You're Next.

Review #2615: You're Next.

Cast: 

Sharni Vinson (Erin), Nicholas Tucci (Felix Davison), Wendy Glenn (Zee), A. J. Bowen (Crispian Davison), Joe Swanberg (Drake Davison), Margaret Laney (Kelly Davison), Amy Seimetz (Aimee Davison), Ti West (Tariq), Rob Moran (Paul Davison), Barbara Crampton (Aubrey Davison), L.C. Holt (Craig / Lamb Mask), Lane Hughes (Tom / Fox Mask), Simon Barrett (Dave / Tiger Mask), and Larry Fessenden (Erik Harson) Directed and Edited by Adam Wingard (#1672 - Godzilla vs. Kong, #1753 - Blair Witch, #2192 - Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire)

Review: 

"I think people are tired of being punished by violence and so forth. While “You’re Next” is a super violent film, we approach it completely differently. It’s not about showing you the extremity of violence or how much it hurts or whatever. It’s about showing it from a different perspective and actually just trying to make a fun horror film."

Sure, why not? I honestly had this movie vaguely stuck in my mind due to a review I heard about it many, many years ago*. And it happened to dovetail with the thing known as "hey, it's on a movie pack with a bunch of other movies, why not?". You're Next was the fifth full-length feature film from Adam Wingard, and this one happened to be written by fellow collaborator Simon Barrett, who had written A Horrible Way to Die [2010]. Apparently, the thing that spooked Wingard the most in horror was home invasion movies (citing Them [2006] and The Strangers [2008]), so Barrett took it from there, where he wrote a script that was inspired by Agatha Christie mysteries alongside screwball comedies (he later noted after filming a possible subconscious inspiration from A Bay of Blood [1971]). The cynical mindset of Barrett (as stated by Wingard himself), along with some improvisation with the dinner conversation scene, also played key to the movie. The movie originally premiered in 2011 in film festivals, for which Lionsgate acquired distribution rights, but business snafus (namely a studio merger) led to the movie being shuffled around and only released in theaters in August 2013. Years later, Wingard stated that he considers the film as being part of the same continuity with The Guest [2014] and Onslaught [2026] as a sort of "trilogy", for what it's worth.

Really it all comes down to just how much you can stomach of the characters and the pursuit of having fun with a survival movie that basically throws the premise upside down. Being a cross between Home Alone and The Strangers (and perhaps The Last House on the Left) can only go so far for those who find something in its slasher entertainment or bits in pitch-black comedy. I was fine with it, although it definitely wears its quirks (flawed or not) on its sleeve for 94 minutes. It's basically the kind of movie you play with The Cabin in the Woods [2011] to see a sort of "modern" perspective of playing around with the slasher with some chuckles, although your milage may vary over which actually accomplishes that better. You get a considerable body-count and a bit of quick pacing to set up some fanciful murders that range from garrote wires to axes to, well, blender-bashing. So yes, it's a movie with a person trying to be among the last ones standing that, well, actually does sound like the type to maybe thrive in a survival film with masked killers that don't really talk much (what's there to know in an array of people that aren't really who and where they want to be). In that sense, Vinson is a dynamic choice to help carry the film with unshakable confidence that is basically present in only her when compared to the dry nature of the others (in some ways intentional, and in others being the result of a lack of things to really do). Sure, being the only generally likable person among the cast to have enough time (oh poor Crampton) could be a detriment to some, but I went with it because, well, mayhem does have some charm to it; smug is one thing, wisecracking is another, and I think it fits with the latter more than the former. The eventual reveal of the true nature of what's going on in the house is at least a little clever, mainly because it gives some curiosity over how things will play out when one becomes offbeat in the face of being complicit in crimes. The first death of the dinner table people is kind of funny in the actual buildup and I imagine the very last moment is meant to be darkly amusing. Sure, it lacks a real true faceoff for its climax, but I was at least satisfied with the journey in getting to the resolution with the best laid plans in fact going to hell. As a whole, You're Next is a horror movie that wants to play it both ways in mayhem in the home and dark humor. I found it just fine, and I suppose that is more than enough to carve out a worthy place on the shelf.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*The review in question was this one by hey, Midnight Screenings; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgQL6U0BE6Q - which basically called it "post ironic, cute, hipster bullshit" that equated it to The Strangers crossed with Home Alone but not being effective to get away with being "cute". 

*Same pack with stuff such as It Follows, Cabin Fever, and a couple of others.

Drive Angry.

Review #2581: Drive Angry.

