it would have been if they had reversed the roles (Ferrell playing a tough guy probably isn't a bigger stretch than Wahlberg playing an accountant), at least it seems like a game collaboration that doesn't seem constrained or forced, and Ferrell rides it out for a quite a few chuckles. Wahlberg adjusts fine to what has to happen with a film that could make either the straight man (depending on the scenario), and it does mean that he draws some laughs that eventually give way to a few action beats that work more to his advantage. Coogan plays things well when it comes to offbeat brashness that serves him well with the climax with Wahlberg & Ferrell, while Stevenson proves just as engaging as the snappy heavy. Mendes does fine, placed with Ferrell for a few little moments that hit okay as the one couple to show that a bunch of cop movies usually dance around. One can't tire of seeing Keaton on the screen, because even him playing a beleaguered captain (with a baseball reference I can appreciate) doesn't mean he can't make it charming to see from bit to bit. I do appreciate the brief moments between Johnson and Jackson, who get to chew on action clichés for a bit that makes for a worthy zinger (namely in trying to jump off more than one can chew). On the action side, the movie certainly does well enough with spacing out its sequences that doesn't delude the senses, and the story generally holds enough water to keep it mostly as a dutiful procedural. The chemistry between Ferrell and Wahlberg combined with a few supporting presences as a whole make for an engaging experience, one firmly in the middle as a buddy film that doesn't have too many hitches while hitting its overall targets with useful enterprise from folks who certainly know best.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

MacGruber.

Review #1680: MacGruber.

Cast: 

Will Forte (MacGruber), Kristen Wiig (Vicki Gloria St. Elmo), Ryan Phillippe (Lieutenant Dixon Piper), Val Kilmer (Dieter Von Cunth), Maya Rudolph (Casey Janine Fitzpatrick), Powers Boothe (Colonel Jim Faith), Timothy V. Murphy (Constantine Bach), Chris Jericho (Frank Korver), and Montel Vontavious Porter (Vernon Freedom) Directed by Jorma Taccone.

Review: 

"What you see with this movie is exactly what we wanted to do. It's the three of us having a bunch of fun writing it, then having fun making it with a bunch of our friends—old friends and new friends. I think that fun comes across when you watch it. It's rare that you get that kind of creative freedom."

I suppose there really should be a line that prefaces any review of a movie based on a sketch from Saturday Night Live, because really there is one easy statement to make: the level of humor to expect from a film like this depends on just what era of the show you grew up watching (so if you stop watching and come back to it like five or ten years later, you get to say that it wasn't as funny as the era you grew up with). Technically this is a bit unfair, because I did like The Blues Brothers (1980) and the Wayne's World (1992-93) movies. But one probably wouldn't be surprised to see that this was the first one of these SNL films to be released in theaters since The Ladies Man (2000) and it is currently the last one, although it is only now that the idea to develop MacGruber into television is happening. But you probably need some detail before we get into the quality of the movie, so what is exactly MacGruber? Well, believe it or not, I do remember this series of sketches, because even ten year old kids like me need something to do on Saturday nights. The series of sketches ran on-and-off for three years as a parody of the television series MacGyver (1985-1992), where the parody character (after a song extolling the talents of said character that can get stuck in your head) would try to escape a dangerous situation with little time remaining in a control room with some sort of random material while he is plagued by some sort of internal issue (such as say...growing bald or his grandmother) before the bomb explodes. The star of the actual show (Richard Dean Anderson) even made an appearance, for which child-me would have been pretty surprised by (insert reference to Stargate SG1 here). For what its worth, the only other recurring short I remember from the time was something involving cats with lasers, so one wonders where the time has gone. At any rate, the idea for MacGruber came from Jorma Taccone, who had joined SNL in 2005 that was known for his work in the comedy troupe The Lonely Island, which would create numerous digital shorts for the series until 2014 (the next film that Taccone would direct featured the troupe with Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping in 2016). He pitched the original idea to Forte and John Solomon for a month before finally convincing them to conceive a series of brief films (as opposed to one sketch). SNL creator Lorne Michaels eventually suggested that they should develop a script for a film (if one can do a commercial with Pepsi and make it stick, truly a movie isn't too far off). Taccone, Solomon, and Forte would set out to make a movie that looked like an action movie (in the vein of stuff like Die Hard and First Blood) while honing to a cheap budget ($10 million, with less than 1/50th of it being used for special effects) while shooting it in the course of a month.

