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!

Independence Day: Resurgence.

Review #2556: Independence Day: Resurgence.

Cast: 

Liam Hemsworth (Jake Morrison), Jeff Goldblum (David Levinson), Bill Pullman (President Thomas J. Whitmore), Maika Monroe (Patricia Whitmore), Jessie T. Usher (Dylan Hiller), Travis Tope (Charlie Miller), William Fichtner (General Joshua T. Adams), Charlotte Gainsbourg (Dr. Catherine Marceaux), Judd Hirsch (Julius Levinson), Brent Spiner (Dr. Brackish Okun), Sela Ward (President Elizabeth Lanford), Angelababy (Rain Lao), with Joey King (Sam Blackwell), Vivica A. Fox (Dr. Jasmine Dubrow-Hiller), Robert Loggia (General William Grey), Nicolas Wright (Floyd Rosenberg), DeObia Oparei (Dikembe Umbutu), and Chin Han (Jiang Lao)

Directed by Roland Emmerich (#193 - Independence Day, #413 - The Patriot, #2161 - Godzilla [1998])

Review: 

Hey, remember Independence Day? Apparently, the impetus for the original film was a question posed to Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin when they were promoting Stargate (1994) about believing in aliens building the pyramids that saw them ask, well, what if there were "14-mile-wide spaceships covering the sky?" Sure, Mars Attacks! (1996) loomed on the calendar, but Emmerich and Devlin aimed to make their movie anyway, which saw them basically write (in three weeks) a disaster movie akin to the 70s disaster flicks such as The Towering Inferno (1974) and Meteor (1979). When it came out in July 1996 to plenty of hype and fanfare, it actually was the highest-grossing film of that year (beating out poor Mars Attacks!. which sucks because that movie was probably better in actual quality). Cool, now do you remember Independence Day: Resurgence? As early as 2001, Emmerich and Devlin thought about doing a sequel, but they had curtailed those plans the first time in 2004 because they couldn't figure out the story. By 2011, there were rumblings again about doing not one, but two sequels. Through re-writes and various drafts (mainly because of the omission of one certain actor before filming), four people were credited with the story: Emmerich, Devlin, James A. Woods, and Nicolas Wright, while James Vanderbilt was credited along with the four for the screenplay. Made on a budget of $165 million and released in June 2016, the movie was not a major hit for anyone involved, with Emmerich and Devlin both stating that there was little chance of doing a third film.

Is it a quality defense when the director says he should've stopped making the movie? As early as 2019, three years after the release of Resurgence, Emmerich stated, yes, he "should have just said no" once Will Smith wasn't going to be in the film, which happened as a result of scheduling and salary demands. It is almost amazing to have five total writers and have little to nothing come out of the characters to actually root for beyond "the bare minimum". As I remember, the characters in the original were basically cardboard, but you could at least say there was a sense of interest in seeing what was under the curtain for a surprise (which in this case was, are you shocked, alien stuff in "Area 51" and a computer virus to start the process of telling the aliens to permanently go to sleep). Corny as the movie was, you at least felt there was some semblance of dignity in depicting folks all coming together (on the 4th of July you see) and being ready to kick ass (okay, maybe non-Americans didn't go ra-ra for it, but well, "Murica, baby!"). Twenty years later, with the presentation of "world peace" and a space defense program with alien technology....there is just a weird feeling that one is watching a film with nowhere to actually go. You see the designs of the (reverse-engineered) tech and a spiffier Washington and you wonder if they really thought people would be fine looking at something that reminded them of a video game cutscene. The aliens still look at forgettable as ever, and the Sphere (the "virtual intelligence") reminds me of someone trying to make a smaller version of Gort from The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951). 

The attempt at mixing in people from the original (ranging from Goldblum/Pullman/Hirsch/Spiner to basically cameos from Fox and Loggia*) with a new generation (Hemsworth, Monroe, Usher, and to a lesser extent, Topo and Angelababy) that each have had their lives shaped by one horrific week all leads to the least compelling and least interesting drama imaginable. This film feels ten years too late to actually say anything of note (once you destroy the White House, what is there left to move around for the sequel), so it instead just aims to be paid half-attention to by people on their phones. I probably care less for Goldblum than I did in the last film, and that's saying something for what was basically a wannabee Dr. Ian Malcolm in the first place, even with the addition of Gainsbourg (who ...is given nothing to do). Hemsworth and Usher might actually be competing for who achieves less with less: what the hell was Smith going to do in this film that changed the script so much to basically focus on the youth (meanwhile, Monroe, cast to replace Mae Whitman from the original, is given, wait for it, nothing to do). I can't tell who has the more unceremonious exit: Fox, who can't get off a falling building in time (after getting, what, 4 lines?) or Ward (as Madame President) goes the way of the dodo in a murky-looking scene. Probably the only people who look like they like having some work is Pullman or Spiner, and that sure says something when the latter has a scene where they gallivant around a bit in a barely contained hospital gown*. You get a few chuckles beneath basically a boring movie. For a movie that is two hours long (25 minutes shorter than the original, in one of the stranger cases when a sequel is shorter), it always seems to be two steps behind in actually going anywhere: it dangles an idea that some African war lord spent ten years fighting aliens in hand-to-hand combat, but his son is given the job of being the straight man to a middling subplot about a nerd wanting to get into combat. Hive minds and "Harvesters" and drilling to the Earth's core (with a timer) while buildings get thrown around just seems like a movie that either was postmarked "2006" or simply didn't have enthusiasm to actually make it worth looking further.  It just reeks of trying to make a franchise without actually focusing on spectacle and believing they had enough in the tank to bait people into hearing more, complete with an ending that sequel baits with probably the least amount of conviction possible. If the original film was "dumb fun" that the viewer either enjoyed or disliked with the clear flaws (dialogue, design, general Emmerich weaknesses), the sequel film manages the honor of just being dumb with middling return value for all involved. 

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Happy 4th...

*Loggia died on December 4, 2015, six months before the film was released. At least he was cool in the first film.

*Okay, so Spiner's character is apparently gay and spends most of the action with his partner, who I guess loved giving out flowers in the hospital ward for years. Honestly, I forgot if they were partners before 1996 or if this guy just fell for a dude in a coma that had long hair.

Pass Thru.

Review #2313: Pass Thru.

Cast: 

Neil Breen (A.I. / Thgil), Kathy Corpus (Amanda), Abraham Rodriguez (Boy Astronomer), Taylor Sydney (Girl Astronomer), Taylor Johnson (Girl Astronomer), James D. Smith (Professor), Jason Morciglio (Jose - Smuggler), Chaize Macklin (Kim - Immigrant), Donna T. Rogers (Dana - Smuggler), and Tom Bonello (Tim - Guard) Written, Produced, and Directed by Neil Breen (#1767 - Fateful Findings, #1925 - Double Down, #2146 - I Am Here....Now)

Review: 

"Artificial Intelligence from far into the future arrives to immediately CLEANSE the human species of millions of humans who are harmful to other humans. A VISIONARY, REVOLUTIONARY FILM which pushes the human species to the limits of controversial, thought-provoking actions."

