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.

The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists!

Review #2402:  The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists!

Cast: 

Hugh Grant (the Pirate Captain), Martin Freeman (the Pirate with a Scarf/Number Two), Imelda Staunton (Queen Victoria), David Tennant (Charles Darwin), Jeremy Piven (Black Bellamy), Salma Hayek (Cutlass Liz), Lenny Henry (Peg-Leg Hastings), Brian Blessed (Pirate King), Russell Tovey / Anton Yelchin (Albino Pirate [United Kingdom] / [United States]), Brendan Gleeson (Pirate with Gout), Ashley Jensen (Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate), Ben Whitehead / Al Roker (Pirate Who Likes Sunsets and Kittens [UK] / [USA]) Directed by Peter Lord (#160 - Chicken Run) and Jeff Newitt.

Review: 

"We had one of those meetings that you have in development departments where there’s 30 books on the table, people discussing if any of them will make a TV series or a movie, and I picked this thing up off the table and I read five pages. It made me laugh so much. Seldom, indeed, have I read anything that’s had so much fun in it so quickly. So I thought, “Well, we’ll do that!” That’s just the start of a very long process because it wasn’t really as much of a story in the book, so that was two years to get the draft together."

Sure, why not. It's been a very long time since I covered a feature made by Aardman Animations*, and this was their fifth one released to theaters and a bit of a return to stop motion, as their last two movies (Flushed Away [2006] and Arthur Christmas [2011]) were done in CG. This movie was planned to be in CG, but their partners in Sony saw the models used as reference that seemed better for stop-motion, albeit with computer generated imagery used for scenery, such as with the sea (at any rate, art of the film does exist to view for oneself). The source material is a book series that English novelist Gideon Defoe first created with The Pirates! in an Adventure with Scientists in 2004 that lasted for five more novels in eight years, and it perhaps is not a surprise to see that Dafoe wrote the screenplay for this film. Outside of the United Kingdom, the movie was released under the title of "The Pirates! Band of Misfits", and it is where you get two different voice actors for select characters. The movie was a mild hit with audiences, but apparently its failure to make more money internationally led to Sony (who apparently had high expectations) not going forward with partnering for a second Pirates movie, which would've apparently been about cowboys. This was the 2nd of two movies Lord (the co-founder of Aardman) has directed, as he since has spent time as an executive producer on a variety of Aardman projects, while co-director Jeff Newitt worked on Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget (2023). The next movie made by Aardman was with StudioCanal for Shaun the Sheep Movie in 2015.

I don't really care for using the word "cartoon" for a movie, but I'm sure this type of movie would fall under that label for most people with its intent of just having fun with pirates in the 19th century (1837, specifically) that goes with the flow of living dodos and adversarial queens for 88 minutes. The animation is nice enough to serve as the backdrop for quite a few charming gags (mostly visual) and it clearly will work enough in patience for anybody that got a kick out of Cutthroat Island (1995), despite a few limitations. You can't really take it seriously as a historical movie, but I do wonder if we see that many movies that make light of old dead presidents (some of whom actually owned slaves when in power) as much as others make light of dead monarchs (just to throw one random fact down the hole, Darwin married in 1838 to his first cousin Emma Wedgwood and had ten children). At least Grant* seems to be having a fine time playing a wayward pirate, one that is fairly goofy but endearing enough to go with the evident road to go down in generally good timing (namely dry). Freeman and Tennant accompany him with varying levels of success in timing to react to the teetering absurdity that is fairly dry and yet still sly enough to make it a good bit to go with. Staunton makes for a fairly quality adversary in snooty amusement (as one does when playing a figure of a particular design in rotund-ness). There may be a wide variety of name actors popping in here and there that are mostly fine for tiny gags (it does warm the heart to see a bit role for a booming actor in Blessed). The general line of action for the film most revolves around setting up amusing little situations, whether that involves time spent with, well, scientists and a climax that is relatively engaging in setup to at least give the folks something to be happy with when all is said and done. As a whole, it just is a movie you either roll with in its whimsical type of timing and style, for which it does look quite accomplished in the sense that it never looks tired or too desperate to get the jokes to land. 

 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Hilariously, this is yet another actor finally featured in a review, it never occurred to me I never saw Hugh Grant in a movie before. Also, I suppose I forgot to mention that Aardman has done a few short films. Here's your cookie.

The Lords of Salem.

Review #2311: The Lords of Salem.

Cast: 

Sheri Moon Zombie (Heidi LaRoc / Adelaide Hawthorne), Bruce Davison (Francis Matthias), Jeff Daniel Phillips (Herman "Whitey" Salvador), Judy Geeson (Lacy Doyle), Meg Foster (Margaret Morgan), Patricia Quinn (Megan), Dee Wallace (Sonny), Ken Foree (Herman "Munster" Jackson), María Conchita Alonso (Alice Matthias), Andrew Prine (Reverend Jonathan Hawthorne), Richard Fancy (A.J. Kennedy), Camille Keaton (Doris Von Fux), Bonita Friedericy (Abigail Hennessey), and Nancy Linehan Charles (Clovis Hales) Written and Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007), #1590 - House of 1000 Corpses, #1751 - Halloween II (2009), #1756 - The Devil's Rejects, #1920 - 3 from Hell, #2090 - The Munsters)

Review: 

"50% of you will think this is the greatest thing ever, and 50% will hate it...I think I wanted to let everyone there know that it's OK to feel that way about a film like Lords. It's meant to make you unsure about what you just saw. That's the way the things that I like are—they're not for everybody. People have this delusion that everything has to be for everybody at all times. Every album must be liked by everybody, and every TV show must be liked by everybody, and every movie must be liked by everybody. Everything then becomes bland."

Those with a familiarity with history involving witches or Salem might know that people accused of being witches were not actually burned at the stake. In fact, of the hundreds accused of doing witchcraft in 1692-1693, the thirty that were found guilty suffered the hands of hanging or for the small few, torture (one was pressed until they succumbed to their wounds...and was an 81-year-old man) or death by filthy prisons. Naturally, there have been dozens of books and films that have used the trials as a key topic, whether that involves comedy such as I Married a Witch (1942) or allegories such as The Crucible (play or film). But I suppose it makes sense that one would go and make a film that plays around with the idea that yes, witches really could just be as real as you or me through the old tricks. It was reported in 2010 that Zombie, fresh off the debacle of Halloween II (2009) would get around to writing and directing this film while on his concert tour circuit for shooting in 2011. He apparently had came up with the premise a few years beforehand, but it eventually was tinkered with by Zombie in order to make a "strange, dreamlike movie" (as noted in interviews here, he took inspiration more so from European trials of witches than Salem, which he was misinformed about). He did the film in collaboration with Haunted Movies (so basically, Blumhouse), which at the time had done Insidious and The Bay, particularly because he had total control over the script and casting for a fairly low budget movie. The next Zombie production would come across with 31 (2016), which would go through crowdfunding for certain financing.