So yes, one can credit the filmmakers for having the freedom to do what they wanted with a comic relief lead that has to balance the line between insanely flawed and likeable enough to see all the way through for 91 minutes. The film was a flop, but it has certainly developed a small cult following in the decade since its release (one notable fan: Christopher Nolan). Take this anyway you wish: It might be the Freddy Got Fingered of its decade, where it just isn't my kind of thing, but I can at least understand the appeal for it despite finding it below quality. In other words, you can misunderstand all you want, but it can't hide the fact that it isn't even as clever in trying to have fun with the action genre as Last Action Hero (1993). Honestly, there isn't anything here that is remotely interesting when it comes to its supposed unpredictability or its attempts at balancing strait-laced folks like Kilmer and Boothe (the highlights of the movie) with the wackos in Forte and Wiig that seems more useful in less does on television. I think it is the brief time one spent with the sketches that made them more effective than what happens when you try to extend something that should have stayed at a minute. But hey, someone might think of it as akin to those parody movies like Airplane! (1980), or maybe an offshoot of other attempts at making fun of action movies like Hot Shots! Part Deux (1993, which I should probably re-watch at some point), or maybe even Big Trouble in Little China (1986), although I should mention that each actually have a real third act. Or maybe it will touch those who are familiar with an insecure lead in action with Archer, although that is funny for its own reasons. For me, the main joke doesn't stick at any point long enough to keep my interest, one that drags itself in the guise of edge with the depth of a shallow pool. One knows Forte can be funny, because one doesn't stay on a series for a decade without having some staying power, but here it just seems like a fun time for Forte and little else for those who think the character needs to take a trip to the trimmers. One can only tolerate insecurity for so long before a stick of celery gets involved, so this little game of buildup and humiliation rides on the viewer's patience for it. Wiig is used for a bit of singing and doing disguises that has the energy of a hit-or-miss gag, which is up to your preferences (meh is the only word I can find). Phillippe plays the straight man to this trio, one that has to put some sort of gravitas to the stuff around him, which hits with the power of a defective broomstick. It is Kilmer that actually shines over these folks, mostly because his dry delivery seems more prescient for what one could see in an overblown action movie in actually seeming funny for what is needed that might have deserved even more time on screen. Boothe plays it as one might see in a cheap 80s movie, which is collected but worth your time. There is a group of wrestlers used for a cameo that goes exactly the way you might see coming a minute before it happens in the gag, which is rather disappointing. Look, if you find it to be a funny movie, all power to you. But it begs for a polish in its lead presence, racked with gags that are very hit or miss that makes it quite niche and cliché at the same time. The only thing that offends me more is something unbearably bland, one that is only for a particular audience that probably likes some of the stuff I prefer when it comes to jokes that land that clearly could have been said in less than a thousand words that could have been said in seven: It just isn't my kind of comedy.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.

Review #1595: Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.

Cast:

Michael Douglas (Gordon Gekko), Shia LaBeouf (Jacob "Jake" Moore), Josh Brolin (Bretton James), Carey Mulligan (Winnie Gekko), Susan Sarandon (Sylvia Moore), Eli Wallach (Julius Steinhardt), Frank Langella (Louis Zabel), Austin Pendleton (Dr. Masters), Sylvia Miles (Dolores the Realtor), Vanessa Ferlito (Audrey), and John Buffalo Mailer (Robby) Directed by Oliver Stone (#095 - Wall Street, #1090 - Platoon, #1265 - Natural Born Killers, and #1523 - Any Given Sunday)

Review:

"When I made the movie I thought greed was NOT good. But I learned people really like money. They like to make money. They will even admire the villain with the money - even when he breaks the law."

What, another sequel to a film from the 1980s that came out over two decades later? Truly, we live in an age of the comeback. At least this time around it features the return of not only one of the main stars but also the director again in Oliver Stone. He has had a variety of stages to his filmmaking career that have distinct edges revolving from films involving Vietnam (such as Platoon) or his biographical dramas (such as Alexander), and this is his 18th feature effort along with his first-ever sequel. The original Wall Street (1987) film, which Stone co-wrote with Stanley Weiser with inspiration from Stone's father being a broker during the Great Depression. It was a film that raged against the excess of the times in greed and ambition (which owes to the inspiration drawn from several corporate raiders) that nevertheless inspired others to become stockbrokers themselves. The seduction of one into money seems to be limitless if one just slides under the lines of what we consider to be the rules of right and wrong, you might say. Honestly, I grew up with this film on my shelf as one I admired in curiosity, and I find that it still stands well in its staying power about greed and its acting from Michael Douglas alongside Charlie Sheen (since Stone has noted the latter as the one contributing the meat of the film, namely in the family dynamic with his father Martin). Stone wrote the original film with Stanley Weiser, but the sequel would be written by Allan Loeb and Stephen Schiff (whose last writing credits included The Switch (2010) and True Crime (1999), respectively)