Admittedly, Turkey Week is an occasion to possibly pick low-hanging fruit in terms of low-scale "films". But it is a fun tradition, and it is worthwhile to seek just what kind of insanity can come around from Neil Breen here with his fourth film, one that was first shown in 2016. You might wonder just how any of these films differ from the last one, and, well, that quote you see on top is actually on the poster. Apparently, the film had a bit of crowdfunding for post-production. As was the case earlier, Breen is behind a few other things beside directing that you can find in the credits, such as production design, casting, wardrobe, craft services and so on (in the credits, Breen gets cute by listing companies with "N" or "B" that actually are just him). The next Breen movie to grace a film screen was Twisted Pair (2018), for which I'm sure folks enjoyed paying for the movie to order from Breen himself to come through in a few weeks (remember that in his film posters, the screentime is even advertised to you).

You might remember that Breen's previous film before this one was Fateful Findings (2013), which involved a climax that had politicians admit to their crimes before killing themselves en masse. His first film Double Down (2007) had him wear a cut-off vest with medals on it (which appears here, somehow). You might wonder just how Breen handles the looming problems of evil smugglers terrorizing immigrants or other terrible things such as bankers, bankers, and politicians. Well, it is plain simple for the AI: he just makes them vanish (or in one truly strange instance, our lead character puts on a suit to be a part of green screening someone's place to listen to them admit their evildoing and then walk out after blowing it up). Amid various shots involving a red dot or Breen being green-screened with a tiger (take a drink anytime you see either on screen, seriously) is a movie where Breen takes several minutes to tell people about the people he just made disappear so they can make their own revolution, since apparently just making "bad people" go away is not enough to just have a better society. The best thing to say about the movie is that Breen's strange messiah ideas do not drag beyond 95 minutes here and you get plenty of moments that are lucid in the Breenest sense of the word. Trying to make sense of the actors here is as futile as trying to catch rainwater with a harmonica. The one part with children involves kid astronomers and a professor that they help wheel out to check out the hubbub. I think the biggest curiosity about Breen the filmmaker is that Breen the actor seemingly never changes in terms of his presence on screen beyond making himself a would-be messiah. He emotes and says his lines in a straight-line manner that is such a strange thing to watch because one knows he really does seem to believe what he communicates in terms of distrust for certain lobbies and other things, such as in one instance his character stating his cure for a guy's PTSD (remember back in Fateful Findings that a Breen character tried to cure a girl's cancer). He goes around telling folks to be a leader (not a follower) while in the same sentence telling them to go back to where they came from. The fact that the poster for the film is from the last scene of the film (involving several people being pasted over and over again to make it look like a pile of bodies in the desert because [REASON NOT FOUND]) is the cherry on top of this ridiculous cake. As a whole, one might say if you've seen a Breen movie, you've seen them all, but the diggers of amusement and the curious might have something to chuckle at with a movie that wears its beliefs on a sleeve (that may or may not be dirty) for familiar ridiculousness. He earns a star mostly because at least one doesn't see a lazy filmmaker involved, merely just finding one with, well, Breen-ese. There may just be a bit of Breenlish in all of us when it comes to self-important visions but I sure as hell don't want to see what that would mean for me, where trying to understand which of these first four movies is the standout is like comparing a kick to the knee to a kick of one's groin.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Come one, come all for Turkey Week Five, an occasion to mark Thanksgiving with reviews every day of the holiday week from November 24 to November 30. I can't reveal all of my surprises but I'm sure you'll enjoy the works of filmmakers such as Ted V. Mikels, Bob Clark, and more.

Terrifier.

Review #2271: Terrifier.

Cast: 

Jenna Kanell (Tara), Samantha Scaffidi (Victoria), David Howard Thornton (Art the Clown), Catherine Corcoran (Dawn), Pooya Mohseni (the Cat Lady), Matt McAllister (Mike the Exterminator), Katie Maguire (Monica Brown), Gino Cafarelli (Steve), Cory Duval (the coroner), Michael Leavy (Will the Exterminator), and Erick Zamora (Ramone) Written and Directed by Damien Leone.

Review: 

"The main reason we put that violence in is that I wanted it to really stand out. Since I’m a special effects artist, I knew that was going to be one of our strong suits going into the movie. So just packing it with special effects and making them as graphic as possible, I knew that we would stand out. I wanted it to be as graphic and as grisly as possible. I knew people were going to leave the movie talking about the hacksaw scene. It’s so insane and graphic that you know people are going to talk about it. I just tried to put as many things like that in the movie as I could. Nowadays you don’t really have to worry about the rating board unless you’re in Hollywood, which is the one percent. No one is in Hollywood anymore.

Sure, even the indies should get the spotlight. Actually, I was interested in covering Terrifier because its sequel had actually made it onto my local theater two years ago. I didn't have enough time to look into Terrifier and I didn't want to look really dumb in just watching a sequel. So, here we are with making up for lost time. The concept of Art the Clown first came with a short film done in 2008 called "The 9th Circle" by Damien Leone, who had honed his craft as a special effects makeup artist after seeing a VHS tape (called Scream Greats) that covered effects done by Tom Savini and Rick Baker. His love of older slasher films (in particularly "the more graphic ones, the grittier, the more violent ones") influenced him in his pursuit to make a fresh and modern slasher, particularly with a clown. That film, along with another short film "Terrifier", were included as part of the direct-to-video anthology film All Hallows' Eve (2013), which had the framing device of a babysitter discovering some tapes involving the clown (as played by Mike Giannelli), as scripted and directed by Leone. He directed another video feature with Frankenstein vs. The Mummy in 2015, but Terrifier would become his first film to go out in theaters. He made an attempt to crowdfund a film involving Art the Clown (now played by David Howard Thornton when Giannelli retired from acting) on Indiegogo, which interested producer Phil Falcone enough to give them the remaining money needed to make the film. In addition to directing/writing, Leone also edited the movie. The movie was played mostly in festivals but picked up a limited release a few years later. The sequel received more funding (private and campaigning) that resulted in an a more substantial theater release in 2022. The third film is set to be released in theaters tonight.