I sometimes wonder if I give Zombie a bit too much slack as a filmmaker for all of the fairly average stuff he does. What we have here is a slow burn movie that shows fascination with what Zombie finds interesting about both witchcraft and in "Satanic Panic" that is grim and unforgiving. It may be disjointed; it may not be all that one might think when it comes to the previous Zombie films in terms of stark strangeness in the unfinished cycle of violence but "mixed bag" seems aptly appropriate to try out once if you know what you are getting into. Some might find it basically cribbing from Rosemary's Baby (1968), but given how "fine" that movie was, sometimes you really can just crib from fine movies as long as you don't insult my patience with attempts at simplicity. As before, S.Zombie headlines a R.Zombie film. This time around, there is a passive nature to a character with such a strange and stunted job (it's a radio gig where they hang out about the same level as a couple of inebriated folks) before one eventually sees the logical conclusion of a downward withdrawn spiral. She handles the affair with subdued grace that is probably her most compelling performance for the films I've seen of her. Geeson, Wallace, Quinn play along in weird neighborly charm that is fun to see play out from scene to scene that has fun with self-help in the name of a certain kind of worship. Interestingly, Davison had previously been featured in The Crucible (1996); he was cast when Bruce Dern dropped out of this film due to scheduling conflicts. His curiosity (which went from being a shill for himself to actual curiosity) in the face of impending dread is entertaining to see play out, needless to say. Rounding out the cast is folks such as an unnerving Quinn along with understated presences in Phillips and Foree, who work out fine. The movie has some interesting imagery eventually play out through its trek of dread (such as strange visions or priests) that at least looks like the kind of movie Zombie wanted to just go out and do in having cruelty and uncertainty (for the audience) be the point. As a whole, it might not play well for everyone, but there is promise shown by Zombie in terms of odd duck dread that has a worthy enough cast to carry the waters for a cruel experience that might just work for those that know where to go with a director interested in making a movie to leave you unsure of what you just saw. I ended up going with it enough to say it is fine for one patient viewing, which is more than enough when trying to branch out for horror movies down the road.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: We close out our sixth week after Halloween with John Carpenter's The Fog.

The Hunger Games.

Review #2170: The Hunger Games.

Cast: 

Jennifer Lawrence (Katniss Everdeen), Josh Hutcherson (Peeta Mellark), Liam Hemsworth (Gale Hawthorne), Woody Harrelson (Haymitch Abernathy), Elizabeth Banks (Effie Trinket), Lenny Kravitz (Cinna), Stanley Tucci (Caesar Flickerman), Donald Sutherland (President Coriolanus Snow), Wes Bentley (Seneca Crane), Toby Jones (Claudius Templesmith), Alexander Ludwig (Cato), Isabelle Fuhrman (Clove), Amandla Stenberg (Rue), and Jacqueline Emerson (Foxface) Directed by Gary Ross.

Review: 

"There were so many conversations with Suzanne that it’s hard to narrow down to a single thing. One thing I found fascinating was how steeped she was in Roman history and how much of this came from the Roman arena and how she was informed by that. She was exploring how a culture devolves into spectacle and Rome was her starting point. I found that really interesting."

Sure, franchises do leave a tight space for directors to make their presence known. But some are different from others, as with the case for the first film of what became a four-film franchise, with this first one being directed by Gary Ross. Ross had studied at Penn University with a major in English, where he became active in student theater. He was interested in writing as a career for a long time, but he became interested in being a director during this time, which included dropping out of Penn after three years in 1977. He soon became a consultant with speechwriting in two different presidential campaigns. In 1988, he and Anne Spielberg (his neighbor) wrote the screenplay for what became Big, which resulted in an Academy Award nomination. His first script as a primary writer was Dave in 1993 (which resulted in a second Oscar nomination). A couple of script collaborations later, his first film as a director was Pleasantville in 1998, which was followed by Seabiscuit (2003). Ross was attracted to the idea of doing a film of the Hunger Games book because his children liked it, which led him to read it quickly. Ross ended up not doing any of the subsequent Hunger Games films (released in 2013, 2014, 2015) due to the tough schedule that resulted in directing and writing, with him doing the latter with Suzanne Collins and Billy Ray; Francis Lawrence did the latter three films.

I do remember reading the trilogy of books (released in 2008, 2009, and 2010) when I was in 8th/9th grade, but for whatever reason, it never really dawned on me to actually see the films, even as a teenager. I do vaguely remember the first-person perspective of the books from its lead character of Katniss, even if the gore of that first book is toned down here to fit a PG-13 rating (remember that 24 teenagers walk in only to see all but the "lucky" get mowed down). Televised games of people kicking ass is as old as The Running Man, or Battle Royale, or wrestling, complete with narratives to go with the whole thing. The procession of 142 minutes makes for a decent if not somewhat lengthy experience in trying to stand out as a potential "franchise for the youths". The result is fine, but I find myself wondering if there is something lacking in a film that maneuvers a majority of the beats required in action and decadence. It shakes (literally) and moves on the strength of Lawrence. Only the best can make such a selfless action hero that was once described as a "futuristic Theseus" work the way she does in worthy timing. You can see the ideas of hope in this one person that is driven to survive not just for themselves but for others (such as the similar dynamics that come between Katniss / her sister and Katniss / Rue). That realization of hero-to-symbol is especially helped when seeing her with Hutcherson that eventually serves as more than just theatrics. One does see the cynical heart within Harrelson, even if it begs for more guilt than on the side, at least when compared to the plastic pomp of Banks or that soothing sinister nature of Sutherland that lurks in moments (apparently, he wrote a letter when expressing interest to be in the film) or the theatricality that comes with Tucci in doses. I'm not sure exactly how, but there is something lacking in the dreariness of the spectacle that hinders it from being more than just efficient. It isn't like the film bugs me on a "shaky cam" level or with its effects, that much is true. It yearns to be a striking film with the idea that people are watching youths killing each other for sport, but it only scratches the surface of that shock and awe. In short, it is efficient entertainment that sets a stage for looking further for what could lurk further within this rendition of bread and circuses when routine is thrown for a shock.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up, wait, don't laugh: Michael Moore's Canadian Bacon.

The Campaign.

Review #2021: The Campaign.