So here we are, with a film made on the heels of a generation growing up as essentially the children of Gordon Gekko. Stone wanted to make a film that is a reckoning about our obsession of money as a society. Honestly, the curiosity to do this film lurked in the shadows for years, and it only grew with the viewings of other movies about the financial crisis of 2008 in The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) and The Big Short (2015). While it may not be fair to compare this film to those subsequent ones, you could cite the fact that each of those subsequent works had come from books already published by 2010. It sure is a surprise to see the end-result from Stone: a soft, average production, more of a glossy puddle than anything, a middling movie in the parts that matter most: genuine interest. For 133 minutes, one wonders exactly where it is going to end up in terms of its supposed cat-and-mouse game between Douglas and LaBeouf, which only goes to show just how much more captivating it was the first time around. Simply put, the pulpit has been converted into a stool, with a sprinkling of financial information in trying to make speculation the curiosity to spring around with. It is just an empty experience, where one doesn't seem to really gain or lose much by viewing it and its details that seem more like a PowerPoint presentation relying on sprinkling of style (particularly with some choice editing, where one scene has a phone call and a bubble showing up) to make up for less passion. Even its attempt at promoting fusion energy come off as ridiculous, complete with a presentation about what it could be in potential for clean energy...sure. Its hostility is instead a bag of corn. Douglas is the most enjoyable part of the film, even if he is sprinkled throughout - for example, he shows up briefly in the opening before not showing up in full again until the 30 minute mark; honestly, he serves as the best part of the film, mostly in his molding of former nasty greed showman into buy-my-book showman that hasn't changed all of his spots. While his best moments might be in the latter half for empire building, there is at least a subtle joy to seeing one scene with Charlie Sheen again, mostly to see the tides of time pass by (the sprinkling of other cameos, including Stone himself, are probably not as effective). LaBeouf, freshly established in the past few years with franchises like Transformers and Indiana Jones (for better or worse) falls squarely in the middle ground of interest. He exists to do another game of pseudo son-father figure with Douglas and Brolin that is seems more in search of an idea than a real representation of anything. The melodrama with Mulligan (who is okay) reflects this especially, sopping wet in syrup that slows the film in its bewildering act of "I hate my dad, but I like someone who does things like him". Brolin makes what he can with a mild substance kind of adversary, packed with some slime to various effect. Did you know Sarandon is the film? Honestly, you might be able to forget she is even there with a whole two or three scenes spent in vagueness about the housing element that seems to need more desperation, honestly. Wallach, a veteran of stage and screen for 65 years, is quietly effective, moving along in the background with character presence and an improvised whistle while Langella is there for the first half to set the wheels of "payback" in motion. For me, the film is like assembling a game of Uno to play without all the cards present or a rulebook to properly play the game, which eventually results in a process of missing passion and ultimate disappointment. Others may find something more worthwhile despite is flaws, but it is easily more preferable to stick with the original Wall Street film instead.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Insidious.

Review #1556: Insidious.

Cast: 
Patrick Wilson (Josh Lambert), Rose Byrne (Renai Lambert), Lin Shaye (Elise Rainier), Ty Simpkins (Dalton Lambert), Barbara Hershey (Lorraine Lambert), Leigh Whannell (Steven "Specs"), and Angus Sampson (Tucker) Directed by James Wan (#1175 - Aquaman)

Review: 
"I wanted to prove to people that I could make a very classic, old-fashioned haunted house film and show that I could make scary films without relying on blood and guts."

Sure, one can go the mainstream path with horror films, or they can go into independent features that try to reach audiences without trying to compromise themselves too much in vision, whether with gore or not. James Wan found himself as a key figure in making independent horror that reached mainstream success. Born in Malaysia but raised in Western Australia, he graduated from RMIT University with a bachelor's degree in Media in 1998 that helped him teach him about the process of filmmaking he had wanted to do. Wan made his first film in collaboration with Shannon Young as Stygian (2000), a 16mm low-budget action-horror feature that found its way to local film festivals (such as Melbourne's Underground Film Festival, which noted it as having a great use of the "Guerilla Aesthetic"). It was his directorial debut in true features however that proved prominence however: Writing with Leigh Whannell on a script that was inspired by their dreams and fears. Aspiring to pitch to studios with something presentable, they made a short film together in 2003. The nine minute short (with Whannell appearing as the star) Saw ended up attracting enough attention for a subsequent feature film to be directed by Wan the following year. While Wan would co-write for the third film, Wan moved on to other features, although Dead Silence and Death Sentence (both 2007) proved less successful, leading him to take a rest until he aspired to make a horror film with Whannell without needing to resort to gore. He has kept himself busy with horror in directing and producing (aside from a few profitable blockbusters), which included directing the second of the subsequent Insidious franchise.