The best credit that comes for a film like this is that for the money it was made, it sure was worth every penny. I will go on the record by saying that critiquing films as being some sort of "torture porn " is extremely disingenuous. The critique was incredibly stupid when hacks tried to apply it to the Saw series, and I sure as hell am not going to let it go unguarded just because a movie wants to rumble someone's stomach with what *horror* is. Yes, you can have your light, "suspenseful" movies get balanced out with films interested in brutality. You might say it is strange to put some defense for a movie that is really just "fine", but if you can't find a good argument for an average movie, what chance does one have when trying to cite the virtues of a truly great one? The atmosphere of grime that comes from such a small locale is fascinating to me, particularly when it is combined with a horrific threat that has to use pantomime to drive home the point of basically making a "greatest hits" slasher as a film. Sure, there isn't much to the characters (Leone has gone on record as regretting the lack of character development with the lead girl), but I don't find it too much of a big complaint mainly because of the pained delight I had with the film. Thornton is a quality mime that manages to make the art of collecting blood (and other things) onto that delightful suit come off with a dark amusement, at least to me (how does one see a scene where he decides to use a gun and decide, no, I hate this?). The saw sequence is particularly stark in its execution of, well, cutting down someone with certain patience. The climax in particular is quite unnerving to me when it comes to being distinct from the usual "final" survival and escape. I look forward to finding time to see the second film and maybe even the third one when it comes to tests of a certain type of extreme horror and having fun seeing the craft come to life.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.

Review #2157: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.

Cast: 

Eddie Redmayne (Newt Scamander), Katherine Waterston (Tina Goldstein), Dan Fogler (Jacob Kowalski), Alison Sudol (Queenie Goldstein), Samantha Morton (Mary Lou Barebone), Ezra Miller (Credence Barebone), Jon Voight (Henry Shaw Sr), Carmen Ejogo (Seraphina Picquery), Colin Farrell (Percival Graves), Ron Perlman (the voice of Gnarlak), Faith Wood-Blagrove (Modesty Barebone), Ronan Raftery (Langdon Shaw), and Josh Cowdery (Henry Shaw Jr) Directed by David Yates (#121-#124: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix / the Half-Blood Prince / Deathly Hallows - Part 1 and Part 2)

Review: 

Sometimes one just gets tired. They miss a film they probably could have seen or put it on their to-do list to throw onto the waste basket for the next year. This is one of those times, which is particularly amusing because I can say without a doubt that once Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011) came out, I seemed to just go in and out of making excuses to really go back and watch those films once it was all said and done. Hell, I read the books as a teen, and somehow the idea of a "spinoff" film that retained the same director from that film adaptation to go with a screenplay by J. K. Rowling slipped my attention (I went back to try and jog my 19-going-on-20 memory and found that I somehow had time for exactly one theater release in the month that this film was released: Doctor Strange). Anyway, why don't we start making up for lost time: this is a spinoff film conceived with David Heyman (who had produced the film series) serving as a producer alongside Rowling (who had produced the Deathly Hallows films) that shares the title of a guidebook that Rowling had written in 2001 (which, well, was about beasts one might find in the wizarding world). Development started in 2013 and went on from there. The success of the film, which was planned to be the first of five films, would inspire two sequels Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) and Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022).

You know, some things are just unbearably average. I was 15 when I last remember watching all eight of that aforementioned film series (which is now labeled as being part of a "Wizarding World" franchise that inspires a blank stare), and I think he and me can agree on one thing: even the most inferior of the films (Chamber of Secrets? Order of the Phoenix?) rank better than this one, a sponge of doing things fine with the bare inspiration to look ahead. It has some of the curiosity required when it comes to wondering aloud why one would want to spend a second watching magic-sound phrases come out of folks (either British or not), and it does hold 133 minutes of attention with a handful of wonder-inducement, one can be fair there. There is something useful to find in watching folks try to engage with the idea of silly beasts possibly causing havoc in a 1920s New York that Redmayne can handle with the sense of interest with Fogler and Waterston, where even a magical parasite could be something really curious. And yet...why is it the film finds itself trying to wedge some sort of bubbling idea of war in the middle of things? (complete with a middling amount of screentime for Jon Voight, "Man Who Can Be A Ham") You can fool me with names such as "Newt" or "Queenie", but New Wizarding Orders with guys named "Gellert Grindelwald" that like to play disguise? That takes a bit more time to really stomach. Silly little plant looking creatures are a bit cooler than newspaper exposition. The performances are serviceable to the material, mostly in the case of Fogler, who provides the "take it in stride" balance to go with Redmayne and his, uh, spirited attempts at wonder that come and go with effectiveness. At least Farrell gets to dilly dally in obviousness a bit, especially when compared with a stone faced Miller. In general, this is a film that makes idle movement towards having fun but pushes a big cloud (parasite) and trying to maintain that line between wizards and "No-Majs" (blank stare). It is mildly fun, because those little antics involving a bank and magic tricks (it works out better in some ways to have people come and go) do make things come off interesting, and I do think there is something worth looking into when it comes to magic run amok that isn't trying to play too hard into things you heard already (except one line that I hated guessing). It is the kind of film that is crafted from cloth that could have received a bit more weaving to really hit its mark, but it does the basic necessities that will make those who were really drawn into it want to wonder what could be next without being a churner for the rest.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

O.J.: Made in America.

Review #1980.3: O.J.: Made in America.

Cast (Part Five):

Interviews and archival footage of various individuals:

Archival footage: O. J. Simpson, Johnnie Cochran, Al Cowlings, Christopher Darden, Robert Kardashian, Robert Shapiro, among others.

Interview: 

F. Lee Bailey, Danny Bakewell, Carrie Bess, Yolanda Crawford, Marcia Clark, Carl Douglas, Bruce Fromong, Celia Farber, Mike Gilbert, Fred Goldman, Jim Newton, Tom Riccio, Jeffrey Toobin, among others. Directed by Ezra Edelman.

Review: 

"What people seem to want to leave off on are, "Oh, here are these images. Here are these images of black people cheering and white people crying and then white people are angry at black people." It’s like, "Okay, but why?" And it’s strange to be put in a position where you feel like you have to create some primer for white people to understand something that is fundamentally not that confusing."

Even if this film did not end up winning an Academy Award for Best Documentary, one would still consider this to be a grand movie in the art of setting a broad canvas that lives up to its title in ways that would make it a film version of a great crime book. It is always reactionary in its tempo and scope that paints an interesting question among the straight path of doom laid out by its timeline: what does one consider a proper balance of justice? It should be noted that one year after the release of the film, Simpson was released on parole after having served nine years of what was a sentence of 33 years for armed robbery (after having been granted parole in a few parameters in 2013), and in 2021 he was granted early release from parole that made him a "free man" (incidentally, you can now see him on Twitter posting about a variety of things, such as double murder trials, for example). Among the various things to say about the epic that is O.J.: Made in America is the very fact that there are no weak parts of the film. It never slogs in its beginning, middle, or end when it comes to the mosaic that Edelman wants to portray. I will say though that my favorite part of this documentary is this fifth part, one that lasts roughly an hour and a half that encompasses the time spent from the verdict of October 3 of 1995 and 2008. It depicts Simpson essentially living a life in exile from the public sphere that he had so desperately craved, with the 1995 verdict essentially being a pyrrhic victory in all senses of the world. It shows a man now approaching his fifties moving away from California to Florida after the civil trial in 1996 (with Fred Goldman getting Daniel Petrocelli to represent the Goldmans, left unmentioned here) before the fateful events of a ill-fated robbery in Las Vegas. This is where the noted names of people from Simpson's past associations in acting or rich associates (such as Peter Hyams or Robert Kardashian) fade away from the background to see others arise from the shadows such as journalist Celia Farber (who profiled Simpson in 1998 that details the strange qualities that come with the nature of who Simpson is in the eyes of who wishes to seek him out) and Tom Riccio (a key player in the foolish robbery). 