Cast: 

Nicolas Cage (John Milton), Amber Heard (Piper Lee), William Fichtner (the Accountant), Billy Burke (Jonah King), David Morse (Webster), Katy Mixon (Norma Jean), Charlotte Ross (Candy), Christa Campbell (Mona Elkins), Pruitt Taylor Vince (Roy), Todd Farmer (Frank Raimi), with Tom Atkins (Captain), and Jack McGee (Lou "Fat Lou") Directed by Patrick Lussier (#2114 - Dracula 2000)

Review: 

Sure, let's pick a movie found on one of those movie-packs*. It's not every day that you see a film with a poster that says "Shot in 3D" as if that somehow was going to be a drawing aspect beyond, say, the Avatar movies (I myself saw a movie in 3D about...three times*). But Patrick Lussier did have some success with My Bloody Valentine 3D two years earlier, so it wasn't a complete stretch (incidentally, Todd Farmer co-wrote both films, with this one being done with Lussier). Nicolas Cage was apparently attracted to the film because of the 3D format and also getting his eye shot out, so there's an endorsement for making choices for the sake of doing so. At any rate, folks arising from Hell to go on a crusade against evildoers, well, you probably saw it before in some way with Spawn (incidentally, the 1997 movie had Alan B. McElroy as a writer; he had written a script about a man going on the run from Hell with bounty hunters after him), but I'm sure you can see the appeal. Lussier also co-edited the film with Devin C. Lussier. Released on a budget of over $45 million, the movie was not a hit at the time with audiences.

You get a movie that starts with a dude wearing a chain wallet that has the (stainless banner version) Confederate* flag on it getting his ass beat by our lead character (get it, "John Milton"? what was their rejected other choice - "I. M. Hell"? "Dante S. Inferno"?). It's basically a movie for those who love over-the-top movies of sex and violence that probably would go well with something such as say, Motorpsycho (1965). I have to say: I did actually like this movie in the face of the quirks that come in: seeing it at home when you can't really feel the "3D" that was in theaters, seeing a film that kind of does just blaze the path of revenge with stiff folks rather than a shoehorned romance for 104 minutes, and lastly: a movie that seems dedicated for the sickos that think they know what "camp" or "cult films" mean. Sure, it has a more methodical performance from Cage than what you might expect (particularly with whatever you want to call that blond hairpiece), but he does carry the film pretty well with some sobering charm that makes you go with the comic book-type of ride. It's a movie with a goofy-ass gun that makes you deader than dead, who's to complain? And then there's Heard along for the ride who basically coasts on kicking some ass without dwelling on too many of the consequences that I can appreciate some of the time. Of course, the gem in the rough of the cast besides Cage is Fichtner, who essentially glides along with the creeping power of being a methodical pest on the hell-level of an IRS agent (or, in his words, one where he just had to "fill in the blanks"). I almost wish it was Fichtner and Cage paired together, going around in a cool car (hey, some folks like cars from the 1950s or 1960s) dealing with folks that try to be nerdy for Satan, but I'll accept the conceit provided in such a fun performance played for Fichtner. Burke is mostly trying to do what can only be described as "Spirit Halloween rendition of Jim Jones" and pretty much succeeds in being detestable within his conviction that you could at least see a few suckers getting into an orgy of delusion and nerd-ing out for what they think is the true power*. There are plenty of oddball moments that'll throw the viewer for a loop, ranging from casual fiancé-on-fiancé violence to a gunfight with a naked woman present or the garden variety plan to, I'm not kidding, drink from a man's skull, but I enjoyed this kind of offbeat movie. It's a film that reaches for keeping your attention (even with a middling soundtrack) with car chases and other blunt instruments that will leave some with a chuckle and others running cold. It's a guilty pleasure type of movie possibly worth checking out for the curiosity factor, at least in my mind. So it goes.

 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Same movie pack that includes such Cage movies as Knowing, Joe, and, I shit you not: Deadfall.

*Star Wars: The Force Awakens (second watch), Godzilla: King of the Monsters (second time), and Avatar: The Way of Water, for the record.

*See you know the dude is going to get his ass kicked because he has a thing with the flag of the biggest losers possible.

*Look, isn't Satanism a bit more of a lame larp than actual religious people? At least agnostic people don't inspire as much cringe as the atheists do from time to time.

Shin Godzilla.

Review #2563: Shin Godzilla.

Cast: 

Hiroki Hasegawa (Rando Yaguchi), Yutaka Takenouchi (Hideki Akasaka), Satomi Ishihara (Kayoko Ann Patterson), Ren Ōsugi (Prime Minister Seiji Okochi), Akira Emoto (Ryuta Azuma), Kengo Kôra (Yusuke Shimura, Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary), Mikako Ichikawa (Hiromi Ogashira, Deputy Director), Jun Kunimura (Masao Zaizen, Integrated Chief of Staff), Pierre Taki (Saigo, Combat Leader), Kyūsaku Shimada (Katayama, Minister of Foreign Affairs), Ken Mitsuishi (Kozuka, Governor of Tokyo), Shingo Tsurumi (Yajima, Joint Staff Deputy), Kimiko Yo (Reiko Hanamori, Defense Minister), Takumi Saitō (Ikeda, Tank Captain), Takashi Fujiki (Tokyo Lieutenant Governor), Yû Kamio (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), with Suzuki Matsuo (Journalist), Takahiro Miura (Journalist) and Mansai Nomura (Godzilla, motion capture) Directed by Hideaki Anno (#2344 - The End of Evangelion) and Shinji Higuchi.