Cast: 

Will Ferrell (Representative Cam Brady), Zach Galifianakis (Marty Huggins), Jason Sudeikis (Mitch Wilson), Dylan McDermott (Tim Wattley), Katherine LaNasa (Rose Brady), Sarah Baker (Mitzi Huggins), John Lithgow (Glenn Motch), Dan Aykroyd (Wade Motch), and Brian Cox (Raymond Huggins) Directed by Jay Roach (#133 - Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me, #134 - Austin Powers in Goldmember, #490 - Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery)

Review: 

I had considered watching the film a couple of years ago, because the 2010s certainly were a time for some odd-duck political movies and now the movie is over a decade old and maybe merited curiosity for what reputation one might see from a film that was moderately successful upon release. It was the eighth feature film directed by Jay Roach, who first started out working in production for music videos after film school at USC. His first film was Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1999), the first of a string of comedy films that were pretty successful. Of course, he did do a few drama films in between the comedies, most notably with two HBO productions with Recount (2008) and Game Change (2012), which detailed a key moment in the 2000 and 2008 U.S. presidential election, respectively. The screenplay was done by Chris Henchy and Shawn Harwell, who also did the story with Adam McKay (like Henchy and Ferrell, McKay was a founder of the comedy website Funny or Die). I suppose it is a sign of the times if a comedy film like this ends up being made for $95 million.

I wish I liked the movie better. I don't even think it reflects the time we live in when it comes to a supposed increase in the insanity of the political circus, because the movie is not nearly clever enough to justify only being 85 minutes. If you want to be a neat and tidy satire, one should probably save it for television rather than make a film that is mild in crude effectiveness. I don't want this to sound like a wish for better presences at the lead, because Ferrell and Galifianakis do generally make for amusing moments, but could you just imagine a more serious actor trying to play things off such as their opponent having a beard just like a terrorist group? (Incidentally, John Goodman makes a cameo appearance late in the film, and it only made me sad). It probably doesn't help that the film's cameo appearances of contemporary public figures (which also happened with films such as The Candidate (1972)) only helps to remind me to avoid the brain rot of cable TV without really laughing. At least one can credit the fact that the two leads are meant to play folks trying to win in such pathetic ways that can only mean one can laugh at them without too much trouble, although Ferrell probably proves better. Both are basically playing a "bit", but one isn't seemingly playing it with a higher pitch and "quirky" habits, so there is that. Ferrell just ends up doing better in pathetic ridiculousness, a perfect career politician stooge. Coincidentally, Galifianakis had an uncle who was a U.S. Representative in North Carolina. He is fine in the film, getting some of the schtick down in terms of demonstrating how it feels when one is thrust into a world of mudslingers. The best presence in the movie besides the main two is somehow McDermott, who makes for an amusing heavy that looms around the foreground more often than Aykroyd and Lithgow, who play their roles with shockingly little hammy qualities that I kind of thought would come from playing the not-Koch brothers. The rest of the cast are okay in the background of political lunacy, whether that involves LaNasa and Baker being adequate reactionary presences to the on-screen duel of idiots or a worthy straight man to the withering sense of dignity in Sudeikis. The film wants to have little moments of crudeness (such as say, mouthy voicemails or slo-mo punching of babies and dogs) but not go too far with hammy-ness, and that mostly means the movie ebbs and flows through average middle ground, right down to its ending that is okay. It probably would work fine as an educational tool when trying to understand just how far one can go if they ride a message of "America, Jesus, freedom" with a little bit of showmanship (and perhaps a certain type of funder). At the end of the day, it is mildly amusing, one that for better or worse could inspire one to look further into how much one can mine in the realm of satire or with politics, if one cares for that sort of thing. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Django Unchained.

Review #1932: Django Unchained.

 

Cast: 

Jamie Foxx (Django Freeman), Christoph Waltz (Dr. King Schultz), Leonardo DiCaprio ("Monsieur" Calvin J. Candie), Kerry Washington (Broomhilda "Hildi" von Shaft), Samuel L. Jackson (Stephen Warren), Walton Goggins (Billy Crash), Dennis Christopher (Leonide "Leo" Moguy), James Remar (Butch Pooch / Ace Speck), David Steen (Mr. Stonecipher), Dana Gourrier (Cora), Nichole Galicia (Sheba), Laura Cayouette (Lara Lee Candie-Fitzwilly), Ato Essandoh (D'Artagnan), Sammi Rotibi (Rodney), Clay Donahue Fontenot (Luigi), Escalante Lundy (Big Fred), Miriam F. Glover (Betina), Don Johnson (Spencer "Big Daddy" Bennett), and Franco Nero (Amerigo Vessepi) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, #1218 - Pulp Fiction, #1251 - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, #1307 - Jackie Brown, #1551 - Inglourious Basterds)

Review: 

"I want to explore something that really hasn't been done. I want to do movies that deal with America's horrible past with slavery and stuff but do them like spaghetti westerns, not like big issue movies. I want to do them like they're genre films, but they deal with everything that America has never dealt with because it's ashamed of it, and other countries don't really deal with because they don't feel they have the right to."

It should only figure that Quentin Tarantino had his eye on Sergio Corbucci. Tarantino was actually writing a book about the director when he found a way to tell a story that he wanted to make in a tribute to Spaghetti Westerns, one where he found inspiration in what he saw as Corbucci's "this evil Wild West, a horrible Wild West" in his feature. Specifically, Tarantino is doing a tribute to Corbucci's Django (1966), a film that the director co-wrote that featured Franco Nero as star involving a drifter and a companion mixed into a deadly feud between Confederates and Mexican revolutionaries. The film was made to capitalize on the success of Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars (1964), which in turn was a "loose" remake of Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo (1961). If you remember, Inglorious Basterds (2009) was made by Tarantino as his desire to make a Spaghetti Western but as a World War II film, and we all know how that went: good for some, okay for others. Here, he has made a film that he calls a "Southern" that is part of his long line of tributes to genres of film such as revenge films, road-rage movies, and martial arts films.