No matter how one is aware of the OJ murder trial and the verdict, it still doesn't prepare you for how it all went down. As one probably knows, a trial of 253 days with witness testimony from over 156 individuals (notably not Simpson), the deliberation for a verdict took less than four hours. It probably doesn't reflect greatly on Clark that one of the jurors gave a black power raised fist salute right after the verdict was delivered (Lon Cryer, who actually is featured in a different miniseries about jurors in famous trials). One will never know how it feels to be part of a jury until they actually participate in one, which is basically all that matters to say about the perspectives from the jury members presented in the documentary (with memories of exhaustion and probable regret for their ultimate decision). The one thing that I observe most from the trial is just how many people felt the need to write books about it: Both Clark and Darden wrote books about their experiences as the prosecution while Shapiro wrote one that basically tried to pass himself off as not being big on the defense "playing the race card", while Mark Fuhrman also wrote one while trying to go from retired detective to crime writer. The most noted book of the trial may be Jeffrey Toobin's 1996 book The Run of His Life: The People v. O.J. Simpson (you could argue about if his appearance here represents a certain angle of privilege, but that is what I would expect from the most distinct type of person to treat with scrutiny: former lawyers trying to talk about lawyers). At any rate, yes, the verdict was a decision made by human beings that did what they could when faced with doubts that at least reasonable. But really the documentary makes the case before its end that Simpson may not really have ever left the cage that he set himself on when he was in that Ford Bronco all those months ago. In short: there is a clear difference between being a free man and being a free man in the eyes of others around you. In case one forgot how guilty Simpson sounded during the so-called trial of the century, the account of the civil trial (filed in 1996 by the Goldman and Brown family) reminds you pretty quickly. That trial was a non-televised affair with a jury that got to see Simpson in a new form: a charlatan on the witness stand. If there is anything to take about the life of O.J. Simpson beyond what you see in archival footage is that he was a man addicted to fame and adoration. It makes for a great irony when you consider the words of people such as Danny Bakewell and others about the ultimate legacy of Simpson being the distinct difference between his symbol of escape with the verdict and the man as a whole. In other words: Simpson flew to heights thought impossible that remind one of the myth of Icarus and became exposed bare to the world exactly as Icarus did, with the apparent injustice in 1995 being followed by a weirder sense of justice in 2008 (the civil trial was about finding liability).

Oh, right, here we are talking about Simpson. My interest in the documentary now and then comes from what you can gleam from someone that tried to transcend being black by "being O.J." that now finds attention from people that he forgot about. This is made pretty clear by the voice of Mike Gilbert (Simpson's former agent), who I should mention also wrote a book about his experience with Simpson, who not only seems to be a mere symbol for escaping the boot of white authority but also became a symbol for some sort of weird exploitation. Gone are the days of 1st & Ten and The Naked Gun, now here Simpson is talking to people about the good ol' days or trying to make a hustle out of the shell that we know is a pretty crappy person to select people. The charm shown in the earlier parts of a noted name is now one of a man on the hustle, made distinctly clear by footage shown of him from "Juiced", the pay-per-view video released in 2006 that sees him try to play a hand at improv and hidden-camera pranks. It is a gloriously surreal thing to be watching a guy who seemed at ease in TV commercials and occasional films in his "prime" flail hard while approaching his sixties (my favorite part in reading about the video is an article written about the show from a participant, which is amusing and sad in the ways expected from reading something you sure as hell aren't watching). The aspects covering his ill-fated attempt at profiteering with a book detailing "if he did the murders" are what they are for the viewer to think about for themselves, especially with an ever-present Goldman seen throughout (the children of Simpson and the Browns aren't interviewed at any point of this part, so interpret it how you like). The aspects covering the robbery in 2007 are swift and strange in dark humor. Think about it: a famous man of entertainment and alleged murder coming to believe that it was a good idea to scare alleged robbers of his stuff (which is where Fromong comes in) with the dubious help of hired muscle, a guy with a gun, and a strange figure in Riccio (who recorded the robbery and then, go figure, also wrote a book about Simpson). The ensuing trial and judgement leaves a fairly clear perception about the sentence given out, which is, well, yea, it probably was excessive (Carl Douglas contributes my favorite bit about equating it to a "Fifth Quarter").

Ultimately, it is a documentary of epic stature done in exquisite detail by Ezra Edelman. It utilizes seven hours to set an entire range of understanding the importance of the verdict of one of the most famous trials in America beyond the person on trial. The story of Simpson is one wrapped in the fiber of America in the context of race and privilege that might as well be the story of great irony, one where we tell it to our children to educate ourselves on doing better when it comes to possible blind-spots in perception but also on how to treat others regardless of fame. It shows the perspective of how people treat others with regards to skin that shows where we have come since the 20th century and where we still have to go when it comes to race in America. It skillfully tells the story of America within the lens of more than just its namesake when it comes to race and celebrity culture that might as well have its own shelf when it comes to exquisite documentaries that I highly recommend in every sense of the word.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

And so ends a 4,000-word review of a great documentary that I hope matched in some way the scope of the film. Thank you for enjoying another edition of Black History Month presented by Movie Night. I hope you enjoyed the attempt at broadening the scope of black actors or directors that I felt discovered a spotlight. Granted, one can spotlight great black presences all of the year, but it seemed appropriate to make this is a suitable third rendition. March is the time for Women's History Month, as you know. We shall see what is in store for the fourteen features of spotlight time.

Hell or High Water.

Review #1949: Hell or High Water.

Cast: 

Jeff Bridges (Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton), Chris Pine (Toby Howard), Ben Foster (Tanner Howard), Gil Birmingham (Texas Ranger Alberto Parker), Marin Ireland (Debbie Howard), Katy Mixon (Jenny Ann), Dale Dickey (Elsie), Kevin Rankin (Billy Rayburn), Melanie Papalia (Hooker), Amber Midthunder (Vernon Teller), Taylor Sheridan (Cowboy), and Margaret Bowman (T-Bone Waitress) Directed by David Mackenzie.

Review: 

"I find myself relating to stories that feel like they’re about characters who are struggling to deal with themselves in some way or another, more than I am about necessarily the worlds. In order for a story to kind of hit me, it’s much more about the people than it is of necessarily about the world."