Review: 

"In the world of fantastical scifi, Godzilla isn’t just an embodiment of hopes and dreams, but a caricature of reality–almost a kind of satirical reflection of the world. Painting present-day Japan in that light is something of a crazy experiment." - Hideaki Anno

"Shin Godzilla is a very different kind of Godzilla movie to its predecessors. So I was bracing for the movie-going audience to say, "Oh, this isn't Godzilla." But they were surprisingly very receptive to what we were trying to do.  They also fully picked up the the intent and nuance I tried to pour into the film." - Shinji Higuchi

Once upon a time, the Godzilla movies were on ice. Godzilla: Final Wars, released in 2004, was the sixth and final movie released by Toho in their third phase of making the films (which is basically split into eras of their emperor with "Shōwa", "Heisei" or, "Godzilla [1998] sucked, let's make movies again" or, uh, "Reiwa, otherwise known as "Godzilla [2014] rocked, let's make movies again"). So, with the success of the 2014 American rendition, Toho moved quickly to announce the resurgence of the series being in production (one with a title that basically can be construed as "new", "true", or "god", as opposed to, say, "Godzilla Resurgence"). The film was directed by Hideaki Anno and Shinji Higuchi, who had worked together on Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water, both renditions of Neon Genesis Evangelion, along with Love & Pop (1998)*; Higuchi served as VFX director while Anno served as co-editor and writer for the movie, which drew inspiration from the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. The effect for Godzilla was done with computer-generated imagery that saw motion capture utilized (after debating using a puppet). Released in Japan on July 29, 2016, the movie was a considerable success and a few months later it even got a release in America, the first one for the series since Godzilla 2000 [1999]. Due to the contract signed by Toho and Legendary Entertainment, the next live-action Godzilla movie could not be produced until at least 2020; it couldn't stop them from doing animated films, which is where the animated trilogy (Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters [2017], Godzilla: City on the Edge of Battle [2018], Godzilla: The Planet Eater [2018]) comes in before Godzilla Minus One came around in 2023.

I wonder how this would've felt in 2016, with a 19-year-old* me, one who had only seen the 1954 movie and the 2014 American film at the time, I really do. Maybe I would've got a big kick out seeing it in a theater in the same way that Godzilla Minus One rocked my imagination years later. But this is 2026, I'm nearly 30, and at the end of the day, this is just an okay Godzilla movie that is not nearly as interesting as it believes itself to be for the approach that they aimed for.  This isn't even a complaint about what I wanted the movie to be, this is merely just me believing that things really haven't changed that much from the sequences in 1960s Godzilla movies in conference table discussion. Sure, the camera angles are sometimes neat, and there are little moments to chuckle with amidst the endless displays of who is who. But at a certain point, you can imagine someone watching the film at home (not in theaters, heaven forbid yelling there) and going, "who cares?" I suppose there is a bit of imagination need to believe there was something in their lives besides the minutiae of conference rooms just like with the older ones; I'll give it the pass that the entertainment value mostly overrides the middling characters.² Would the movie be higher on the supposed "bleak scale" some people label it, if, say, the National Diet had been vaporized? (I had a feeling that one of the Godzilla films of the past few decades had a different type of ending, and what do you know, Godzilla 2000 ends with Godzilla going through Tokyo). Going through conference rooms may be exciting to you in hearing what someone might do in the event of a disaster (do you also love doing your taxes?), but being outside feels freer for a movie. The atomic breath sequence is fun not only because it dispenses with one piece of the "who cares?" puzzle but also because, wait for it, it involves Godzilla being cool as hell in destruction. Sure, some folks probably loved it for being, say, complimentary of the Self-Defense Forces, but the real attraction is what you see of its monster, the eventual method of containment (face it, you know no matter what, the movie will not end like Terminator 3) and then, maybe remembering the face of one of the people in the movie. It really is a movie of adaptability: Godzilla adapts into multiple forms (some of them are pretty neat, arguably), the politicians either have to adapt for their country's sake or die (with or without the American government looming) and you either adapt to the film's rhythm for two hours or fall by the wayside.

There are moments with Hasegawa that does invite curiosity in juggling ambition and, well, actually being clever enough to listen and also lead people around him. In theory, the best one to tag along in the discussion part of the film (i.e., stuck in a room with nerds rather than political nerds*) is Ichikawa, mainly because they sound incisive...sure is a shame they only pop up here and there. Apparently, Ishihara felt the pressure in having to deal with the amount of lines in English (as one does when playing an American senior official) that ends up as pretty jarring (reading subtitles is one thing, imagine if you suddenly hear English all of a sudden) when compared to everyone else in vague nature anyway. Arguably, Minus One and this movie share a handful of aspects: both involve a fresh take involving the nature of man when confronting a great threat (bureaucrats in one circle, folks coming off the end of a war in another), both set themselves apart as a fresh reboot that doesn't involve introducing a second monster (the only other non-monster mash Godzilla movie in the last few decades was The Return of Godzilla back in 1984, although that one acted as a "direct sequel" to the first film), and both involve an ending inviting the possibility of a follow-up emergence(^). I felt like I cared more about what I saw in Minus One than what happened with this movie (the milage may vary when it comes to that 2014 American one), but I feel like I should be fairer to the 2016 movie for basically accomplishing its goal of a distinct take on a creature and government going in tandem in adaptability. As a whole, Shin Godzilla is basically fine, surely inspiring curiosity for its place within modern renditions of monster movies from the people that like its pacing and ones who don't have as much fun with it. At a certain point, I had to realize, yeah, this movie did achieve the goals set out on the scale and ambition required in a Japanese movie. Regardless, it has enough entertainment value worth recommending at least once for a movie that is now ten years old.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Incidentally, Anno wrote Higuchi's Shin Ultraman (2022) and later wrote and directed Shin Kamen Rider (2023).