Honestly, I enjoyed the film far more than I thought I would, with my hopes being that it would be a slightly more interesting of sprawling alternate history than the weird jumble that came from his last feature. Of course, Waltz and Tarantino won Academy Awards for their work on the film (both winning their second award for acting and writing, respectively), so who knows what kind of expectations were to be had here from Tarantino's seventh feature. I felt it was a consistent pulp experience that shows its respect for the filmmakers of the past in terms of classic Western types without becoming just a carbon copy of the things that were. It packs a message about slavery and racism in a revenge movie that conveys a sense of scope and scale worth all of the attention it has received in the ten years that have passed since its release. It is dignified mayhem seemingly split into two segments: a movie about the repertoire of its two main stars and a movie about revenge through the eyes of Foxx. History is taken to the woodshed in a glorious manner, with Tarantino saying that he wanted to show two types of violence: the brutal reality of slave life and the violence of retribution, since he believes the genre of the Western reflects the time it was made in more than any other genre to go along with reflecting the morals and feelings of its audience. The Western may not be the most prevalent genre of the past few decades, but they sure do pull an interesting punch when a director is interested in generating fresh voices of the West. It is funny when you think about the fact that DiCaprio and Jackson don't show up until the first hour has passed in a 165-minute movie. And yet, the pair of Foxx and Waltz are ideal to hold everything together, making a great pairing in both chemistry and their distinct approach to the art of hired guns. Foxx is confident and capable to the task at hand, and it is interesting to see that he was not the first choice approached, since Tarantino wrote it with Will Smith in mind, but he rejected it (he wanted to make a love story, not one about vengeance, go figure). Foxx knows what he wants to do and say as a knight of vengeance that is never consumed in self-parody. Oh, the film does have little moments of humor between the two, particularly since Waltz plays dignity to an amoral(ish) killer, which he plays magnificently: they are fun together without making one think the whole film is just them and nothing else. DiCaprio is magnificent in clear-cut villainy in his time on screen that makes him suitably intense when you see him on screen. Jackson is the ideal foil in as the off-center moral compass with resourceful timing and the expressive nature you expect from him that makes him an ideal actor that has collaborated with Tarantino countless times. The rest of the cast proves worthwhile in their own contribution to the terror of dignity in 1858, whether that involves Johnson and his huckster plantation act or the oozing menace in Goggins or the weary fear in Washington. The movie has a wonderful design and atmosphere to it, but I am sure you already know that.

Well, the movie is probably not for everyone, which you might say for a number of Tarantino movies depending on one's patience for violence or language, particularly with the use of one particular word. However, the movie sat fine with me, since Tarantino has a keen eye for what he wants to show in violence and atmosphere without going up his own nose in gratuitous excess (he actually trimmed the film's violence down a bit before release anyway, even though it already received an R rating from the MPAA), despite what critics may think of his interest in not just making a message movie with the usual trimmings. What's not to ponder in a movie that seems a reference of phrenology, people being used as human shields, fighting to a pulp, supremacists dwelling on how hard it is to see out of a hood, and action that might as well be called Shaft (1971) on a horse? You know what really is more of a problem than violence in movies? Folks who really believe that toning things down is better than confronting them head on. It is the grisly Western that represents its era in all of the ways it needs to be: honest without condescending, brutal but not exploitative, and entertaining but not inattentive to the matter at hand. It is the sensation you would hope from Tarantino in the art of making fresh kinetic cinema. He may not hit the mark on every moment of bold brutality, but he knows where he is going without wandering too far from wanting to entertain himself and others.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Sinister.

Review #1905: Sinister.

Cast: 

Ethan Hawke (Ellison Oswalt), Juliet Rylance (Tracy Oswalt), Fred Thompson (Sheriff), James Ransone (Deputy), Michael Hall D'Addario (Trevor Oswalt), Clare Foley (Ashley Oswalt), Nick King (Bughuul / Mr. Boogie), and Vincent D'Onofrio (Professor Jonas) Directed by Scott Derrickson (#874 - Doctor Strange and #1865 - The Black Phone)

Review: 

The best part of a horror movie is when one finds inspiration in a prior horror film experience and homes in their own interesting idea. When C. Robert Cargill saw the 2002 feature The Ring, he had a nightmare after viewing the film, one that had Super 8 films and a projector in his attic. The scenario snowballed from there when spending time with Scott Derrickson in writing the script, where Cargill devised his idea of what a Bogeyman would look like that would stand apart from the usual entity, which had a look inspired by a picture Derrickson found on Flickr when looking at "horror" images (making a deal with said photographer, naturally). I'm sure you recognize the scenes with a Super 8 are in fact shot from a Super 8 camera. This was the fourth feature film from Derrickson, previously responsible for Hellraiser: Inferno (2000), The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005), and The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008). Made on a budget of roughly $3 million that was made from a variety of production companies that included Blumhouse Productions, the film was a considerable success at the time, and a sequel was made in 2015 that had Derrickson and Cargill return to write it along with one returning cast member.

It is the pursuit for recognition that pushes the whole film. Sure, the entity looks both unfamiliar and alluring to us in appearance, but the goals of the being and the lead character we are watching are not too particularly different, and that probably is spookier than anything else. Granted, the thing likes to do elaborate sequences of terror like one might expect from a horror film, but that doesn't mean that the film lacks energy when it comes to making a good slow burn movie. Ten years have only made it seem all the more interesting in what endured best in seeing the clash of old and new technology within a movie that doesn't aim for a blood affair but instead a calm terror (you might ask how Google doesn't play a part here, but where's the fun in that?) It is a familiar movie, one that plays on the cliches of the past without trying to play it for laughs. It is one with a general patience in 109 minutes that uses its imagery well for those who pay attention and dig where it wants to dig in unraveling terror when it comes to old legends and not learning when to leave well enough alone. It isn't hard to see while the filmmakers felt Hawke would be an ideal presence to work magic with a character that would have been pure heel with a less talented actor. It is his film to shine in terms of craven charm that sells every moment of ambition or growing suspicion without a false note present. We know what kind of hostility will come from a spooky dark house and secrets from all sides, but it still works well with someone we can lovingly chuckle with in terms of how self-centered a pursuit can be with Hawke there to guide it as a haunted fool that we like, as opposed to someone we shake our heads at. Rylance and the others playing the on-screen family are about what you would expect in light charm, while Thompson chews in scolding grit for two scenes of neat timing. Ransone makes a bit of plucky charm on the sidelines while D'Onofrio makes his exposition-heavy side role worth viewing for a couple of minutes. I find that it is a pretty good horror movie, one that achieves the basic goal of making its premise work more than just on paper through the use of a decent cast headlined by one really good actor to go with some stellar Super 8 photography that makes this a movie warped in past and present for the right reasons. I especially like the climax, one that doesn't roll on a red herring or any kind of last-minute tricks to try and yield the inevitable, which means one gets a movie about a creature that feeds on attention - human or beast, and the movie knows what to say about the plight of each in where recognition can get you. Some will find it pretty scary and other may find it familiar, but they certainly will have an interesting time regardless because of how Derrickson and company came together to make a horror movie worth one's attention without having to strain credibility to get to that point.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Amazing Spider-Man.

Review #1780: The Amazing Spider-Man.

Cast: 

Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy), Rhys Ifans (Dr. Curt Connors / The Lizard), Irrfan Khan (Rajit Ratha), Denis Leary (Captain George Stacy), Martin Sheen (Uncle Ben), Sally Field (Aunt May Parker), Campbell Scott (Richard Parker), Embeth Davidtz (Mary Parker), Chris Zylka (Flash Thompson), Embeth Davidtz (Mary Parker), C. Thomas Howell (Jack's Father), Jake Keiffer (Jack), Kari Coleman (Helen Stacy) Directed by Marc Webb.