Sure, it is easy to go around the bend and call the film an attempt at a modern-day Poltergeist (1984), with its haunted house aspect (...to a point) and having to have a parent rescue their child from the other world and such. But that would miss the point of the fact that this is actually more equal to the sequels of Poltergeist in that they are laughably missing adequate scares along with its attempt at explaining itself in the second half for less adequate effect. I do wonder how the film might have been with acting that seems more prepared than having three weeks to film - of course it could also be possible that Wilson and Byrne just okay and that's that. One gets to partake in the "things are happening and I'm the only one who sees it", while the other tags in for the latter half and handle the horror themselves because plot reasons or something. One almost wishes for more Shaye at that point (without more of the obvious bumbling from Sampson and Whannell), mostly because one would probably want the soothing temperament in reaction to building horror as opposed to the family aspect (oops).  If you desire a film that tries to ride on atmosphere with a bit of visuals that don't rely on gore, this could be for you, but honestly this just came off as a parlor trick that has seen better days. This was written by Leigh Whannell (who wrote for all four Insidious films while directing the third one and also doing his own somewhat overrated horror film with The Invisible Man ten years later), who as with Saw also has an important small role in the film. 

Wan and Whannell can be applauded for their attempts at making a cheap little family drama falling into horror that maintains their independence without spending more than $1.5 million, at least. I just wish it wasn't such a silly spectacle in doing the mundane in jump scares that might as well be a film where someone goes "BOO!" every so often. At that point, I'd rather have the little gore cheapie that could, because it will test patience in a less tiresome way. The second half may be weaker than the first, but that's mostly because if it is going to try and explain itself or delve into concluding itself with scares, it better accomplish something meaningful more than just a book report of how they spent their haunting. If one invests themselves into its carefully concocted family scare-show for 102 minutes, they may find something with some satisfaction in those moments to jump out in imagery. For me, it proves too mild and too late to build its mood to a rightful enjoyment worth more than one viewing for those who prefer to see a bit more fight in their horror times.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Way (2010).

Review #1555: The Way.

Cast: 
Martin Sheen (Thomas Avery), Deborah Kara Unger (Sarah Marie Sinclair), James Nesbitt (Jack Emerson Stanton), Yorick van Wageningen (Joost Michael de Witt), Emilio Estevez (Daniel Avery), and Tchéky Karyo (Captain Henri Sébastien) Written and Directed by Emilio Estevez.

Review: 
"This is a film we believe in. We're proud of it and excited. It was a privilege to be able to make it."

As the old saying goes, the son becomes the father and the father becomes the son. In the case of a film like this, I would say that is adequately appropriate with a feature that stars Martin Sheen directed by his son Emilio. Sheen (born Ramón Estévez before adopting the stage name as an invention to try and make a living with acting, which he described later as one of his great regrets) found his way in acting first from television in the 1960s before finding his way into features through highlights such as Badlands (1973) and Apocalypse Now (1979). As for Emilio, the eldest son, he found interest in working with the camera from a young age, and he aspired to get into acting after graduating high school. He made his debut in 1980 with television before moving into features that led to highlights such as Repo Man (1984), The Breakfast Club (1985) and Young Guns (1988). He moved himself into directing with Wisdom (1986), and he has continued doing a few features alongside work in television from time to time. Estevez was inspired by his own son Taylor and his travel with Sheen across the route through car years prior, with Estevez describing the film as "pro people, pro life — not anti — anything."