*December birthdays stay undefeated.

²People love giving the Legendary Pictures Godzilla movies shit for their middling characterization in the face of monster mashes, which to me is funny as hell because brother, what do you think I'm here for in a theater? At a certain point for some movies, the line between "I wanted to see X in the movie" and "I wanted to be interested in the movie" collapses for some movies.

*People who are nerdy about politics are the biggest dweebs imaginable, change my mind. At least the guys who are weird about the lore of movies keep it roughly on the level. 

[^] Higuchi did mention a few small parallels with The Return of Godzilla - SHIN GODZILLA Interview with Shinji Higuchi, Discussing THE RETURN OF GODZILLA and SHIN GODZILLA's Shocking Finale - Daily Dead

Oddly, both also have an available version where you can see the movie in black and white. Also, good god, imagine a Shin Godzilla sequel that has actually *not* focus on the bureaucracy for a moment and actually care about people in the city? The horror! It almost feels like the reverse of my slight bone to pick with Evangelion: at a certain point, I did roll my eyes at Shinji's inner life and wanted to aim my eyes anywhere else. Specifically, Misato. 

In fairness to 2014 Godzilla, I remember loving it a bit back then and slightly less the next time I saw it over five years later because, hey, why the hell would you kill off Bryan Cranston's character? 12 years later, you really can ask: Who cares about (or remembers) Aaron Taylor-Johnson's character? 

Obligatory link, i.e. the only review of the movie I ever watched of the film (also, we love old Cinemassacre)

For the purposes of having a reference of previous Godzilla movies, inquire here: 

The original 1954 classic and its decent 1955 sequel

King Kong vs. Godzilla (1962) - Godzilla fights King Kong to a relative draw.

Mothra vs. Godzilla (1964) - Mothra joins the mash!

Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster (1964) - A monster so important it made the title

Invasion of Astro-Monster (1965) - Nick Adams in: Spaceman's Adventure

Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (1966) - Terrorists, lobsters, and more.

Son of Godzilla (1967) - A real family drama

Destroy All Monsters (1968) - Mash like it's 1999 in Monsterland

All Monsters Attack (1969) - Children and Minilla have to fight their own battles instead of Godzilla

Godzilla vs. Hedorah (1971) - Trippy environmentally hip fun for the whole family

Godzilla vs. Gigan (1972) - Godzilla towers and a clip show all in one

Godzilla vs. Megalon (1973) - The one with Jet Jaguar the robot with a theme song.

I'll get to the ones from Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla (1974) to Godzilla Final Wars (2004) eventually. Have fun!

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.

Atlas Shrugged: Part II.

Review #2480: Atlas Shrugged: Part II.

Cast: 

Samantha Mathis (Dagny Taggart), Jason Beghe (Henry Rearden), Esai Morales (Francisco d'Anconia), Patrick Fabian (James Taggart), Kim Rhodes (Lillian Rearden), Richard T. Jones (Eddie Willers), D. B. Sweeney (John Galt), Paul McCrane (Wesley Mouch), John Rubinstein (Dr. Floyd Ferris), Robert Picardo (Dr. Robert Stadler), Ray Wise (Head of State Thompson), Diedrich Bader (Quentin Daniels), Bug Hall (Leonard Small), Arye Gross (Ken Danagger), Michael Gross (Ted 'Buzz' Killman), Rex Linn (Kip Chalmers), Larisa Oleynik (Cherryl Brooks), with Thomas F. Wilson (Robert Collins), and Teller (Laughlin) Directed by John Putch.

Review: 

Okay, maybe it seems silly to cover another Ayn Rand movie for Turkey Week. But if you had the displeasure of watching Atlas Shrugged: Part I. The 2011 movie barely made it to any theaters to begin with, so guess how they raised money for the sequel. Apparently, $16 million was raised by a company based in New Jersey in a private debt sale. Filming apparently was then announced to start in April 2012 to be released in October 2012 that totally would be in line with the U.S. presidential election. One of the writers of the film was Duncan Scott, who apparently did a re-edit of We the Living (1942) with English subtitles. He is credited with the screenplay alongside Duke Sandefur and Brian Patrick O'Toole. Everything is different, right down to the director. John Putch has mostly directed for television and a few projects for video. Even the cast is different, as apparently it wasn't easy to negotiate options with actors in such a short time. Producer John Aglialoro went on the interview circuit a bit in stating his hopes for the film to hit with certain audiences, once stating that leftists dismiss Rand as a "cartoon....that she was for selfishness". Perhaps not surprisingly, the movie was not screened for critics, accusing them as having their integrity going off a cliff while also deciding, yes, these think-tanks called The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute are going to be fair and balanced towards this movie*. Atlas Shrugged Part II did get to screen on over a thousand screens on opening day....and a month later, the producers decided to not release numbers for it by the time it made a whole $3 million. The market rejected the films in theaters, but Aglialoro decided to finish the job with a third film in 2014 (you know damn well we'll be back to see that film in 2026).