Review: 

"I wanted it to be more grounded and more realistic and that went for the emotion of the scenes, the physical action and wardrobe. It's less based in Steve Ditko world and probably closer visually and more influenced by "Ultimate Spider-Man" but it is also very much a world of our own devising."

Did you know that five years passed between Spider-Man 3 (2007) and this film? Well, I guess I should be surprised, but I really am not. Honestly, it is weird that I finally got around to this film just before it turned ten years old, and yet here we are nearing six decades since the creation of the comic book character. Admittedly, it made sense to try to re-invent a new interpretation of the comic book character. After all, this is the first one to feature artificial web-shooters (like in the comics), and it follows the tradition of casting lead actors playing "teenaged" superheroes while nearly pushing 30 years old. The film was written by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves (you would recognize the middle name as the writer of last two Spider-Man films). At the helm to direct was Marc Webb, best known for his debut feature in 500 Days of Summer (2009), and he would do the subsequent sequel two years later.  I suppose we've gone from "dorky" Peter to "outcast" Peter, complete with a full-fledged dive into the high school experiences of the friendly neighborhood Spider-Man and the perceived mysteries of his parents (for which some of this is taken from the Ultimate Spider-Man comics, which had begun in 2000).

It isn't a bad thing to be a mediocre movie, but it is a weird thing to make a mediocre superhero movie that basically serves as a retread of the 2002 Spider-Man that to me suffers the distinct quality of self-serious sickness. Maybe each film reflects the growing trend of the decade they were made in, but I found it to be a movie that is practically straining to pull off its tricks (new and old) that only succeeds in making the average comic book movie "amazingly" average because I only care to a certain point about the attempts at a "darker" interpretation of this hero. The memory of the old films lingers hard here, and it is confounding that it never manages to even rise above Spider-Man 3 despite having less clutter when it comes to villain composition or storylines (although with a 136-minute run-time, at least it isn't quite as long as it could be). Really if you think about it, the best way to keep the ball rolling with superhero films when changing actors might as well just follow the James Bond route and just roll with things with whatever mood you want to go with (such as going from A View to a Kill (1985) with The Living Daylights (1987), if you get my drift). Heaven knows one doesn't need another sequence of a bunch of New Yorkers rising up and helping Spider-Man.

Garfield, at the very least, makes a definable mark on the lead role that shows a touch of angst to go with loneliness and cockiness that shows the potential in a vulnerable hero. For the most part it works out, with likely the most interesting scene being one where he says just what his name is when saving a kid on a bridge (see, not every moment a masked hero taking off his mask is eye-rolling). Granted, the quips might take time to get used to, but at least he seems comfortable with the role and all that comes with having to follow the tradition of pretend-normal high schooler. Stone basically weaves her way through a role that would have weighed down a lesser actress (i.e., this could have been a role of mush). Regardless of if one knows the character or not, she makes it work with plenty of patience and charm that results in palatable chemistry with Garfield (your milage may vary, of course). In theory, the Lizard is an interesting villain to put on screen (the character, not the alter-ego, was in the last two films). However, he only is interesting when it is Ifans on screen as himself, not so much when he is turned into that CG render that looks like a silly slug. Sure, trying to strive for perfection without weakness can be interesting to ponder for a villain, but seeing it come out of a slug makes it hard to reconcile with the urge to snicker. Think about it: you have a guy going around as a lizard that at one point comes out of the toilet of a high school right before he delves into a plan about spreading gas around to turn people into lizards (well, "reptilian" would also be a suitable word to use, but either word is still funny to say out-loud).

The strangest thing is that the weak link among the supporting cast is Field (Khan doesn't count, since he is more a victim of the "comes-and-goes" box). She has admitted to not particularly enjoying the role, doing it more as a favor (specifically to friend and producer Laura Ziskin) that described it as one that you "can't put ten pounds of shit in a five-pound bag." (as quoted in 2016, which I guess applies to both features). Again, not to beat the dead horse of "the previous movies", but the role-from-five-years-ago had a bit more to really do when it comes to interacting with the lead character. Here, she pretty much has a handful of sentences that don't go anywhere that Rosemary Harris had done three films ago. Sheen is engaging for what is needed in patience (basically saying that quote about responsibility and power without having to just say it). There is probably something to be said about featuring Scott and Davidtz in its opening that seemed to hint at something "mysterious" when it comes to the parents of Spider-Man, but I'll be damned if I can give one single iota about it. Leary breezes through cliches with strange ease (one doesn't try to picture him suddenly break out into "standup", at least). As a whole, the movie is the equivalent of taking a few years off between going on an amusement park ride: sure, maybe something is different, but in the end it is just familiar motions to varying effect. There are certain times when the effects for showing the web-slinging ride can work out to interesting effect (no points for wondering how it looked in 3D), and the action sequences are decent for what is needed, which means that Webb basically managed to make a safe film that does the minimum and doesn't stumble. In that sense, that is probably the best endorsement one can make for a curious viewer.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Fateful Findings.

Review #1767: Fateful Findings.

Cast: 

Neil Breen (Dylan), Jennifer Autry (Leah), Klara Landrat (Emily), Danielle Andrade (Aly), Victoria Viveiros (Amy), and David Silva (Jim) Directed, Written, and Produced by Neil Breen.

Review: 

There was a small idea in my mind that this was an elaborate joke set up to fool folks on the Internet, honestly. I had seen clips of this film the past few months, but I really did have to give myself time before I could exhume this "curiosity". And yet, here we are with a movie made by a guy who does his own sound editing, casting, set design, effects, and craft services to go along with the usual stuff. Breen grew up on the East Coast with an interest in filmmaking from a young age. He studied architecture in college and soon became a licensed architect. He saved money in order to self-finance his own films, which started with Double Down (2005) and I Am Here.... Now (2009). We are talking about a director who likes to use ".biz" as part of their website, remember. 

Look, there has to be a middle ground between terming the movie as "one of the worst" or "so bad it's good". Frankly, hyperbole is pretty boring to begin with, so getting mad at a movie is just as embarassing as being some sort of irony-laced critic who tries to find quality in flailing product that is just inept. In short, the obvious statement for this film is that it is a failure in its attempt at making a coherent narrative with execution, regardless of however much money was put into it. Really if you think about it, the movie is of the same kind of reminder as The Room (2003), because both features have a lead actor doing much of the legwork in filming with their own funding that think we want to see them take their shirt off. Of course, Harold P. Warren's Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966) comes to mind with a working-man director going on a crash-course with the reality of inept filmmaking, such as say...effects...or shot composition...or line delivery-hell, you get the idea. Breen obviously has the persistance to tell some sort of story, even if it might read like someone's offbeat power fantasy of themselves, complete with fantasies about taking down corruption and magic rocks. You are likely wondering just what is the movie about: A man gets hit by a car but uses the power of a stone he has had for decades to heal himself while secretly working...to hack the Internet to find secret government stuff while his wife OD's on drugs and his best friend mysteriously kills himself while various women come into his life to give him "attention". To top it all, did I mention that he can teleport through solid material? At any rate, if you want to not be spoiled by what could happen next, ignore the next sentence that deals with an expose of evil folks getting exposed and promptly killing themselves.