This is based on the real life pilgrimage of Camino del Santiago (Way of St. James), where folks follow routes (as there are numerous ones, such as the Camino Frances) to a shrine as a form of spiritual retreat or path for their growth that hundreds of thousands set out to do each year (with an actual office giving out certificates of completion for those who walk on the Camino); various media had been made depicting this journey in some form prior to this film, such as Luis Bunuel's The Milky Way (1969) and the TV program The Naked Pilgrim (2003). Sometimes it is the journey that attracts one more so than the destination. It is an interesting movie that takes a walk for two hours with a small cast headlined by the interest in seeing the result of the son directing the father with honesty and touching interest. It cultivates inspiration for those who seek it without preening for too long in a pilgrimage without becoming an excuse to show off, moving with sensitivity without becoming an excuse for sentimentality or the inverse in cynicism that has a trek reminiscent in some way of The Wizard of Oz (1939) with people that discover something in themselves without needing it spelled out in obviousness. Sheen is exactly the right one to lead the film, settling well on a journey of growth with maturity, going across the road that handles his surroundings with dignity through a 2-hour trek of grief and discovery for himself. The main three that gradually accompany him on the intersecting journey do just fine in their own ways. Unger rolls along with pain and charm wrapped in thorns, while Nesbitt and Wageningen each do well with adding some levity and persistence in curiosity, respectively.  It isn't a great film by any means, but it is a nice little journey that aspires for inspiration and interest in one's fellow man, and it takes a well-versed cast to back it up, which has a small ensemble to go with appearances of actual pilgrims and in one scene Romani people. It maintains enough strength in inspiration to deserve a look, particularly if one if yearns to look for a journey of their own.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Town.

Review #1554: The Town.

Cast: 
Ben Affleck (Douglas "Doug" MacRay), Rebecca Hall (Claire Keesey), Jon Hamm (FBI Special Agent Adam Frawley), Jeremy Renner (James "Jem" Coughlin), Blake Lively (Krista "Kris" Coughlin), Chris Cooper (Stephen MacRay), Pete Postlethwaite (Fergus "Fergie" Colm), Slaine (Albert "Gloansy" MacGloan), Owen Burke (Desmond "Dez" Elden), and Titus Welliver (Officer Dino Ciampa) Directed by Ben Affleck.

Review: 
"It was concealing a character-based drama centered around themes that I was interested in, particularly the theme of children paying for the sins of their parents...But wrapping that in the sort of candy shell of a heist movie."

There is always room for another actor to find additional calling in directing, particularly if they have the instinct to accomplish it well. Ben Affleck (born in Berkeley, California but raised in Cambridge, Massachusetts) had started in acting since he was a child with television such as The Voyage of the Mimi (1984) before eventually moving on to search for work after high school in film (initially with small roles before his first lead role in Glory Daze in 1995). His prominent moment came at the age of 25, where he co-wrote and co-starred with Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting (1997, which resulted in his first of two Academy Awards). The years that followed resulted in a varying quality of films, but he moved on to directing with Gone Baby Gone (2007, which he also co-wrote), which led to fair notice. It is adapted from the 2004 novel Prince of Thieves written by Chuck Hogan (born in Massachusetts that based his story upon the dubious reputation of the neighborhood of Charlestown), which was adapted to the screen by Affleck, Peter Craig, and Aaron Stockard. After a few years of shuffling in development struggle (including a failed attempt to have Adrian Lyne to direct and Hogan to write a script for), Affleck found himself attached to star and direct. He was attracted to its similar to Gone, Baby, Gone in how he could use its structure of the story alongside its characters and dialogue that could inspire him to add on to it for a film adaptation. This naturally led to research being done within the region alongside consultation with the FBI and actual bank robbers, with Affleck finding his note-taking of the latter particularly fascinating. It should be noted that there exists three versions of the film - the theatrical version, which runs at 124 minutes (as per request by the studio), and an extended cut that runs at 153 minutes, alongside with a 154 minute version that has an ending more faithful to the novel (which is more darker; I picked the original cut because that seemed like the right one to pick).

What we have is a film wrapped entirely in Boston that might as well be summed up by its opening quote involving pride in one's city despite it ruining their life - one could almost think of it as Affleck's attempt to make a city crime movie in the style of Mean Streets (1973), although Affleck has cited influences being films in the crime genre like Heat (1995) and The Departed (2006). It is a fine film building on delivering a heist and drama worth investing some time with, headlined by a usefully-crafted ensemble cast and some usefully crafted action sequences that make a worthwhile sophomore effort from Affleck. For a film that builds itself on part-heist/part-human interest, Affleck handles acting/directing just fine, displaying range in getting what he needs from his fellow actors while displaying wavering charm in directing himself that works most of its points of finding oneself apart from what was and instead trying to look somewhere else for satisfaction in life. Hall does fine in going along with Affleck in unassuming prevalence that does fine with the occasional task needed that makes decent chemistry with Affleck. Hamm has something of interest to do in terms of authority and pursuit, which he handles alright in terms of terse usefulness in that segmented time needed. Renner outshines the others in terms of hardened edge and menace that drives the film in various scenes that can be as simple as entering in a lunch conversation with Affleck and Hall. Lively does alright when quivering against Affleck, while Cooper and Postlethwaite (in his penultimate role before his death in 2011) each do well in momentary scenes involving wat it means to wrapped in a web of crime. On the whole, I liked the film in what it manages to accomplish in its heist aspects mixed in with its attempts at looking at life beyond the score that lend itself to some useful points of interest without being too wrapped up in cliché. It's a nice movie, honing itself with some realism and atmosphere for a useful film to start off another decade of heist drama cinema.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