The movie is termed as "sci-fi drama, and I hesitate to nof chuckle. If this was meant to be a challenge of the meme that rolls with the word "libertarian" in "we demand to be taken seriously!", it would be a bonafide swing-and-a-miss. It somehow is technically better than the previous film but is just as insanely boring, with its attempts at celebrating the defiant businessman and its incessant asking of who is John Galt (I'm Spartacus!) making me giggle again and again. The most fun you may get from the film is in the name game of spotting people you might recognize from better things: hey hey, its Ray Wise (and accompanying evil sneer) from RoboCop/Twin Peaks! A collection of TV guys in Teller (who speaks!), Picardo, Gross, Bader and Linn. A lead from Pump up the Volume*. Could you imagine if this film actually did influence someone in how they voted in an election? What, vote for conservatives or they'll keep trying to make movies to break into the mainstream? If you go up to a mirror three times and say "taxation is theft", will a Libertarian appear out of thin air to scold me for believing in a driver's license? It probably goes without saying that the dialogue is as stilted as ever for a movie that would probably serve as the real test for if something designed to preach to a specific choir is actually slop. Then again, how many movies actually show TV pundits play themselves? It is funny that this is the middle film of a series that certainly was just itching to get to John Galt and his big speech for the conclusion (70 pages for a book, probably less for a film) that basically dances like a soap opera with further people leaving society because, hey, who is John Galt? Mathis and Beghe can only do so much under the strain of it all, which means they sometimes sound vulnerable like actual human beings, even if two movies have managed to do little in making the audience realize why they matter as characters. The unending desire to nail oneself on the cross of Rand means an inevitable speech is looming around the corner or the soap opera-tier characters pop in and out, which is sad because good god you need a really over-the-top villain (Wise could've easily swallowed the film, so naturally they give him a few lines) to up the tension.. It basically resembles a religious movie but with the morals of holding the one true power together: capitalism rules guys, we just have to trust these elite and not the evil government red tape to do their job! The fact that the apparent depression that is supposed to be in the film basically shows just a few people at random times does put the proper trim of amusement to it all. They manage to make plane maneuvering and a train-crash the equivalent of one guy trying to start a "wave" and getting crickets. As a whole, Atlas Shrugged: Part II continues to get stuck in the mud of wooden dialogue with actors that cannot possibly hold it together when its foundation is a self-serving mash of meandering goofiness. 

 

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Later: War of the Worlds (2025)

*Hey, I try to have a balance. I try to not share visible irritation for the following: annoying pretentious filmmakers, hippies, annoying conservatives, annoying liberals, and people who believe that movies/video games influence people to do violence. If you ever want to say what grinds your gears: leave a note.

*Perhaps ironically, Samantha Mathis was elected to serve in a trade union position with Vice President, Actors/Performers of SAG-AFTRA from 2015 to 2019. Ayn Rand wasn't big on "altruism" and unions (as selected here: Ayn Rand's Defense of an Anti-Union Massacre — History News Network) but sure loved the government-run Social Security and Medicare in later years.

Twisted Pair.

Review #2478: Twisted Pair.

Cast: 

Neil Breen (Cade Altair / Cale Altair), Siohbun Ebrahimi (Donna), Sara Meritt (Alana), Denise Bellini ( Agency Director), Marty Dasis (Corp. Executive/Detective/Soldier), Brad Stein (Detective), John Smith Burns (Corp. Executive), Art MacHenster (Corp. Executive/Soldier), and Greg Smith Burns (Cuzzx) Written, Produced, and Directed by Neil Breen (#1767 - Fateful Findings, #1925 - Double Down, #2146 - I Am Here....Now, #2313 - Pass Thru)

Review: 

There are probably people who actually believe Neil Breen makes movies as some sort of a joke. Well, that would be stupid, so let's approach these movies with the curiosity of wondering how a filmmaker continually manages to make terrible movies ("so bad it's good" should be sent to the woodchipper). As before, Breen serves as the costume designer to go with a variety of other things that he "cleverly" tries to hide in the credits. Apparently, the movie had crowdfunding from GoFundMe that raised a few thousand dollars, with filming being done at Nevada State College. So, what's the plot description for this film? Breen plays two identical twin brothers (well, "identical" minus the fake beard) that are hybrid A.I. entities that have different methods to "achieve justice for humanity", mainly because one got fired for not doing good at their job (which namely involves things like protecting troops or jumping in the air). All for the runtime of 89 minutes, as evidenced by the poster that you can see on the actual website (complete with an AOL account, in case you need to ask questions about how to buy a DVD for $30). In 2023, a sequel was released with Cade: The Tortured Crossing. 