Unsurprisingly, this is a film where more than one voice is crucial to how it came to pass as a memorable film of its time. David Mackenzie became a filmmaker after his study at Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design in his native Scotland. He made a couple of short films while being inspired by Danish cinema, specifically the Dogme 95 movement (another time). He made his debut in features with The Last Great Wilderness (2002). His films were either dramas or comedies, which ranged from work such as the erotic drama Young Adam (2003) or the prison feature Starred Up (2013). Hell or High Water is his ninth feature film and second American film. The movie was written by Taylor Sheridan, an actor-turned-writer. Under the working title of "Comancheria", it was his second film script, but it was his first sold. However, it was his first script in Sicario that ended up being made first, which was done in 2015 to general success. These films, alongside his later feature Wind River (2017), which he wrote and directed, is part of what he called a trilogy of "the modern-day American frontier." He has stated that the key influences in his writing were the Coen brothers along with Cormac McCarthy and Larry McMurtry. When Mackenzie was sent the spec script as a spec project, he fell for it right away, admiring the "freewheeling vibe to it that I love in 70s movies"; of course, one would not be surprised to notice touches of the outlaw stories from the 1930s present here.

There is something quite interesting about the desolate eloquence that Mackenzie and Sheridan try to accomplish with such an easygoing crime thriller. It rides most of its strength on interesting characters and actors to inhibit these folks that seem as worthwhile to view that rolls its beat in mannerisms similar to No Country for Old Men (2007), although each film have their own approaches to the chase. Arguably, it outclasses that movie when it comes to overall execution from start to finish to earn its final resting spot that finds a worthy resolution to hang its hat on. It isn't a perfect movie, but it surely makes a captivating case for a suitable neo-Western in the eyes of those familiar with the frontier it reaches in its haunting elegy that has wide landscapes of West Texas and the folks that accompany it. The main drawing point is the dual storylines involves Pine with Foster to go alongside Bridges and Birmingham; no matter how one treats films by how much they need a clear-cut "hero" or "villain", it should work out pretty well regardless of one's patience for material such as this. Pine and Foster share a great rapport with each other as on-screen siblings that never seems inauthentic, with each actor managing to share the stage in terms of highlights. Pine is far more than the perception of low-key that one might think early on from him, mostly because he proves the most endearing figure in the long run. Foster and his volatile charisma prove just as watchable in terms of showing the other side of trying to commit what you might call the "perfect crime": the challenge of not becoming fully absorbed by the thrill of it all. Within the other side of the chase is Bridges, wracked in melancholy and withering strength that makes for quite a pairing with Birmingham, one that sees them insult each other in ways familiar with bonds formed through work (which results in a bit of humor before a sobering climax). There are numerous sequences one can highlight in the film as being effective beyond the heist, such as the opening robbery sequences, which each involve quiet settings being disrupted by sudden action. Or one could highlight a sequence in the diner that sees a makeshift robbery and a small scene of warmth between Pine and Mixon. Of course, the porch sequence in the end of the film is a good one in simmering tension and fateful finishing that works exactly to what Sheridan intended when it comes to endurance, as reflected by the grisly handling of the climax. It is ultimately a movie about how much a bond between people can take them depending on the circumstances, whether that means the bond between a parent to do better for their children, a sibling doing something out of affection for their sibling or more. 

The 102-minute runtime is handled effectively in the elements that matter within its genres of crime drama and neo-Western, utilizing familiar beats within each genre involving characters that seem quite real and useful to the landscape of story and setting. In the end, it is a heist movie, but it is a heist movie with the story of the ones doing it and (eventually) why being at the forefront, which works splendidly. It is a crackerjack type of thriller - the outcome never seems to be drawn out to the point of absurdity nor is it too reliant on complexity to make the proceedings irrelevant. In short, it is a mature kind of thriller, one with grizzled characters that matter to us with enough action and general charm to make it a surefire classic.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Welcome to New Directors Month: Volume II. January 2022 will attempt to cover ground not covered in January 2022, which spotlighted thirteen directors not covered by Movie Night before, which has featured over 1,000 directors as we enter Season XIII - that January started with Erich von Stroheim and closed with Alejandro Jodorowsky. The next film up will certainly cover new ground...in world cinema.

Blair Witch.

Review #1753: Blair Witch.

Cast: 

James Allen McCune (James Donahue), Callie Hernandez (Lisa Arlington), Brandon Scott (Peter), Corbin Reid (Ashley), Valorie Curry (Talia), and Wes Robinson (Lane) Directed by Adam Wingard (#1672 - Godzilla vs. Kong)

Review: 

I am sure you are familiar with The Blair Witch Project (1999). If not, I will simply just crib some lines from when I saw the film two years ago: "Maybe one is supposed to have Jaws in mind when it comes to a film that holds its monster in place for most of its run-time. This falls apart pretty quickly because I actually felt something for that film and its encompassing terror that lurked (and actually showed up), where with these three the strangest thing that happens to these theater folks is having the tent shaken by the director. Actually, I take that back, the stick figures are a bit spooky to look at." Sure, I can make fun of how silly the proceedings were, but that movie made handfuls of money; it was followed by Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000), a movie about people "fascinated" by the mythology that surrounded the original that was incidentally made by a filmmaker who mostly has made true crime documentaries. That movie was a mixed bag (making three times its budget), yet no work on another film bubbled up to the surface for over a decade. Director/writers Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez would not be involved with this feature (as each have gone on to do their own features separate from each other), but Lionsgate decided to do their own venture, complete with secrecy (it was billed as "The Woods" until the promotional tours started) that extended to their choice in director in Adam Wingard and writer with Simon Barrett, who made slight modifications to the pitch with more characters.

So yes, instead of making a movie about stumbling folks that got lost in the woods, now we have a movie about stumbling folks that are getting chased in the woods while being lost in the woods. I think you know what I feel about this movie: It does not do anything particularly special that had been done seventeen years prior, as it instead manages to stumble in horror clichés that will not satisfy folks who were either fans of the original or not. Instead of attempts at "raw" scares, the scares seem equivalent to being refrigerated for a few days. The fact that the film was considered a disappointment for the studio despite what it managed to make back on a $5 million budget only makes me more amused that there won't be a direct sequel to such repetition. I am sure that it must have been really interesting to look at footage in 1999 and think, "woah, is this found footage real?" But you are reading words on the Internet from someone with cynicism to spare, and if you are really going to try to get me with sound design and the "idea" of something there, you better have interesting characters or scenarios to back it up.  There is none of that here with a movie that goes from "method filmmaking" to modern filmmaking that only wants the "greatest hits" without actually hitting anything, because seeing failure of folks to get out of a situation with more modern stuff is actually more irritating. McCune is too quiet to actually lead these folks to anything of interest, one who fills the "sibling" role to a T in bland matching bland (but again, that other movie had folks in method acting). Hernandez isn't much better, but at least having enough time to run from horror is more than "nondescript", since the other four bicker and say boring things before they get to picked apart like lambs (no, having a character have a Confederate flag in their house doesn't count as a character trait). Riddle me this: What is there to care about with these characters this time? What is there to think about in its title threat that is different than the last time? It actually makes me wonder if seeing the second film would actually be more interesting if only because it actually flipped things around from "what's that?". 89 minutes cannot solve my gripes with the original, no matter what kind of professional camera work you put into it, and for that I cannot in good conscience give it the same rating as I did with the orignal mediocrity. Sticks and stones may scare some bones, but spooky words will never scare me, you might say.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: A finalist from last year's Tribute to the Decades...