The level of acting here is worth exactly what you would expect from a ragtag crew (read: a handful) that apparently didn't even have the full script available to then. Repeating dialogue might work in an arthouse production, but it ultimately proves more amusing than anything, particularly since the movie doesnt exactly make a great deal of sense anyway. Characters come and go with barely any motivation besides what one guesses (such as vanishing therapists or doctors happening to be long lost friends that are clearly not the same age). Watching the movie is a unique experience of bad filmmaking, one that can attract folks looking for irony or movies to pick on the chance to enjoy such bizarre ineptness. The surprises dont stop with seeing one person without clothes in a black box (maybe it some sort of surreal message or a great joke at us), but reading a bunch of events in the plot is probably not as curious as actually seeing it for yourself. Honestly, while there is no true point earned by the movie for its technical merits, Breen shows just enough ambition (without turning to self deprecation or snobbery) that manages to make this something I could recommend for anyone looking for "outsider" moviemaking, one that doesn't exactly waste all of one's time.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Well, that is the end of Turkey Week Two. I hope you enjoyed these stinkers and the curious perspectives that came from the directors that made them, and I hope to have something just as interesting next November. 

Foodfight!

Review #1766: Foodfight!

Cast: 

Charlie Sheen (Dex Dogtective), Wayne Brady (Daredevil Dan), Hilary Duff (Sunshine Goodness), Eva Longoria (Lady X / Priscilla), Larry Miller (Vlad Chocool), Christopher Lloyd (Mr. Clipboard), Robert Costanzo (Maximillus Moose), Chris Kattan (Polar Penguin), Ed Asner (Mr. Leonard), Jerry Stiller (General X), Christine Baranski (Hedda Shopper), Lawrence Kasanoff (Cheasel T. Weasel), Harvey Fierstein (Fat Cat Burglar), Cloris Leachman (Brand X Lunch Lady), Haylie Duff (Sweetcakes), Shelley Morrison (Lola Fruitola), and Edie McClurg (Mrs. Butterworth) Directed by Lawrence Kasanoff.

Review:

“We’ve got the movie, we’ve got the property, the place, the equipment, the talent, we’re there. Do we believe our next movie, Foodfight! is going to be a huge hit? Of course we do!”

Why don't we just do a whole review of short sentences that will sum up this film's sad history? I'll start: In development for a decade. Managed to lose the hard drive of assets that resulted in a restart. Directed by a guy who produced movies like Mortal Kombat while responsible for a Live Tour edition...with no other directing projects since. Managed to be sold off by debt collectors for at least $2.5 million after being made for roughly $45-60 million. Released in a theater for exactly one week in the United Kingdom, while everyone else "received" it on DVD or video-on-demand. Meant to aim for a cartoonish animation like the Looney Tunes shorts but ended up requiring motion capture animation (you thought The Polar Express was odd? Try this for ten minutes). A hodgepodge attempt at making a studio like Pixar with a cross between Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988) and Toy Story (1995). Kasanoff planned a variety of media to tie-in with the film, including an ice show. Made by a director who was described by his crew as "idiosyncratic" that thought animation is the only part of film production where quality is on the rise while costs are going down. Filled with an assortment of brand names for supporting characters. Manages to have worse (unfinished) animation than Hoodwinked! (2005). Made by Threshold Entertainment, whose next animation venture was Bobbleheads: The Movie (2020). Written by Sean Catherine Derek, Lawrence Kasanoff, Brent Friedman, Rebecca Swanson with a story by Joshua Wexler & Kasanoff (who also co-produced the movie).

Inept. Irritating. Incoherent. Inconceivable. Trainwreck. Embarrassment. Need I go on with one-word sentences? How much can one really say about this movie? The very idea of brand names as lead characters for a film is cynically embarrassing on its own, but the very fact that this is the most embarrassing animated film I have ever seen is the saddest thing about the whole experience. 91 minutes of pain, pure and simple. You can laugh at the animation, true. To an extent, you can also laugh at the inexplicable innuendo and crass attempts at humor presented here. But one just seems downright sad at recognizing the various voices present to be in such a travesty. Sheen being here isn't exactly a surprise, because I can equally believe he would stoop to something for a paycheck regardless if it was the mid 2000s or 2012, mostly because one has to breeze a middling collection of cliches and not clap their hands in anticipation. Brady is obviously better to view on television, as I think anybody who is familiar with the medium will tell you, because heaven help the next person to say that cartoon sidekicks are the best thing ever. Duff doesn't even have to try when she spends half of her time off screen, so there is that. There are no winners in the cast, but at least Longoria seems to have a go at playing sultry and adversary in the same length. The less said about Miller, the better. Lloyd obviously likes to keep busy with roles (because this was the same year as The Oogieloves movie), and since he only has a handful of lines to go with a character that is jerkily animated, it sure makes an amusing sight more than a performance. Pairing Kattan and Sheen for a gag is probably better than eating year-old brand cereal. Asner (rest in peace) has less lines than one would expect, because clearly more time needed to be on the market and not the bare attempts at whatever "Brand X" is supposed to do with "Marketopolis". Kasanoff playing a weasel is a sentence that writes itself. As a whole, you don't need 1,000 words to say that the movie has no fundamental story worth investing in, because you can also look at the movie and hear its crass jokes and puns that confirm what a colossal waste one could have here. This is one of the worst films made with a substantial budget and likely one of the all-time worst animated films ever made. Might be good if you take certain substances or if you want to know what not finishing all of your work looks like.

Overall, I give it 0 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Once more, because everyone deserves an eighth piece of awfulness. Fateful Findings.

Incidentally, if you ever find this review, check out this video someone made about the making of Foodfight! that provides more insight: ROTTEN: Behind the Foodfight

Life of Pi.

Review #1564: Life of Pi.