 

You can see that this is the film where Breen really wanted to do green screens for damn near anything possible. But hey, at least the premise is different. He has evolved from cut-off vests with medals from his very first film (which he made in 2007, mind you) to having folks admit their crimes before a mass suicide to now just making folks vanish/blow up to...having a plot to take one guy's "empire" down. While having a scene where he just sits near a computer. One sequence in particular sticks out early: Our hero bumps into a girl and tries to apologize to her with a date but she rejects it. Then he follows her house and breaks in that leads to a fight...where it is then revealed that they actually already are in a relationship and that I guess they like to roleplay. Ever hear of Henry Darger? That was a janitor/hospital worker who became noted only in death because of a 15,145-page novel he had written about child slave rebellion to go along with a variety of collages and illustrations*. Breen's movies must feel like that: the work of someone who just wrote whatever the hell popped in their head, and I don't even know if Breen has ever actually been influenced by movies with his stuff. Stock footage and green screens are all that you get with this movie when it isn't filmed at night, complete with an eagle because, reasons. I wonder when and how Breen was compelled to start making movies like this: he has to be, what, 60 by this point? He basically is doing the same kind of weird fan-fiction about himself that for whatever reason deals with the fallout of people being abandoned (children or not) to go with saying mealy-mouthed stuff about artificial intelligence and casting people that probably aren't too different than if you found people at your local Denny's to go do a video. I reject the idea that Breen is an outsider artist, mainly because Breen just seems like he makes movies for whatever he pleases, regardless if they get screened at festivals or not. His stuff is repetitive yet they earn one star because even this is a smidge above Coleman Francis (that may be the real low bar, don't let anyone tell you about Ed Wood). Between the strange magic frames, diamonds, guys getting shot and again and a reference to the ending of Pass Thru (which is being screened in a room with an Ultraviolet poster), there is plenty to notice for what ultimately is another Neil Breen experience in confounding strangeness. 

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Black Friday: Postal.

*see, Movie Night does try to teach.

Fantastic Four (2015).

Review #2476: Fantastic Four.

Cast: 

Miles Teller (Reed Richards / Mister Fantastic), Michael B. Jordan (Johnny Storm / Human Torch), Kate Mara (Sue Storm / Invisible Woman), Jamie Bell (Ben Grimm / The Thing), Toby Kebbell (Victor Von Doom / Dr. Doom), Reg E. Cathey (Dr. Franklin Storm), Tim Blake Nelson (Dr. Harvey Allen), Tim Heidecker (Mr. Richards), and Dan Castellaneta (Mr. Kenny) Directed by Josh Trank (#152 - Chronicle)

 

Review: 

"I don’t regret any of it. It’s a part of me."

Oh sure, this is an easy target. But why not? 20th Century Fox saw two Fantastic Four movies make a little bit of money and thought they could start over, finally settling on Josh Trank to direct in 2012, as he had made quite the impression with Chronicle. While Jeremy Slater (who actually had provided a bit of input in the script of that film) was initially tabbed to do the screenplay, it went nowhere when they clashed over what they wanted the story to be as Slater wanted to go for a tone akin to the recent release of The Avengers (2012)...which Trank hated, because he apparently had only seen the 1990s animated series and wasn't exactly a comic book movie fan. Simon Kinberg was hired as a co-writer and co-producer in 2013. The movie was filmed in 2014 over the course of 72 days but Trank had a hell of a time trying to balance the workload and internal pressure, with varying level of reports over how stressful it was in production (whether his behavior was erratic is up to debate - the casting of Jordan as Storm riled a few people on message boards and Trank resorted to carrying a gun on his nightstand). The apparent first cut of the film was "morose" and not to Fox's liking which led to reshoots and re-writes; ultimately, Trank, Kinberg, and Slater were credited for the screenplay. Trank did negotiate a deal to at least make his own cut while Fox got Stephen Rivkin to make a cut assembled from certain takes, which Trank claimed were picked deliberately to be cheesy. One day before the release of the film, Trank posted on social media about having had a fantastic version of the film in mind that would probably never be seen. The movie made a bit of money but obviously did not generate desire for a sequel* while Trank didn't return to directing until Capone (2020).