And now, the list for the final decade of focus this year. The decade will start and end with new directors to make their first spotlight moment, which includes a few notable films for the decade we just left along with some other ones to highlight that I hope you enjoy.

Movie Night: The Social Network.

Review #705: The Social Network.

Cast
Jesse Eisenberg (Mark Zuckerberg), Andrew Garfield (Eduardo Saverin), Justin Timberlake (Sean Parker), Armie Hammer (Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss), Max Minghella (Divya Narendra), Rooney Mara (Erica Albright), Brenda Song (Christy Lee), and Rashida Jones (Marylin Delpy) Directed by David Fincher (#586 - Alien 3)

Review
Yes, business is rough. Yes, it seems a lot of people love this movie. Yes, it is true that a lot of people use Facebook, even you (the reader) might as well. I do too. I still don't love the movie. The fact this was made when everyone involved was still alive and the fact that the writer admit that the book the movie was based off is played slightly fast and loose with only makes up the pile of tedium that this movie is for me.  Actually, you could recut this movie into a horror film, especially with the soundtrack, and especially with our main character. It's sad, because the movie is actually well-acted, the problem is the fact that barely any of these characters are ones you want to root for, which makes for a boring clod. By the end of it, you are wondering if the movie you have seen is mainly for people who are into characters of snark or just a big giant joke. Ultimately, this is a movie that left me cold and mostly stoic. But my dilemma is how to rate this movie. Do I give it a high rating for its acting/music/thrills and feel guilty, or do I give it a low rating for the general tedium it gave me that seems harsh? In a way, that is what anyone who watches this movie must do. Either they like the movie, or they grow sick of it. It's really hard to stay in the middle. For once, I won't be too generous with a rating, though I do recommend seeing it just to see if you'll like it any better than I did.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: True Grit (2010).

Review #659: True Grit (2010).

Cast
Jeff Bridges (Reuben J. "Rooster" Cogburn), Hailee Steinfeld (Mattie Ross), Matt Damon (LaBoeuf), Josh Brolin (Tom Chaney), Barry Pepper (Ned Pepper), Domhnall Gleeson (Moon), Bruce Green (Harold Parmalee), and Ed Lee Corbin (Bear Man) Directed by Joel Coen and Ethan Coen.

Review
I knew that one day I'd eventually watch a film by the Coen brothers, it wasn't intentional for it to be almost four years after this show started, it just happened that I didn't. But now I'm rectifying a mistake, in a sense, and with a recent Coen movie, which just happens to be True Grit. Based off the 1968 novel by Charles Portis, True Grit attempts to be like its namesake and succeeds. What I like about the movie is Jeff Bridges. He is so interesting to watch in this role, even at Cogburn's lowest point, Bridges manages to be so effective at making you feel empathy for him, and it's just so fun to watch him interact with nearly any actor in this film. Steinfeld is really effective at playing such a hardened child, it's interesting to watch the movie from her perspective and watch her progression throughout the movie. The rest of the cast is good, I like how Matt Damon practically blends into the role, and his interaction with Bridges is pretty fun to see. One of my favorite scenes is a scene with an actor who is the movie for only one scene, and that is Ed Lee Corbin...as a Bear Man. Watching him act while wearing a bear suit while talking to Bridges is really amusing and oddly memorable. The movie is a tale more about the journey and the progression of revenge on a person than the revenge itself (Brolin is only in the last half of the movie), I like how gritty the movie can get, I especially like how well made the movie is, there isn't a scene in the movie that is badly made. This is a movie with many redeeming features, two of them being Bridges and Steinfeld, who really make the movie even better. The fact that it runs under two hours probably isn't a selling point for most, but I'll use it solely because sometimes a Western can be a breeze to go through. But hey, watch it for Bridges. Or the Bear Man.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.