Cast:
Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Ayush Tandon & Gautam Belur (Piscine "Pi" Patel - age 16-17, adult, age 11-12, age 5), Rafe Spall (The Writer), Tabu (Gita Patel), Adil Hussain (Santosh Patel), Ayaan Khan, Mohamed Abbas Khaleeli & Vibish Sivakumar (Ravi Patel - age 7, 13-14, and 18-19), Gérard Depardieu (The Cook), Wang Po-chieh (Sailor), Jag Huang (Sailor), Andrea Di Stefano (The Priest), Shravanthi Sainath & Mythili Prakash (Anandi - age 17 and adult), and Raj Patel (Ravi) Directed by Ang Lee (#1525 - Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon)

Review:
"I thought this was a pretty impossible movie to make technically. It's so expensive for what it is. You sort of have to disguise a philosophical book as an adventure story. I thought of 3-D half a year before 'Avatar' was on the screen. I thought water, with its transparency and reflection, the way it comes out to you in 3-D, would create a new theatrical experience and maybe the audience or the studio would open up their minds a little bit to accept something different."

This is the 12th feature film of Ang Lee, who certainly could be found doing distinct experiences that captivate an audience with distinct layers, whether that involved his Taiwanese "Father Knows Best" trilogy or the wuxia classic Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) or varying levels of Hollywood filmmaking in dramas like Brokeback Mountain (2005) or Lust, Caution (2007), with this also happening to serve as an adaptation of a previous work. This is based on the 2001 novel of the same name by Yann Martel (a Canadian author of French Canadian descent), one that he stated was important in finding direction in his life (which he once described as equally being not finite like pi) that dealt with faith within a tale involving man and tiger together on a lifeboat for several months together; David Magee served as the writer to bring the novel onto the screen. There had been plans to develop the novel into a feature for nearly a decade, with directors such as M. Night Shyamalan and Jean-Pierre Jeunet thought at separate times to direct the film before Lee was brought in to do the film, and he found it suitable to direct the film in 3-D with the fact that most of it would take place in water that could help in reaching audiences by disguising philosophy into an adventure story. The effects sure help in that regard, in the sense that one could probably believe there really was a tiger on a boat with someone in the ocean (imagine the film in any different time and there might be a big pane of glass between them), complete with a big water tank on a soundstage. Rhythm & Hues Studios (R&H) surely did a well-done achievement for themselves and certain members of their crew, although an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects did not help the crew from being let go when the company filed for bankruptcy after the release of the film (as is the case with such competition around the world for generating visual effects for films that desire it).

At any rate, I was fine with the film. It isn't too much of a shaggy tiger story, mostly because it does try to make a case for itself in inspiration with the human spirit in devotion beyond oneself, storytelling, and beyond. Whether the film achieves that is up to the viewer in how much ultimately resonates with them in the end, particularly with its last little turn of the screw after the climax involving the story as a whole (ambiguity can only go so far when we are talking man vs. nature). There are three distinct parts of the film that work differently in effectiveness in building itself to usefulness within something wrangled in spectacle and thoughts about what makes a person who they are in nature with belief and survival. To some it could provide a building block towards understanding said beliefs and the will of higher power, while others might just see it as Cast Away (2000) on the sea. At least there isn't a sense of preening on the pulpit to the choir because one could wonder themselves about how they would be when faced with immeasurable tests of oneself or when faced with the company of the wilderness - this is likely the most strange time in life to think about a film that makes you face the facts of life with only yourself to reflect upon for 127 minutes, really. One starts with the initial set-up duo between distinguished Hindi/British/American cinema presence in Khan, who is useful for what is needed in careful story settling to go with a useful bounce-off man in curiosity - in other words, good folks to follow with storytelling. Sharma proves dutiful as the man for oneself, generating interest in self-growth and curiosity in solitude with a tank of water and surrounding effects that runs the gamut in fear and search for enrichment that is worthwhile for those who follow into it. Others do fine in small presence, such as with Tabu and Hussain in useful parental influences. In any case, the star of the show is what the effects can provide with intrigue to go with a mostly effective story in finding one's persistence in spirit for life that works for those who enjoy said goals without finding it overextended or vague in its lasting words about deciding between reality and what is not in terms of truth, perception and belief that Martel found suitable that makes this a fair achievement in Lee's career.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Looper.

Review #1563: Looper.

Cast:

Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Joe), Bruce Willis (Old Joe), Emily Blunt (Sara), Paul Dano (Seth), Noah Segan (Kid Blue), Piper Perabo (Suzie), Jeff Daniels (Abe), Pierce Gagnon (Cid), Summer Qing (Joe's Wife), and Tracie Thoms (Beatrix) Written and Directed by Rian Johnson (#1027 - Star Wars: The Last Jedi and #1306 - Knives Out)

Review:

"For Looper, I very much wanted it to be a more character-based movie that is more about how these characters dealt with the situation time travel has brought about. So the biggest challenge was figuring out how to not spend the whole movie explaining the rules and figure out how to put it out there in a way that made sense on some intuitive level for the audience; then get past it and deal with the real meat of the story."

As long as there is a good story somewhere in the margins and people involved enough to keep it useful for entertainment or notice to keep attention, you can't go wrong. Born in Maryland but raised primarily in California, Rian Johnson had an developed an interest in film from a young age (noting inspirations such as Martin Scorsese and Annie Hall), graduating from the University of Southern California and its School of Cinematic Arts in 1996 (his first film was a short called Evil Demon Golf Ball From Hell!!!, a low-budget psychological thriller inspired by The Tell-Tale Heart). He would spend years developing and pitching what eventually turned out to be his first feature film in Brick (2005), which proved successful on a budget of less than $500,000. He has continued to keep himself invested in doing distinct movie as director and writer that tell stories in familiar genres that utilize the expectation of the audience at part of the storytelling, which have resulted in five feature films alongside work in television such as Breaking Bad that have been met with fair success.

What, a time travel movie that relies on character-based drama and not so much on time travel as a whole from the 2010s? Granted, Safety Not Guaranteed is a dubious film to compare this to, but the easiest thing that can be said about Looper is that it is an entertaining movie that maintains consistency and entertainment with dutiful direction and cast without shambling into cliché. It certainly seems familiar to those who who have seen the films that proved an inspiration to this feature that ranged from The Terminator (1984) to Witness (1985) to Akira (1988). It loops itself together with enough suitable enjoyment for where the story could unfold next that comes from making a living killing others from a time you have yet to see and then your future ends right by your own hand. It makes a suitable movie about the future and what can come from decisions made or ones that have yet to be made with interesting atmosphere that treats its sci-fi aspects equally with its drama that makes the challenge more about seeing two actors play the same person and how they play off with themselves and others. Gordon-Levitt (wearing make-up to more closely resemble Willis) does a pretty good job here, wry and efficient that comes off with similarity to a youthful Willis without becoming mere imitation, which goes well in tension with Blunt. Willis is given the task of doing his part to play without as much dialogue in general, but he does fairly well regardless, showing the anguish and efficiency that comes from a lifetime that required the latter but didn't see the former coming, and the diner scene where they confront each other (involving a clever way to get around detailing how time travel works without needing exposition) is the best scene with the two in general that lends an edge to the nature of what we're dealing with for a hunter/hunted kind of film. Blunt does well with her gradual role, showing conviction and care as the last key adult piece to the puzzle, going with Gagnon as an interesting family to see play out on screen that gravitates well to our attention from their first few moments on screen. Dano and the other supporting members (including a big-bearded Daniels) do well in lending out the layers of the world the film wants to show involving making a living through a hard and cheap life in the not-too distant future. On the whole what we have here is an intelligent film that rounds its bases with an interesting handle on human nature within time travel that utilizes its expectations from the audience into an engaging time with its own welcome surprises and efficient acting to make for an excellent time to go through 113 minutes with.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Dark Knight Rises.