I can't even tell just who is most at fault for this piece of junk. How bad was Trank's first cut that they went with a version that never actually goes into first gear? 100 minutes go by with four lead characters that have chemistry on the level of when you encounter a homeless man on the street. The movie looks and feels so dreary that it makes the 2007/2009 Fox efforts actually look like high-effort features, right down to an opening sequence that has "it's clobbering time" used first....when Ben Grimm is hit by his brother. What was the second idea, Johnny Storm having a fear of fire because his mom got burned to death? Sue Storm being afraid of being alone because of a traumatic clown experience? The movie is basically a wind-up toy that goes nowhere, says nothing, and accomplishes nothing. Apparently, Trank's experiences living in a "racially intense Los Angeles where we were used to seeing white superheroes", combined with being a director with control, led to him casting Jordan as the Human Torch (actually, he also wanted to cast a black woman to play Sue Storm too but was overruled). It's funny that the one really noted name that Trank got for the film did get to be in a successful film for 2015...with Creed, which was released months after Fantastic Four. Sure, nobody pulls off a quality performance of the four, but he probably is the least affected, I suppose. It isn't even worth crapping on Teller, what exactly is he supposed to do in a movie where he doesn't register any sort of energy? The chemistry between him and Mara actually is transparent in how thin it feels, and Mara almost does accomplish the act of seeming invisible...except for the fact that Bell accomplishes even less with a rock-man that inspires chuckles at how it looks. Kebbell has two hurdles to stumble over: a pathetic characterization of Victor Von Doom (as last played by Julian McMahon to mild results) and a Dr. Doom that is in the movie for less than 15 minutes that doesn't get an interesting motivation when he is turned into a grey-green goo man. When the most involved person in the movie is Cathey in a thankless role, you are in trouble. It can't even be a cheesy movie like the 1994 unreleased feature, no, it has to try to be a failed imitation of stuff like Batman Begins (2005). The climax of the movie is probably the most cobbled-together and it happens to have the one noted line: a stupid line about "fantastic" that became a "meme". You would think after four Fantastic Four movies, you would get one that has a friendly quartet and interesting action and production values, but oh no, not quite. As a whole, Fantastic Four (2015) is a movie fit for nobody. It is made of nonsense that will come and go with absolutely no impact except maybe to the psyche of Josh Trank. It does however make a good film to make fun of, at least.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Next for Thanksgiving: A Sound of Thunder.

*Ten years later, Marvel did The Fantastic Four: First Steps, a bare minimum for a decent movie. No, I'm still a bit mad that they went with having that dopey baby in it.

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? 

Mayhem.

Review #2469: Mayhem.

Cast: 

Steven Yeun (Derek Cho), Samara Weaving (Melanie Cross), Steven Brand (John "The Boss" Towers), Caroline Chikezie (Kara "The Siren" Powell), Kerry Fox (Irene Smythe), Dallas Roberts (Lester "The Reaper" McGill), Mark Frost (Ewan Niles), Claire Dellamar (Meg), André Eriksen (Colton "The Bull" Snyder), Nikola Kent (Oswald), Lucy Chappell (Jenny), and Olja Hrustic (CDC Official) Directed by Joe Lynch.

Review: 

"That’s what Mayhem is all about, it’s a battle against passive aggression. Everybody wants to discuss when they should just say no and just say that they don’t like this! Why do we have to side-bar everything? Why do we have to have another meeting? Because people’s voices might get raised? Someone’s feelings might get hurt? No one wants to get anyone’s feelings hurt anymore because someone will sue. That’s the problem with the corporate world. It’s this serpent eating its tail, because no one can be honest and everyone will sue. It’s such a deadening situation where no one can be their true selves. And part of directing is being able to be yourself, it’s your vision, it’s your voice!"

It only seems right to close things out with a fresh face. Joe Lynch initially started out as a child actor on Long Island but found himself interested in making films by the time he was studying at Syracuse University in the late 1990s. With a visual style described as being influenced by films such as "Evil Dead II, Goodfellas, and Raising Arizona way too many times as a kid", he graduated with a bachelor's degree in visual and performing arts and had a few student short films make the festival circuit. Lynch directed music videos for a variety of groups before becoming a feature director with Wrong Turn 2: Dead End (2007), which had a brief horror festival run before being released on DVD. Further efforts for films include Chillerama [2011] (directing a segment), Knights of Badassdom [2013] (a movie he disowned), and Everly [2014]. The script was written by Matias Caruso. Lynch had plenty of experience with corporate irritation, noting his experience trying to do anthology project to do videos that ran into plenty of hassles. The movie was shot in Serbia due to the country giving the filmmakers the proper amount of days they needed to shoot (25, which compared well to the 15 offered by Pittsburgh and 18 by Vancouver). The film was released in a few theaters and on "VOD and digital HD", and, well, I found it on a DVD pack that seemed promising, so why not?*

Sure, there have been a few action horror movies involving boatloads of crazed lunacy in a building. A cursory glance shows a few movies involving a fight to survive, whether that was Mean Guns [1997] (fight to the death for cash between killers), The Tournament [2009] (rich people watching others kill for sport), or The Belko Experiment [2016] (workers locked in a building told to start killing each other). Here you get one involving a virus that gets in your head and turns your impulses into a thing that may be a worthy killing machine, albeit one that makes sure to say the attacker isn't liable for their actions. I imagine there has also been at least one movie about fighting to the top of a building. But there is something infectious about the way the movie maneuvers through 86 minutes of a few thrills within moments of delirious execution at the office. The horrors of being in a crappy job that degrades one soul probably does go hand in hand with the horrors of people wanting to act their impulses to kick the crap out of you, to put it mildly. In that sense, it is a crowd pleaser for a handful of moments in terms of quick cuts to the action and a few fun lines, even if it likes the voice over perhaps a bit too many times. Yeun (best known at the time for his work on The Walking Dead*) does make for a solid lead to hold it together in wavering action status, one trying to balance the impulses that come with office politics and wanting to find a way out of being a drone off the old block. Weaving makes for a worthy pairing with Yuen in energy that bounce off each other in mutually assured destruction (of others), charming but convincing in being ready to handle whatever happens in the movie with nail guns and fists. Brand and others get their moments of making corporate stooges a bit more unnerving when poised to actually use violence beyond the usual corporate twist-and-turning, which works out for a few chuckles (mostly highlighted by Chikezie). At least the ending has a few chuckles in the idea of a business-mandated push to try and cure the virus (hey, this was made in 2017), although it probably is a bit routine in the actual endpoint (and a bit inevitable). In general, Mayhem has a few entertaining moments seeing the horrors of the corporate world go upside down for a few punches that might make for a worthwhile recommendation.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Unusually, you can thank The Last Drive-in with Joe Bob Briggs for this double-header coming to fruition, as I eyed a "double feature DVD" that had a disc of this film and Suitable Flesh. So one spends a little over two hours each watching a movie that happens to have little segments of Briggs making commentary on the film. Honestly, I don't actually watch the Drive-in because I'm not much of a streaming service (as available on...Shudder) person or a live show guy, but it does sound like something cool to see around.