...Altered States (1980).

Star Trek Beyond.

Review #1721: Star Trek Beyond.

Cast: 

Chris Pine (Captain James T. Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Commander Spock), Karl Urban (Lieutenant Commander Leonard McCoy), Zoe Saldana (Lieutenant Nyota Uhura), Simon Pegg (Lieutenant Commander Montgomery Scott), John Cho (Lieutenant Hikaru Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Ensign Pavel Chekov), Idris Elba (Captain Balthazar Edison / Krall), Sofia Boutella (Jaylah), Joe Taslim (Anderson Le / Manas), Lydia Wilson (Jessica Wolff / Kalara), Deep Roy (Keenser), Melissa Roxburgh (Ensign Syl), and Shohreh Aghdashloo (Commodore Paris) Directed by Justin Lin.

Review:

I'm sure you remember the interest generated from a new version of Star Trek. J. J. Abrams directed the first of what is generally known as the "Kelvin timeline" features, doing so in 2009 that was written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (who had gotten their start in television with Hercules: The Legendary Journeys). They managed to bring the series back to the silver screen with a reboot that tried to honor established continuity in the original 1966 series while staying fresh with current perspective. In that sense, I think it did a fine job. Four years later, a sequel followed with the same collaborators (albeit with Damon Lindelof as co-writer). The funny thing about that movie is that it is the most profitable of all the Star Trek movies, and yet it reeks of something that would be made purely to squeeze as many hack ideas as possible for such an average movie, complete with trying to pawn ideas from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan but with no sense of actual stakes. Three years later, the idea was to have Orci as director (his planned first feature), since Abrams was now slated to direct for another certain space feature, but somehow it went awry, leading to a different direction. Justin Lin started as a director while attending UCLA Film School with Shopping for Fangs (1997), although his most notable contributions are to The Fast and the Furious film series, as he has directed five of the films in the series. At any rate, Simon Pegg and Doug Jung (a duo in which each wrote mostly for television) were tasked to write the script. 

Technically speaking, it is a worthy successor to the last two films. Of course, it is also as of this year the last one to be made, because somehow making a big-budget movie doesn't always result in a certain amount of money bags (of course, paying the actors is tough, too), and it is only now that plans are starting to move for a film in 2023. Perhaps it is a coincidence that Star Trek only returned to television after the release of this film (albeit in streaming form, the most pathetic of broadcasting methods). It continues the trend of trying to aim Star Trek for a crowd that is interested in special effects and action with a sliver of plot, which I suppose makes it essentially a shinier version of when filmmakers did so with Star Trek: First Contact (1996), just with certain choices of music included. I suppose every incarnation of the series in film form also has to show the Enterprise take a beating just so one can build it all up again, so there is that. Of course, the important part is that one has a good time with the adventure, and I believe there is an interesting one to see here, despite the fact that it is the main cast that really shines more so than the villain (again though, how many times is that not the case?). This is a movie that seems quite a bit familiar with its themes of finding one's meaning in continued exploration (i.e. instead of a mid-life crisis about being old, it is now a young-life crisis about seeing the stars again and again). As such, the movie feels the best way to do that is to split the crew into their own little pairs (i.e. Pine with Yelchin, Quinto with McCoy, Cho with Saldana, and Pegg with Boutella). In that sense, some of those pairs work out better than others, depending on how much effects are present. In that sense, Pine is easily the most effective, having molded fully into the role with confidence (without as much of the hammy "curiosity" from William Shatner, if you will) that maneuvers well with resourceful charm that has evolved well from seven years prior. Urban was always quite interesting as McCoy, and he generates a few interesting moments when paired with Quinto in terms of snappy banter that isn't just a familiar re-hash. Quinto might not have as much to really do, but his little scenes involving reckoning his fate as now being the one living Spock is interesting at least. Saldana suffers the most from the split, in that being paired with a bunch of scenes involving the villain doing vague dealings about his motivations isn't really that interesting for the former and barely interesting for the latter (again, the familiarity with these characters go to a certain point when compared to when the movie tries plot for a few minutes). Elba gets to be caked in a whole bunch of makeup while having an okay motivation that honestly could do with better material beyond a twist that could probably be seen coming with a reasoned guess-maker at the hand watching. Maybe he was meant to be a second side of the whole "I have nothing better to do with my time in space" coin with Kirk, I guess. Boutella is okay in terms of curiosity within accompanying makeup and action shots, but since this film already scrounged up introducing an interesting secondary character to play off one of the castmates for more than one film (i.e. Alice Eve not being in this one), why bother? 

Honestly, the movie almost plays itself too corny with certain sequences near the end without having as many stakes as it could have - do I really need to have "Sabotage" in the background for an action shot? Its testing about the villain isnt even that clever, really, since the last one also had a Starfleet adversary that liked things better when it was militarized. As a whole, it definitely keeps interest on a moderate level when it comes to action (credit to hiring a car chase director for this, huh?) and most of its acting chemistry, since these folks have done well with capturing a majority of the charm from the old cast. However, it begs for more to explore than just cursory stakes, and I just cant see myself giving generous praise for being just fine. It needs something more than a few pretty sequences to really soar farther than just average, particularly when this is the 13th of these features; being in the top half of that list is fine, but when it is because it is the middle of quality, one could certainly make improvement. 

On that note, the anniversary of Star Trek is upon us again. Live long and prosper. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Fences.

Review #1647: Fences.

Cast: 

Denzel Washington (Troy Maxson), Viola Davis (Rose Lee Maxson), Stephen McKinley Henderson (Jim Bono), Jovan Adepo (Cory Maxson), Russell Hornsby (Lyons Maxson), Mykelti Williamson (Gabriel Maxson), and Saniyya Sidney (Raynell Maxson) Directed by Denzel Washington.

Review: 

"The star of the movie is the screenplay and August Wilson's words. What Denzel said to me, to Scott, to all the actors, the cinematographer, and the production designer was, 'Don't make any decision without August Wilson's words leading you to make that decision.' Whatever you do, let the words inform your decision first. That's what we all had to abide by."