Review #1562: The Dark Knight Rises.

Cast: 
Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Michael Caine (Alfred Pennyworth), Gary Oldman (Commissioner James Gordon), Anne Hathaway (Selina Kyle / Catwoman), Tom Hardy (Bane), Marion Cotillard (Miranda Tate / Talia al Ghul), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (John Blake), Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox), Matthew Modine (Foley), Ben Mendelsohn (John Daggett), Burn Gorman (Philip Stryver), Alon Aboutboul (Dr. Leonid Pavel), Juno Temple (Jen), Daniel Sunjata (Captain Jones), Chris Ellis (Father Reilly), Brett Cullen (Byron Gilley), Cillian Murphy (Dr. Jonathan Crane / Scarecrow), and Liam Neeson (Henri Ducard / Ra's al Ghul) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, and #980 - Dunkirk)

Review:
"For me, The Dark Knight Rises is specifically and definitely the end of the Batman story as I wanted to tell it, and the open-ended nature of the film is simply a very important thematic idea that we wanted to get into the movie, which is that Batman is a symbol. He can be anybody, and that was very important to us."

Auteur filmmakers can do any genre, as long as they manage to cultivate films that are of their own design with distinct style and interesting consistency to make it a worthwhile experience to look for time and time again. Christopher Nolan rose to that occasion, doing so under the inspiration of wanting to be a filmmaker since he was a child with influences like Ridley Scott and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). A graduate of University College London, he started making his own short films by the time he was 19 and made his first feature with the independently made Following (1998) that was followed up with breakthroughs with Memento (2000) and Insomnia (2002) before being brought in to bring back Batman to the big screen. There must have been quite the high hype for a film like this, one that would prove the end of a trilogy of films that Nolan co-produced and co-wrote (with his brother Jonathan for the screenplay and David S. Goyer for the story) alongside direction (he has done writing for most of his features alongside directing, with this being his eighth feature film). Nolan was hesitant for a third film, only wanting to do one if it served satisfactory in its story (as opposed to being just a follow-up film). If the first film involved fear and the sequel involved chaos, Nolan wanted a film that would involve pain, and the main villain of each film seems to reflect that vision, which also seems to include making the films longer as well (if the first felt long at 140 minutes, try 165 with this one). Nolan was the second director to have directed an entire trilogy involving one superhero after Sam Raimi and his Spider-Man trilogy, and it is clear to mention the success that has been done in capturing an epic of sweeping realism that drew upon certain Batman stories (such as Year One or The Long Halloween) that proved distinct in what they did for superhero films when compared to the various ones that came around since 2005 (or even more so by 2012). There are various comic books from the Batman series that this takes inspiration from, such as "Knightfall" (which had Bane pushing Batman to his limits), The Dark Knight Returns (an aged Batman returning to Gotham after several years), and "No Man's Land" (where Gotham is cut off from the rest of the country due to violence), although one major influence on the story was actually Charles Dickens' 1859 novel A Tale of Two Cities (detailing revolution that also happens to borrow lines from it in one of the last scenes).

I will admit that Nolan has done a well-placed achievement in his career, a definitive end to a series in its own vision of what Batman is as the last leg of an epic series that achieves most of what it sets out to do with scope and gravitas that ties as many ends as it does invite further discussion over the nature of such an extraordinary figure in an ordinary world that have villains that aren't necessarily just big foils to defeat but instead are ones that get under one's skin with coherence. I don't think of it as the best of the three films (The Dark Knight is inevitably an indelible achievement to surpass), but it definitely serves as one of the most interesting films of its year (or if one is more bold, its decade, which had a considerable amount of films based on comic books, but not many better than this). Bale certainly has come a long way in seven years in this role, one that requires an actor who can show numerous layers beyond just playing a millionaire playboy / dressing up as a bat and fighting crime in a deep voice. While it might have seemed a bit silly-sounding at first, I have warmed up to it because Bale does so well in pulling off this dual person that actually seems like three acts when faced with who he is to his close friends, the public at large, and perhaps his real self as Batman. He captures the struggle that comes with continuing to be defined by pain and loss to its logical conclusion with the time that he balances well on screen, where one doesn't really need too much of Batman to still be captivated by what it means to find one self again and become a knight of a city that needs it as opposed to a false ideal or kowtowing to fear or apathy. Caine lends the dutiful hand with sharp elegance and usefulness as one should expect from an anchor of sensibility like him. Oldman carries a mix of honesty with guilt and weariness that still reflects the sense of right and wrong and the choices that come in trying to fitting those goals for better or worse. Hathaway does fine with her role, reflecting differently from the others that had portrayed the role before her in past films with playful care that she modelled after the initial inspiration for the character in Hedy Lamarr. Hardy based his accent on a Romani gypsy (named Bartley Gorman), and it seems well-suited for one meant to be a sort of liberator of pain, one that ultimately does just well enough with serving the film in generating interest as a test of strength and mind, which I think works itself out really well despite maybe one small misgiving about the way the climax handles him; this plays into the other adversary lurking in plain sight that connects itself right back to the first film - Cotillard is a decent actress here and it is a decent twist, but it all somehow feels a bit too convenient to really close everything out neatly. Gordon-Levitt does fine here with generating idealism with instinct that never sparks a false note or seems too off for what is needed to set the film on course when with paired with Bale or Oldman. Freeman and the rest round out a useful cast that do what is needed in filling the depth of characters needed to fill the depth of the city or plot detailing. The film packs quite a wallop in action, executing itself with balance and consistency for capable action in such a distinct atmosphere that keeps itself on the edge with numerous situations and weaving of plot that keeps itself on track despite a length that could've proven bloated with a lesser director of style and substance. While it doesn't reach all the heights imposed by the first sequel to Batman Begins, it seals its legend of Batman as a symbol with conviction as a testament for practicality within the margins of comic book adaptation that honors its source material while closing the book with its own exclamation points as a useful story for the ages.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.