*What's that show?

Green Room.

Review #2460: Green Roon.

Cast: 

Anton Yelchin (Pat), Imogen Poots (Amber), Alia Shawkat (Sam), Joe Cole (Reece), Callum Turner (Tiger), Patrick Stewart (Darcy Banker), Mark Webber (Daniel), Eric Edelstein (Big Justin), Macon Blair (Gabe), Kai Lennox (Clark), David W. Thompson (Tad), Brent Werzner (Werm), and Taylor Tunes (Emily) Written and Directed by Jeremy Saulnier.

Review: 

"In Green Room, the gasps are real. People are sort of white-knuckled watching this movie. That’s what I love. The involuntary response their bodies create. It’s pretty hard to do, to make people actually terrified. It’s about making the characters relatable. It’s about breaking a few rules, not just to break them, but to keep things off-balance. Let people know that they’re not going where they’re supposed to go. You go where the characters take you, which is terrifying because these people have no fucking idea what they’re doing. As for the violence, because there’s so much brutality in Green Room, and there’s some full-frontal gore, it can be perceived as sensational. But the way I treat it, if you look and scrutinize every moment, it’s very reverent."

Sure, let's go with a vicious little thriller to feature for once. This was the third film of Jeremy Saulnier, who started making films in his early twenties. The Virginia native became a feature filmmaker with the horror-comedy Murder Party (2007), which he wrote and shot himself. His next film was the Kickstarter-funded Blue Ruin (2013), which he also wrote and shot with the idea that it could've easily been his last movie with the time required to raise his family. The impetus for making this film was his desire to make a movie with a green room, with his experiences at concert venues as a person who used to be in a punk band shaping a short film that he made in 2007 staying in his mind for when he could make a film the way he wanted. You may or may not be surprised that punk had a bit of the skinheads in there, particularly ones that liked to wear uniforms (and conversely there also existed Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice). What Saulnier had the most fun was in realizing what he wanted to do for years and yet not have a clue just where he wanted to take it before figuring out where both sides of the door would go in their choices without playing into too many genre tropes; he specifically stated that there was nothing sadistic in the film but instead "brutal difference and self-preservation" and one choice act of unmotivated violence that leads to the clash. Premiering at the Cannes Film Festival in 2015 but not getting a release in theaters until spring 2016 (first limited before wide), the movie was not a big success at the time, but Saulnier has continued to make films with Hold the Dark (2018) and Rebel Ridge (2024).

Sure, you could call it a punk rendition of Assault on Precinct 13 (1976). But it has its own type of relentless dread and brutality that make for a resounding success in unsettling the viewer with how fast things can go down in the pit of bleakness and keep going. The horror is the fact that everything that could go wrong for these folks in the film can in fact can be much worse to actually see play out. The parts you see within the land of skinheads and their type of organization (right down to the dog-training) are probably most unsettling because it seems so natural in a way that it hits all the marks required to strike bone. Yelchin (who tragically passed away in 2016) manages to sell the quick-rising fear that comes in going from having one's trouble evolve from where to maybe siphon gas to most definitely seeing someone with a knife in their head. Granted the group of rockers do have a bit of time to show the toil of punk rocking in a world that doesn't really seem to hear the notes for a few chuckles (note that they play at a Mexican restaurant early on). Poots and her weary expression to pair with Yelchin for a good chunk of the film makes for a fascinating one to see, one with a cracked sense of self that seems authentic in the all of the strange sad ways possible. Technically speaking, Stewart is not in the film too much, coming in and out of the darkening situation (figuratively and literally, if you consider one of the last lines of the film) but he makes the most of it with a unsettling sense of calm that reminds you that there are people like him somewhere in the world that are content with who and what they believe in without needing to turn to unnecessary bombast. Others who make an impression include Blair and his shaky presence at the powder keg of ugliness or the small moments that show the strange place that we are having to look upon (at one point you've got a guy willingly getting into a stabbing incident to help distract a cop). The movie earns its stripes of making you care about the violence and how it could easily happen to any of us who find ourselves in a bad spot and can't rely on people adhering to cliches and tricks, with the climax allowing for only the slightest of relief of the stark nature we just saw for 95 minutes. As a whole, Green Room manages to show the terror of places you couldn't imagine exist and shows that one can have their stomach churn in its simple brutality and solid execution.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

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.