If the right person is found, the right result will be found for the material to show to the screen. The source material for the film was the play of the same name, which was first developed on the stage in 1983. Written by playwright August Wilson, it was the sixth play done by him in what is now considered part of the "Pittsburgh Cycle", with each play taking place in a different decade of the 20th century. The city native wrote ten plays that all dealt with the African American experience within his city (although one was actually set in Chicago); this and Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (1985) were his first triumphs with audiences, and Wilson would win a Pulitzer Prize for Drama and a Tony Award for Best Play upon Fences' premiere on Broadway in 1987. When asked about the idea of turning Fences into a film, he wanted an African American director, or more specifically, one who would in his eyes be a director that "shares the specifics of the culture of black Americans." Despite Paramount Pictures buying the rights to make a film in 1987, the idea stalled for years, despite Wilson having wrote a screenplay for it before his death in 2005. When there was time at last do make a film, the script was generally kept intact, although there were a few uncredited rewrites done by Washington, Tony Kushner, and Spike Lee in pre-production. In the director's chair was actor/director Washington, who had added directing into his repertoire with Antwone Fisher (2002) and The Great Debaters (2007), and he also served as a co-producer on this feature. The film retains the main duo from the 2010 revival on Broadway with Washington and Davis, who toured for a limited run of 13 weeks and each had been awarded Tony Awards for their performances; Henderson, Hornsby, and Williamson also reprised their roles from the 2010 stage show.

What we have here is a film ripe for great actors to pair with each other that could prove mesmerizing and poetic in the right hands. I'm sure Wilson would have been quite proud of the result in turning his play into a film, as it manages to be quite an entertaining time, one shot right in the setting of the Hill District in Pittsburgh. The film moves with timing of a poet that manages to seem right at home within a film that drives its strength from two actors in their prime that makes one almost seem right there at a distance to hear their cadence come out with clarity in a family drama that generally hits the mark for what it wants to say regarding its time and place (in this case, the 1950s). No matter how much one tries or doesn't try, the folks that raise us a child are always going to be a part of us, flaws or not, where duty matters more so than just having someone liking you for the sake of it. Of course there is also the idea of what a fence means, both literally and in metaphor. In an era of films that seem to bill themselves on trying to out explode the other or try to hit marks on quieter stream services, it is nice to have a film that wants to reach its own depth of interest in terms of meaningful drama that does not come off as too fenced off for interest. Washington and Davis are our main focus, and while each received buzz for their performances, the latter was generally felt to be a supporting presence. To level it as tha is to forget the fact that each compliment the other in their own ways, where one doesn't seem to be lacking the other or feel that they are watching a director-actor's show. Washington does quite well with such an imposing role, one wrapped with plenty of the human element of what makes a father from Wilson's perspective with reasoned edge and tough interest. He makes his dealings with no overblown moments of playing to the rafters that obviously excelled from the performances done in the theater. In that mindset, Davis (who had starred in Washington's first directorial effort but best known for her star role on How to Get Away with Murder) follows with a resourceful touch, one that stands with Washington and brings everyone together with grace and stature to drive the drama just as well as Washington. Each have their moments when paired with Adepo in regards to the nature of parental influence, whether that means devotion or something else, and that is made pretty clear with Davis' scene near the end when talking about what one person meant to her and her son in terms of legacy (the scene Davis and Washington share in a pivotal moment about secrets is a close second). Adepo manages to do his best when faced with acting with either of them with reasoned care. Henderson accompanies the proceedings at times with a bit of charm and advice that goes along fairly well. Hornsby and Williamson close out as the primary support with well-done touch (mostly for the latter). All in all, what we have is a captivating family drama that captures the essence of a time, place, and upbringing that resonates with the viewer through its main two performances with flourish that hits most of its marks for 139 minutes for a solid accomplishment of turning a stage classic into a film.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Well, I hope you folks enjoyed this month and what it tried to cover with Black History Month. Perhaps it will be done again next year, but I assure you that there will be some surprises ahead in 2021 for Movie Night that I hope you enjoy. Any suggestions you have are always appreciated; thank you and have a good night...

Arrival.

Review #1628: Arrival.

Cast:

Amy Adams (Louise Banks), Jeremy Renner (Ian Donnelly), Forest Whitaker (Colonel G. T. Weber), Michael Stuhlbarg (Agent Halpern), Mark O'Brien (Captain Marks), Tzi Ma (General Shang), with Abigail Pniowsky, Julia Scarlett Dan & Jadyn Malone (Hannah, aged 8, 12, and 6) Directed by Denis Villeneuve (#753 - Sicario, and #997 - Blade Runner 2049)

Review:

"Arrival talks very little about language and how to precisely dissect a foreign language. It’s more a film on intuition and communication by intuition, the language of intuition. That’s something that I find in my work. "

It is easy to see why science fiction can reach an audience on numerous levels. It can range from speculative in its detail that can range from extraterrestrial life to the future or perhaps dealing with telling said sci-fi story that involves the human condition or to focus on an issue. This film is an adaptation of the 1998 novella Story of Your Life by Ted Chiang. There are quite a few details different from novella to film, such as the fact that the alien ships remain in orbit with contact done through looking glasses (112 of them) rather than twelve that appear on Earth for first contact (done in order to generate tension); the character of Shang is not featured in the novel (nor with war), and the ending is changed. Screenwriter Eric Heisserer described the change made to the ending with regards to the lead character by giving her a choice (i.e. free will) despite "what seemed like a deterministic future". Villeneuve was attracted to the novella because it was exactly what he wanted to do in the realm of making a science fiction film, and it would be one that was parallel to his preceding works that seemed dark (such as Polytechnique (2009) and Prisoners (2013), for example) as the eighth feature effort for the French Canadian.

The film poses a different approach to the usual tale of aliens and communication that doesn't pose to simplify the process of the latter but instead wants to look at it with a clear glass. After all, we are talking about a movie that features a viewpoint about language being the sticking point of civilization and conflict, and it all tries to tie that together by the point of its key narrative point midway through the feature. Of course, this relies on one enjoying the film as a journey without needing to focus so much on the destination, where the focus isn't quite where you think it will be. With that regard, it is a fine movie, but it is likely a bit too sterile to truly reach greatness. Actually, it made me wonder about other different kind of sci-fi movies about communication like Contact (1997), or maybe just sci-fi films to compare with in this decade like Gravity (2013). Perhaps the truest thing it inspires is to remind me of Slaughterhouse-Five, the 1969 novel by Kurt Vonnegut that was based on his experiences of the bombing of Dresden that also happened to deal with fate and free will with its jump through time (or so it goes, since I read it about five years ago). Actually, another similar film might be The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), which involved aliens and an important message for humans. The strange thing is that each of those (minus Contact, which I haven't seen) are all better than this film. There is a confounding mystery to how much a film or novel will stick with you enough to think about experiencing it more than once, particularly with how the journey sticks with you - in that regard, I wish I enjoyed it better, because I wish it was better than just "good" along with the fact that I wish it was more interesting in provoking thought than it really is through a 116 minute run-time that should feel less tedious. Actually, it did inspire one quirk: it is one of those films that will likely confuse you into thinking you should turn up your brightness on your television, unless one does desire a "dirty" science fiction film, as the director put it.

Oh but why don't we talk about the acting, too. After all, there's only four performances to really highlight, since two spend their time dealing with the Heptapods in glass, while the other two basically spend time looking at screens and/or talking about exposition. In that sense, it is fruitful that Adams does what she needs to do to keep the film interesting in compelling depth, one that deals with the challenge of dealing with communication between two worlds with the proper patience needed to make the balance between duty and care seem compelling and useful. Renner doesn't exactly have as much to say (given the final result it is a bit troubling), but at least he does what is needed in a light touch of exposition-delivery with competence. Whitaker is there merely to provide authority (because hey, how many sci-fi films have a recruiter to help with something "sciencey" to understand), and that results in a somewhat alright role, although it seems more apparent in the first half. Stuhlbarg may have an interesting line of work, but he seems more in the background with all of those screens with stowing doubt than anything too interesting. O'Brien and Ma are used in parts, while the scenes spent with Adams and (one of) the on-screen children seems to muddle the film more than really help it. To be clear, there are aspects of the film that are interesting to go through with its journey beforehand, such as with its opening half, which does generate a row of interest both in the nature of linguistics alongside where it could go with the creatures, and the effects that come from showing the aliens are fairly interesting. It creates a semblance of tension that does in some way make one not know exactly where it will go but not worry too much about it, moving as a puzzle box that keeps turning the edges around. In theory, its message of hope when it comes to communication is an interesting one, and it will certainly stick well for folks looking for a film that doesn't want to skip the usual procedures of a sci-fi film (although it may side step other moments) without being thought of as subversive or esoteric. Of course, the borderline between good and great comes with the twist that eventually comes into play (at least the one that seals the film up, not so much just the obvious one) - it sure is a shame I didn't care for the twist, and it is the fact that the film likes to close itself on where it began that makes it seem to think it has looped itself into a perfect circle when in fact it only seems to have mangled itself into the fear of smug inevitability (interestingly, its original ending dealt not so much with language but with a solution that would need to be constructed in the next 3,000 years, but it was a viewing of Interstellar (2014) that inspired the change). In other words, it is the kind of science fiction film that aspires to be on the level of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), but it can't even touch The Martian (2015) in resonance. I don't mean to dissect the film as I do, but it is my touch of disappointment with the level of how "good" it is when compared to its relative legacy in the five years since its release that makes me do so, as I find it to be a decent look upon communication within the realm of science fiction without quite landing all of its touches. The best way to watch it is to do so without looking much into its plot details or comparisons to other media, as instead it would be best to let it communicate all on its own, which in some ways will reach with its main performance and its dealing with people and communication, for better or worse. In a sea of great, good, average, and downright awful science fiction films, it doesn't hurt to pick one in the second category like this one - just go with it on its terms and let it talk from there.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars

Moonlight.

Review #1578: Moonlight. 

Cast:

Trevante Rhodes (Adult Chiron Harris / "Black"), André Holland (Adult Kevin), Janelle Monáe (Teresa), Ashton Sanders (Teen Chiron), Jharrel Jerome (Teen Kevin), Naomie Harris (Paula), Mahershala Ali (Juan), Alex Hibbert (Child Chiron Harris / "Little"), Jaden Piner (Child Kevin), and Patrick Decile (Terrel) Directed by Barry Jenkins.

Review:

"I want to create productive images, not necessarily positive images. Overt positivity can sometimes deflect attention away from the problem, or create myths that aren’t helpful. The way I described it to the actors was, ‘Everything in this movie is a gray area. The characters are gray, the situations are gray.’ There’s some very dark shit in this movie, but you have to acknowledge the ugliness. You just have to.”

As the saying goes, sometimes the past makes the difference for what matters in the present for a worthwhile effort into film. Barry Jenkins made a film set in Miami, Florida for his breakthrough feature, and it fits right into his background as a Miami native. He studied film at Florida State University College of Motion Picture Arts, and he subsequently took up production assistant work to help him on a journey towards filmmaking as a career. His first short was My Josephine (2003), but his first feature film came with Medicine for Melancholy (2008). In the eight years that followed, he did work on scripts that led to dead ends alongside work as a carpenter and with a commercial studio of his own before being encouraged by associates to work again. The basis for the film is an unpublished play by Tarell Alvin McCraney called In Moonlight Black Boys Look Blue, with Jenkins writing the screenplay adaptation. Both shared similar backgrounds, since each both were born in Miami and raised in the same neighborhood and each had been raised by a mother that struggled with her vices - they only met for the first time just a few years prior to the development of what became this film (since a friend gave Jenkins the play to read). The key change between the original work and film was the fact that the former depicted a day in the life of Chiron through the three stages of his life at the same time (because one only realized it was the same life of the same person halfway through reading). If you can do a film right near where you grew up, particularly one filmed in Miami in the Liberty City neighborhood, you have already accomplished part of the goal already, particularly with a budget of just $1.5 million.

What we have here is a film making a journey on those moments of silence to ponder through three points in one person's life, whether that involves childhood, teenage life, and adulthood. It doesn't aspire to have all the answers to what it means, particularly when it comes to masculinity that moves in a hauntingly tender manner that will reflect well upon those who find it something to resonate with or draw upon their own experiences. In other words, it is a usefully-crafted drama that does quite well within its quietly layered narrative that doesn't need to play to cliché or expectation but instead on the engagement one finds with these characters and who they represent to those living in the margins of life in some way. There have been plenty of coming-of-age movies that have come and gone over the past few decades, but one can always find a way to make it useful when it comes to depicting the struggle for one's identity. Regardless of how one is with their family, orientation, or with their life as a whole, the struggle to find a way out and be who they are is one we can all find important to dig for ourselves for 111 minutes. One starts with the opening storyline in "Little", featuring a quiet but effective performance from Hibbert, who resonates well with those moments we see him interact with the surroundings that will undoubtedly shape him that keeps the level of dialogue with others such as Ali, Monae, Harris, and Piner to worthy poignance. Ali (previously known for his work on shows such as The 4400 and House of Cards) is undeniably excellent here, doing so much in shaping the tone of the film with the look upon making one's path with nuance for such a small span of time on screen. The same applies in care with Monae, while Harris does quite well in unifying the film with anguish that comes to us without needing to play for pretense. The middle story in "Chiron" keeps pace going in quiet energy that bubbles to the surface on its own time, which Sanders and Jerome handle fine, making the exchange on the beach compared to on the schoolyard that more poignant. The closing story in "Black" opens as many doors as it seems to close, in that time passes on without needing to spell things out for that time spent with Rhodes & Holland. Is it a flawless experience? Not entirely, but it is the fluidity of its drama that keeps things grounded in tension that succeeds more often than not in what is needed. It is the film for people who need a story of spoken and unspoken light between the darkness as a film fitting for its era.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars