Harriet.

Review #1982: Harriet. 

Cast: 

Cynthia Erivo (Araminta "Minty" Ross / Harriet Tubman), Leslie Odom Jr. (William Still), Joe Alwyn (Gideon Brodess), Clarke Peters (Ben Ross), Vanessa Bell Calloway (Rit Ross), Vondie Curtis-Hall (Reverend Samuel Green), Jennifer Nettles (Eliza Brodess), Janelle Monáe (Marie Buchanon), Omar Dorsey (Bigger Long), Tim Guinee (Thomas Garrett), Zackary Momoh (John Tubman), Deborah Ayorinde (Rachel Ross), and Henry Hunter Hall (Walter) Directed by Kasi Lemmons.

Review: 

"I don't wake up every day saying I'm a black woman because it's too given, but I wake up every day feeling like an artist and I feel I'm an artist."

Admittedly, maintaining a career as a director is no small feat for folks with talent, whether as a man or a woman. Kasi Lemmons was born in St. Louis, Missouri but raised in Massachusetts, complete with an early interest in movies. She attended New York University Tisch School of the Arts before doing study at UCLA. Lemmons first was an actress, starting in television in the late 1980s along with making her film debut in School Daze (1988). She made a handful of appearances in film and television over the next few years, most notably with Candyman (1992). Lemmons directed her first film with Eve's Bayou (1997), a Southern Gothic drama that was a general success on the independent level. Lemmons has directed five further films in the 25 year-span since that film, such as Talk to Me (2007) and Black Nativity (2013). One is never sure how a movie can lend a portrait to a famous name in history, especially with Harriet Tubman (born Araminta Ross), who did indeed make an escape from Maryland to Philadelphia that covered roughly 100 miles (although she actually tried to bring along two of her brothers on the trip as opposed to it being a solo trip - they quit not long into the trip). She rescued roughly seventy people that were born into slavery in her native land of Maryland, whether that meant secret travel by night to the North or in later times, British North America (and yes, she did carry a gun). The Civil War led to her serving as a cook, a nurse, and later a scout for the Union Army (her service did not merit a pension for decades, and when it did come, it did not mention her work as a spy). She lived long enough to also take part in the fight for the right for women to vote, living into her nineties before passing away in 1913. The most mainstream depiction of Tubman before this film was a television miniseries in A Woman Called Moses that was shown in 1978 with Cicely Tyson as Tubman. Not that the film is to be judged entirely on the merits of 100% historical consistency, but one can judge for themselves how to interpret a film that features Alwyn, Monae, and Dorsey each playing characters not based in fact. The screenplay was done by Gregory Allen Howard, who is listed as co-writer of the story with Lemmons. 

Honestly, the movie is just fine. It is comprised of a handful of tropes you would probably see coming from a biopic of 125 minutes. But what exactly does one expect? Well, with the litany of biopics involving men or talking more about the time of 19th century America, I suppose another biopic about someone as remarkable as Harriet Tubman will be fine enough to please those interested in cut-and-dry American stories. It is sincere enough in its direction while having a solid lead performance to make it one of those quality movies that you might rent for a time. Erivo soars fairly well when it comes to handling the lofty expectations laid out in playing a historical character, which basically means she blends into the role without distraction. Tenacity and devout faith (the real Tubman was quite religious and also prone to experiencing visions, as depicted in the film) are key to understanding Tubman in the eyes of Erivo that emanate the power of deliverance. The rest of the cast proves fine, although the dialogue occasionally puts them at risk for wooden traps. Odom makes a fine headliner among the historical character support (the real Still was indeed an abolitionist that was once called "The Father of the Underground Railroad", and his 1872 publishing of records of the people who went through the Railroad is key to understanding the process). Peters pops in to provide warmth against Erivo. Alwyn is at the very least a semi-compelling adversary composite. Others like Monae and Dorsey don't fare as well, but again, there isn't a weak factor in the film, which generally moves on a set pace that makes the Underground Railroad (a series of routes and safe houses) seem quite interesting. As a whole, the movie is generally diligent about keeping focus on its subject without turning mundane or spinning itself away from historical basis too much. It is a fairly entertaining movie that honors its subject with fitting reverence that does exactly what it hopes to do, albeit one that operates within a certain boundary of range. If its gloss of history is that important to keep in our memories for important women in history, it will likely work out just right for a watch.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Lady Bird.

3 from Hell.

Review #1920: 3 from Hell.

Cast: 

Sheri Moon Zombie (Vera-Ellen 'Baby' Firefly), Bill Moseley (Otis B. Driftwood), Sid Haig (Captain Spaulding), Richard Brake (Winslow Foxworth 'Foxy' Coltrane), Jeff Daniel Phillips (Warden Virgil Dallas Harper), Danny Trejo (Rondo), Dee Wallace (Greta), Daniel Roebuck (Morris Green), Pancho Moler (Sebastian), Steven Michael Quezada (Diego), Jackie S. Garcia (Princesa), Bill Oberst Jr. (Tony Commando), Lucinda Jenney (Nebraska), Austin Stoker (Earl Gibson), Emilio Rivera ('Aquarius'), and Clint Howard (Mr. Baggy Britches) Written and Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007), #1590 - House of 1000 Corpses, #1751 - Halloween II (2009), and #1756 - The Devil's Rejects)

Review: 

If you remember, Rob Zombie had directed two features involving a family of deranged weirdo killers in House of 1000 Corpses (2003) and The Devil's Rejects (2005). The 2003 movie is certainly a mixed bag if there ever was one, liked by folks who probably dug a musician and horror fan like Zombie making a pastiche of things he liked growing up. Sheri Moon Zombie, Bill Moseley, and Sid Haig made a quality trio, albeit on a small scale due to the variety of folks that were in that film. But I dug that movie as an average little ride of drive-in ghoulishness. The Devil's Rejects was a pretty good movie to those who admired the deranged sensibility that came from a trio of actors that were allowed to breathe a bit more with a couple of notable lines and sequences. It was even more of a drive-in movie, but it does so with such blood-soaked enthusiasm. The ending is a pretty good one when it comes to just going nuts with finding a way to run into oblivion. So yes, 14 years later, here is another Zombie film involving a killer trio, with this being the third of the "Firefly" trilogy. Sid Haig was meant to return alongside Zombie and Moseley for a big role. However, Haig was recovering from surgery that had him lose a considerable amount of weight that would make Zombie have to modify his plans. As such, he has one little scene in the beginning before he is given a sendoff; his one scene is nice, at least. Sadly, Haig died a couple of days after the release of this film at the age of 80. As such, it is Richard Brake who is the new part of the trio of Zombie and Mosley. The film had a special three-night showing in September 2019 before release on home video. This was the 7th feature film from Zombie, with his previous effort having been 31 (2016), a movie he has compared to the aforementioned Rejects film.

I would say that this movie is decent enough to justify being made, which I suppose means that Zombie has managed to make a movie that will be hit-or-miss depending on one's patience for his habits as a filmmaker in trying to aim for the drive-in throwback with his personal favorites of music and actors to go along with a few familiar story beats. It does repeat a few things from the previous feature, for better or worse, which means that one will find that Zombie's comfort zone lies within seeing the nature of chaos in a weary world where killers are more fun than folks interested in revenge or in authority (i.e., if one is big on Zombie, the chaos comes off as renewed rather than repetitive). Of course, the opening sequence is a key distinction, touching upon the family as akin to the Manson family with its public curiosity. Eh, only the explanation to how the trio survived a cadre of bullets is probably the only interest (personally, if the trio responded to the praise with mayhem, it might've been a darkly amusing payoff) before the movie gets a grip and pulls its location of Mexico. For 115 minutes, it also is a bit of a tight demand for some audiences, but I did end up finding it an appropriately grisly time that shows the main three in comfortable chemistry to appreciate. S. Zombie proves effective in showing the growing delusion of the character without needing to rely on hammy tricks, and since we have seen here in two previous films, the lingering characteristics that jump from film to film make it all the more captivating in mayhem. Moseley is just as effective in his marked servitude in the work of the devil that has charm just as before without copying every little schtick moment from before. Brake does just fine here, managing to hold his own in terms of charisma (you know, for a killer) that blends right in with the others that doesn't aim for a Haig impersonation while making for useful chemistry between him and Moseley in film sibling form. The others are merely just puppets for the trio to play around with, such as Phillips being held in captive terror or a mild adversary with Rivera or a wide progression of one-shot wonders (Howard playing a clown, Danny Trejo having the bare minimum to do, a smarmy Edson), you get the idea. It works to a point, although it probably makes the overall climax just a mild display of drive-in horror enjoyment. 

As a whole, it is firmly in the middle in quality when compared to the other two films, which means that those who like it and those who don't like it have equally compelling cases if asked by a curious horror fan what seems best to watch on a late night. I veer on the side of support, as long as one liked what they saw before. Regardless of if this is the final one of these films or if we see Zombie do further films involving drive-in horror ambitions, you will have some sort of curiosity with this film in the long run.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Well, here is the end of another month (and one week) of horror. 28 films (and one redux) that ran the gauntlet of the 20th and 21st century. I hope you folks enjoyed the largest effort of Movie Night's 12th season for concentrated writing about horror. Suggestions are always welcome as we move on to other films, and it is almost time for another Thanksgiving celebration, if you know what I mean.

The Fanatic.

Review #1719: The Fanatic.

Cast: 

John Travolta (Moose), Devon Sawa (Hunter Dunbar), Ana Golja (Leah), Jacob Grodnik (Todd), James Paxton (Slim), and Denny Méndez (Amanda) Directed by Fred Durst.

Review: 

I'm sure you are familiar with the director in Fred Durst in that this is his third feature film since he decided to venture a path beyond just singing nu metal for Limp Bizkit, which he helped form in 1994 as the front-man and lyricist. Sure, The Education of Charlie Banks (2007) and The Longshots (2008) weren't wildly seen by audiences, but they-Nah, never mind. You aren't here to hear a description about Durst, a guy that I hadn't heard of before this film. It is probably a dubious achievement that the first time I heard of his band was in this film, since he includes a portion of his own band's song in the movie, describing it as something "good" - no comment. Anyway, you aren't here to wonder why Redbox has decided to get involved in being one of the seemingly endless amounts of companies behind the film. No, no, no, you are here to see just where John Travolta goes with the material. At least, that is what I hope you are here for. Perhaps nobody has had as many highs and lows as Travolta, particularly since he has seemingly managed to be the best thing about each and every single one of those two types of film qualities, whether that means hits like Saturday Night Fever (1977) or stuff such as Battlefield Earth (2000). Of course, I am saying this as more of a blanket statement for when I eventually encounter some of Travolta's other works within this decade, which includes Gotti (2018) and a handful of forgettable stuff you might find on the video-on-demand circuit (or while rummaging through DVDs). 

It seems strange to think that it has been two years since the release of this film, one that certainly inspired more derision than actual sales, as if the aura of seeming like a bad cult movie was just too much to handle in terms of actual appeal. Think about it: an actor with plenty of experience in going the full mile in presence (whether over-the-top or not) paired with a singer for a director and a premise that seems ripped right out of a generic Lifetime movie? How could this not be an "extra primo" bad movie for the (laughing) family?  The problem with bad movies is that it will remind you of better movies that cover similar material. Of course, the truly bad movies will basically slam you over the head and make you truly cringe in what you should be watching. This is one of those times, and it is particularly curious because of the lead performance that comes for such a ridiculously dull waste of time. Imagine spending 89 minutes watching John Travolta wearing a silly hairpiece and perform in a certain manner (possibly) on the autism spectrum that has more energy than the rest of the small cast combined. How many movies could be linked by this film in being better than this one? The easiest one could be The King of Comedy (1982), one that involved a lead character that has obsessive fantasies about being friends with a celebrity and going for a big break by kidnapping a talk show host. With that in mind, that movie was done by the same director behind Taxi Driver, which has inspired quite a few arguments about their similarities (incidentally, the star for both movies in Robert De Niro ended up starring in another movie about obsessions with The Fan (1996), albeit about baseball). Sure, one could reference Rain Man (1988) when it comes to the acting challenge, but One Hour Photo (2002) is the true other movie to look at - that involved a lonely man obsessed with his work and with a perfect family. All of these movies have something that The Fanatic lacks - a three-dimensional character, complete with a supporting cast that also are meant to be full-fledged people. Sure, each movie has an interesting idea when it comes to celebrity worship or idealization of folks (along with performances by respectable actors), but The Fanatic manages to take the most generic routes possible while managing to say absolutely nothing at all, unless one thinks unintentional comedy is a statement. The very first line of the film pretty much sets it up, what with a character "needing to go poo." It just spirals down from there, really. It might as well rival The Vulture (1967) in terms of its absurd leaps of logic with character decisions or motivations, and I am saying this about a movie that saves its one surprise for the climax in an ending that is as limp as the rest of the movie. 

Again, one must re-iterate that Travolta is pretty effective here. Sure, the movie is incredibly cringe-worthy to actually sit through, but he never seems to ham it up for detriment. He sinks right into a fanatical role and makes it seem like something that could be interesting to view when it comes to the mind of someone who lets his curiosity go too far. The movie doesn't have a likable character, but the devoted desperation seen here by Travolta almost works in exceeding the lack of dimensions shown by the script (for which Durst wrote the story while co-writing the screenplay with Dave Bekerman) in the parts that don't involve him as much. Sawa is almost as interesting, in the sense that one can be just as irritated at the ongoing events as he would - of course, the movie has no inclination of actually doing anything interesting with him besides the bare minimum of "well, he's the one being stalked, so let's have him give out threats and that is it". For such a small cast, the others might as well be transparent in the ways they come and go (the shop owner that we see in the opening disappears halfway through, and the randomly placed security guard used to motivate the lead to "stand up for himself" also does the same). Golja plays a paparazzi that I suppose is meant to represent the third leg of a triangle about celebrity obsession or something...while also serving as the narrator (maybe she was the only one who could stomach such generic lines). She is mismatched here, easy to say. Besides, the actions the script has the character take serve as the first (or second, if one thinks about it) domino of lunacy to fall that just inspires numerous derisive questions. 

To spare one the details, the whole movie hinges on someone not getting an autograph. Scratch that, it hinges on the characters lacking logic; imagine seeing your friend (obsessed with certain things like horror and stars) get kicked out of a party that you helped him break into, and you decide to tell him about an app that tells him about where celebrities live. Gee, what could go wrong? The fact that the celebrity responds to this dude going to his house multiples times by threats and not just...calling the cops, is more baffling. Somehow, the accidental death of a housekeeper (by falling on their head in a scuffle) is only noticed after at least a day of being in the yard dead (Moose thinks its a nosebleed while deciding to go in the house, so I don't think he went so far as to move the body. Nah, he has time to go in the house and play with antlers). Of course, the climax is both the best and dumbest thing about the whole film: imagine the irony that the best part is a character deciding to respond to being tied up and breaking away by shooting the attacker's hand off, shooting near his ears, and then stabbing him in the eye. Again, since there are no characters to really emphasize with, it makes for great amusement in all the wrong ways, a vapid and illogical experience that doesn't say anything new about obsession nor does anything interesting as a thriller beyond a plethora of clichés. If you find yourself compelled to see every Travolta movie or perhaps want to see a dull cringe time, this might be for you. Others will either be bored by what they see because of its bland execution or will just roll their eyes and find something better to do. In that sense, The Fanatic might live on as a grand curiosity for people who like to see abject failure with dignity. It doesn't come close to being one of the worst, but a 3 seems aptly appropriate.

Well, we have done it. Anniversary in August has reached its 16th and last review for this month. Oh sure, we had a busy time in August last year, but August is a month that generally follows busier times, as evidenced by the fact that the busiest months in Movie Night history are July, June, and December. Hmm. I hope you folks enjoyed these reviews, which ranged from interesting curiosities to...other stuff. Consistency is a goal I hope for with Movie Night, which has had ten reviews in each month since April 2019. Onward we go. Technically, other months should get their own months with how quiet it usually is, such as September or February. Well, there is one idea...

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Hustlers

Review #1661: Hustlers.

Cast:

Constance Wu (Destiny), Jennifer Lopez (Ramona Vega), Julia Stiles (Elizabeth), Keke Palmer (Mercedes), Lili Reinhart (Annabelle), Lizzo (Liz), Cardi B (Diamond), Mercedes Ruehl (Mama), Wai Ching Ho (Destiny's grandmother), Madeline Brewer (Dawn), Trace Lysette (Tracey), Mette Towley (Justice), Frank Whaley (Reese), Paul Nielsen (Detective Hunter), Brandon Keener (Alpha), and Steven Boyer (Doug) Written and Directed by Lorene Scafaria.

Review:

"There’s a responsibility to the truth and what really happened, and it’s not a black and white story, after all.”

Time is an important thing to think about when it comes to a film and its story. After all, it has only been two years since the release of this film, but one wonders how much it will be remembered, much less the person behind it with Lorene Scafaria, fresh off her third feature film (well, two years is still fresh, in this decade...). The New Jersey native was interested in writing from a young age; in fourth grade, for example, she would find interest in "inventing" a book to write a report on in order to win free pizza for those who read the most books (with ensuing reports) - by high school, she would become interested in acting and writing her own plays (inspired by playwrights such as David Mamet) and fiction, for which she would write her first play at 17. She studied for a year at Lafayette College (where she briefly honed time to be involved with plays) before tuition troubles led her to transfer to Montclair State University, for which she studied in English that focused on playwriting and fiction. Prior to entering directing, she had been involved with acting alongside writing for theater productions before entering film with a screenplay adaptation in Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist (2008), and Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012) was her feature debut. The film is inspired by the article "The Hustlers at Scores", which was written by Jessica Pressler in 2015 based on true events that had an interview from Roselyn Keo (the operator of the business end of targeting wealthy clients) that led to jail-time for two workers and probation for others involving substances and stolen money, which involved conspiracy, grand larceny, assault and forgery (incidentally, one of the ringleaders ended up writing a book about their experiences). Not long after its publication, the rights to make the film were acquired by Gloria Sanchez Productions (with Jessica Elbaum, Will Ferrell and Adam McKay serving as producers, alongside others that joined later like Lopez). Scafaria was attracted by the article in the "fascinating friendship story at its core", complete with the perspective of the article writer involved alongside the subject at hand. When Scafaria had finished the script in 2017, she was not exactly the first one in mind to direct the feature, with producers initially seeking out directors that were familiar with the type of genre the script fell into, which included asking Martin Scorsese (who declined) and thoughts about Adam McKay (who served as one of the producers of the film) - it took a sizzle reel created by Scafaria alongside editor Kayla Emter to help convince the producers to have Scafaria be the director.

Perhaps it should not be surprising that it took some time to attract attention from studios to get the film made, as they could see the commercial value but had un-comfortability with the subject matter (as if one needs to make sure that the marks have to also all be worthy of being so, despite the fact that the film is playing by the beats of an article), in addition to the judgement shared of the profession at hand (not reporting the terrible things that have happened to them is a different story), and the article itself started out by describing those folks as "(mostly) rich, (usually) disgusting, (in their minds) pathetic men" - basically, it is a film of supply and demand. The film has its touches that might make one think of a modern-day Robin Hood tale or (indirectly) Goodfellas (1990). With films like The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) and The Big Short (2015), perhaps one really does in an age of scammer-infused curiosity for entertainment. Consider the perspective of Kao, who in an interview about her life after ending the hustle, stated "I think a lot of women are rooting for me even though I was wrong.” (conversely, two of the women involved with the scheme want nothing to do with the limelight while the other sued the filmmakers for defamation - she lost, naturally). Oh sure, the music also probably plays a small part in the interest, since Scafaria intended it to help tell the story that would range from Janet Jackson to Bob Seger (naturally, the musical inclinations will differ for some, since I dig "Night Moves" more than anything). In the end, what matters most is what you get out of the experience) when it comes to a story with a perspective that is not usually told often - in that sense, it makes for a fine movie. It never quite reaches any major heights beyond a few clever moments within the crime angle and occasional charm, but there is an undeniable allure to the performances that come out within the main quartet that make for a dazzling curiosity with its look upon a world that might have people as mercenary as the folks on Wall Street that they ended up dealing with. Wu, best known for her starring roles in Fresh Off the Boat (2015–2020) and Crazy Rich Asians (2018), manages to hold pretty well to drawing one in as the focus without being lost in the lights and the other noted names behind her, having a carefully controlled sense of confidence that leads the story along with care. Lopez is of course the other side of the leading coin, and she delivers quite well on a captivating performance, one that dazzles in ruthless charm that strings the viewer with interest from the very first scene she is in (a dance scene, perhaps fittingly), and it is clear to see why she was Scafaria's first choice for the role, since she walks right through it with ease in amorality. Honestly, my quibble doesn't exist with Stiles but rather just my disagreement with the need for the journalist to be included as part of the story in the first place - it's an okay performance, mostly just there for little moments with Wu probing about the events that happened, but it just never really clicks to anything other than one just nodding their head (while trying to not drone the inevitable "X didn't do that in its crime story" statement in my head). Palmer and Reinhart finish the main group just fine, while cameos from folks such as Lizzo and Ruehl serve the film in atmosphere well enough. At any rate, it was interesting to have the article on hand (for research) to see what ended up being used anyway, for which there are quite a handful of excerpts that are shown for the film that prove fairly accurate, such as the man who liked one of the girls because of pretty penmanship and is then called out of the blue years later by our main lead (as part of a "Get Money" list), the listing of where the money goes when it comes to pay for the workers (minus expenses for the DJ, etc...), and even the events with a sympathetic unlucky client (who had a recording!) that starts a case against the girls that is accentuated by further tabloid cases of others (such as a cardiologist who apparently had a $130,000 bill from four trips to a club that did not want to pay). In any case, 110 minutes is just enough to keep the crime story fairly interesting, wrapped with a bit of introspection about the nature of the con at hand and the drive for more in a scenario that practically (but not literally) invited it. It never wavers on itself for too long to collapse, making for interesting entertainment that will attract those who seek a fair crime story with a distinct perspective and style to go with it to make for a good time.

Next Time: For the last film of the month, we reach the new decade with Wander Darkly.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars

1917.

Review #1585: 1917.

Cast: 

George MacKay (Lance Corporal William "Will" Schofield), Dean-Charles Chapman (Lance Corporal Thomas "Tom" Blake), Mark Strong (Captain Smith), Andrew Scott (Lieutenant Leslie), Richard Madden (Lieutenant Joseph Blake), Claire Duburcq (Lauri), Colin Firth (General Erinmore), Benedict Cumberbatch (Colonel Mackenzie), Daniel Mays (Sergeant Sanders), and Adrian Scarborough (Major Hepburn) Directed by Sam Mendes (#572 - Skyfall)

Review: 

“I wanted something that had the quality of a dream at times, but had real-life stakes. Any narrative, any fiction is a compression in time, a compression of character. You’re trying to find the tip of an iceberg. And if the tip is well done, the iceberg becomes clear. You don’t have to see it if you know it’s there.”

Most films in some form have something to do with family. Sam Mendes was inspired to do the film from stories that were told to him by his grandfather Alfred Mendes about his service in World War I. The elder Mendes was born in Trinidad in 1897, with chances of study in university being curtailed by the start of the Great War (also known as World War I). He served in the war under the 1st Battalion King's Royal Rifle Brigade and carried messages between no-man's land through the muddy trenches of war. After his war service, he wrote short stories and novels while working in provisions and civil service. His grandson Sam was the son of an author and a professor, who first developed an interest in cinema from a young age. His studies at Peterhouse, Cambridge helped him find interest in theatre as well, where he directed a number of plays at the Marlowe Society before his graduation in 1987. He soon became a director for plays in the theatre that rose in prominence over the next decade and a half before being brought in to direct his first ever film with American Beauty (1999), a tremendous success (he aspired to make films like the ones he had seen at Cambridge, such as Paris, Texas (1984), Repo Man (1984), and River's Edge (1986)). Other films (mostly successes) followed in its wake, with this being his eighth feature film (and first script written, done with Krysty Wilson-Cairns). He described his idea to do a film based on a messenger on a short time period to where he needs to go in the trenches of war that he described was "fundamentally about paralysis and stasis", one that would appear as two continuous shots (with the use of long takes). The primary stars and supporting characters are fictional, but the film's inspiration is Operation Alberich, in which Germany made their withdrawal to change their positions on the Hindenburg Line that happened in the span of a month in 1917 (as opposed to the date of April 6, 1917 that the film begins its story). 

There have been quite a number of war films over the years, with a portion of them revolving around World War I in some manner, whether that involves the silent era with The Big Parade (1925), or with sound in novel adaptations like All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) and Paths of Glory (1957) or further down the line of perspective with Gallipoli (1981). To me, the sense of urgency that comes with the film seems a bit reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan (1999, a messenger film of sorts) or perhaps a more modern example would be with Dunkirk (2017, which dealt with an escape through three storylines and minimal dialogue), and the enjoyment of the film comes from how much of its filmmaking reaches you in interest for its urgent pacing for 119 minutes. The camera almost seems like a person following these two main characters at times, as cinematographer Roger Deakins weaves together a dynamic look and execution to following along with the span of one moment in time. For better or worse, the film is more a technical achievement than an achieved war film - it is fairly entertaining, in the same way that it will generally keep you on your toes for what could come around the screen next, but it can be easy to see a small divide between viewers that find marvel with its shot structure and others who find it more distracting to the real sense of the war as a whole. Having just two main characters mixed in with a group of glorified cameos also in some ways seems to tinker with its magnitude of war. MacKay does well with a role on the routine, having to move fast with bits and pieces of useful dialogue mixed in with the sounds of war that are fine without being wooden - in other words, we can follow him fine in those long takes without constantly checking our watch. Chapman does alright as well with his time to spend on screen, as each make for a useful duo that can have small exchanges beyond just the mission, such as when they have to get through a trapped place with one blind leap. The others come and go in parts, notably with Firth as the one detailing the mission, Strong as one of the leaders in transport, and Cumberbatch as the person to focus on to end the goal, and they all do fine here (it isn't exactly a role to mug the scenery if the camera is on the move anyway). As a whole, it is generally engaging with its intent of urgent moviemaking that will likely prove fascinating for those looking to find films of its era that capture curiosity in technical terms with a good hand guiding the way to looking back to the past as a way to keep it around in the present.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

And so this ends the Tribute to the Decades project (January-October). This was the largest project that Movie Night has ever had, and it is that drive to do ten months of reviews to cover a wide range of films that led to this being the greatest year ever for writing (the previous record was 242 in 2012), and it isn't quite over yet. Plans for what happens next will be on a smaller scale (namely, not more themed months for a while), but I hope you all enjoyed this project for what it covered and what it could have covered - Thanks, folks.

Parasite (2019).

Review #1584: Parasite.

Cast: 

Song Kang-ho (Kim Ki-taek), Lee Sun-kyun (Park Dong-ik), Cho Yeo-jeong (Choi Yeon-gyo), Choi Woo-shik (Kim Ki-woo), Park So-dam (Kim Ki-jung), Lee Jung-eun (Gook Moon-gwang), Jang Hye-jin (Chung-sook), Park Myung-hoon (Oh Geun-se), Jung Ji-so (Park Da-hye), Jung Hyeon-jun (Park Da-song), Park Keun-rok (Yoon), and Park Seo-joon (Min-hyuk) Directed by Bong Joon-ho.

Review: 

"It's not that they were parasites from the start. They are our neighbors, friends and colleagues, who have merely been pushed to the edge of a precipice. As a depiction of ordinary people who fall into an unavoidable commotion, this film is: a comedy without clowns, a tragedy without villains, all leading to a violent tangle and a headlong plunge down the stairs. You are all invited to this unstoppably fierce tragicomedy."

Korea has had plenty of film directors in the century that has followed from the first Korean film in 1919, and it is a welcome occasion to add another name to the list, particularly one that has rocketed himself to prominence both in South Korea and abroad like no other in Bong Joon-ho. He was the son of a professor of art that grew up in Seoul. Bong was inspired to direct movies by seeing his father doing drawing as a child, and seeing films on television also helped in that regard. He made his first films while being in college (such as with stop motion and 16mm) before graduating and moving on to study at the Korean Academy of Film Arts. He moved on to working on other films in cinematography and writing before getting the chance to direct his first feature film with Barking Dogs Never Bite (2000). Memories of Murder (2003) proved his major breakthrough in South Korea (being one of the biggest hits of its year), while The Host (2006) proved even more popular. This was the seventh feature film from Bong. It was during production on Snowpiercer (2013; the first of two films to feature Hollywood stars) that he came up with the idea for the film (he had been a math tutor of a wealthy family for two months as a teenager), inspired by a suggestion from a friend to do a play (which has limited space but spurred on a story that could be told with two houses), with the second half ideas coming in the last few months of writing (he wrote the story by himself while co-writing the screenplay with Han Jin-won). He has stated in interviews about the divide in South Korea in terms of "relative wealth" as widening, and he described the film as "neutral" more than just being a film about clashing class systems, aiming for bittersweet with honesty rather than random hope (he also noted one inspiration being Kim Ki-young's 1960 film The Housemaid) - he also once argued that you could see either family as being a parasite in their own way, so there's also that point to consider of a film with numerous surface levels to look upon.

There was certainly a bit of high expectations, mostly because it was one of the most talked about movies of 2019 (the one defense I have is the fact that I never saw it advertised as playing in my local theater, and 2019 was certainly a busy theater year), and the Academy Award wins (including the first international-language film to win Best Picture) only cemented the curiosity. The art of a great film can come from the balance of tragedy and comedy. The art of seeing human fallibility depicted with such tremendous skill and honesty is what makes this a tremendously devastating film. It does so much without needing to be in your face about what it is saying, whether that involves elements of family drama, dark comedy, suspense, and particularly satire. One of my favorite little things about the film is the fact that both of the family houses for the film were actually sets, with one of them being designed by the director and the other doubled as a water tank. In general, this is a well-crafted film in its details that spring from its look to its management of tone that never wilts, keeping the attention of the viewer high while leaving a curious question or two to ponder after it ends (it is a film with shades of gray, after all). The acting (with a main core of seven) lives up to the enjoyment of the film. Song (who had worked with Bong before) makes for an engaging performance, capable of the everyman type that can be clever in moments that can either reflect a dark comic tone or family drama. Lee reflects this just as well on the other side of the coin in the family dynamic, engaging at a distance that make for some useful moments in the house (such as talking about someone's smell when believing he is only in the company of his wife). Cho does well in reflecting naivety without being used for ultra-cheap amusement. Choi and Park make worthy youthful sly support, while Jang contributes well to snide humor on the side. Rounding out the cast is J.Lee and M.Park, a reflection upon a reflection in people living on the margins with their own sense of craven desperation. The film takes its time with 132 minutes to set its surroundings and characters with delicate precision while allowing its story to breathe in observation (as opposed to having a soapbox moment). Once it jumps into another gear with its movement for the second half, it proves a roaring ride of carefully crafted thrills within its dark humor for those who enjoy what it aspires to tell about society in some form while not seeming like it will age badly. It proves worth a watch as a classic for the era and a stand-out film for South Korean cinema and its well-regarded director in Bong as a whole with its well balance of cast, story, and style.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Uncut Gems.

Review #1316: Uncut Gems.

Cast:
Adam Sandler (Howard Ratner), Julia Fox (Julia), Idina Menzel (Dinah Ratner), Lakeith Stanfield (Demany), Kevin Garnett (Himself), Eric Bogosian (Arno), Keith Williams Richards (Phil), Judd Hirsch (Gooey), Mike Francesa (Gary), Noa Fisher (Marcel Ratner), Jonathan Aranbayev (Eddie Ratner), Jacob Igielski (Beni Ratner), and Wayne Diamond (Wayne) Directed by Josh Safdie and Benny Safdie.

Review:
What is so alluring about the big risk? What makes us want to take a huge gamble and roll with what could be a huge win - or a huge loss? It probably is the same reason one can persist on with trying to find the next best gem - or in movie terms, one always wants to see if there's an ever better movie out there to view next. Uncut Gems will certainly be one of those films that inspires plenty of interest, where pangs of apprehension and anxiety (if one gets anxiety from films, I guess) the chase of seeing a tremendous lead performance that make up a pretty good time. One needs a good character-driven film like this from time to time, a grimy yet occasionally amusing film that works for a certain kind of thrill and achieves those ends without really seeming to lose sight of delivering on its risks from beginning to end. I must admit, I was initially a bit skeptical about Sandler for the lead role. He has had his moments where he can command the screen for laughs and had done a few films that weren't primarily comedies, such as Punch-Drunk Love (2002) and The Meyerowitz Stories (2017, directed by the Safdies, who had developed the first draft of this film's script in 2009), but it was more the buzz that developed around this film prior to its release that helped seal the deal. When it comes to late December/January releases, sometimes you want to see something a bit different get a release to shine (for which I emphasize wide release, not streaming release) - and this is especially appropriate. Sandler does a tremendous job with this role, a high-wire force with plenty of manic energy - he is the kind of person that could annoy everyone from his family to his customers and still have a chance at getting the big push, where one finds themselves watching him play himself and everyone else out on an ever-expanding board of bets and deals. In short, he may very well earn himself serious consideration for an Academy Award (boy that's a sentence to start a decade off with). With that in mind, the cast around him is just as well-picked to the surroundings, such as Fox and her captivating presence (with this being her screen debut), or Garnett and his magnetic force as himself that works every time without seeming like a overgrown cameo (if none of that sounds surprising, there's also talk-radio host Francesa as a bookie), or others like Stanfield and Bogosian when it comes to how they just interact with Sandler and his antics (namely exasperation). One wonders what the best sequence is to highlight, but I think the one that really sets it is right in the beginning, involving Sandler, fish with a rock inside and a rambling employee. He sees a magnificent black opal (for which we see in colorful detail more than once) and we just the pleasure he gets from having it in his possession, the hypnotic nature of wanting the big win (or rock) no matter the risk - which the film sells for itself quite well for. It shines in most aspects for 135 minutes in part because of the risks in wants to take with its direction, its actors, style and music (Darius Khondji and Daniel Lopatin, respectively), and it all works out the way it has to go to stand tall. Whether one finds themselves enthralled or anxious, this proves to be well-deserved gem to view, that much is for sure.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Cats (2019)

Review #1313: Cats.

Cast: 
James Corden (Bustopher Jones), Judi Dench (Old Deuteronomy), Jason Derulo (Rum Tum Tugger), Idris Elba (Macavity), Jennifer Hudson (Grizabella), Ian McKellen (Gus the Theatre Cat), Taylor Swift (Bombalurina), Rebel Wilson (Jennyanydots), Francesca Hayward (Victoria), Laurie Davidson (Mr. Mistoffelees), Robbie Fairchild (Munkustrap), Mette Towley (Cassandra), Steven McRae (Skimbleshanks), Danny Collins (Mungojerrie), Naoimh Morgan (Rumpleteazer), Ray Winstone (Growltiger), and Les Twins (Plato and Socrates) Directed by Tom Hooper.

Review: 
Of course the review of the worst film of the year is the 1,313th review. Triskaidekaphobia fever couldn't be at an all-time high right now. Welcome to the late night shift of a New Year's Eve doubleheader.

Of course this film is a dud. I can't even use the excuse that I went with someone to see it (my mother, when it occurred to me that I hadn't taken her to the movie theater in quite some time), because I basically goaded her (and in a sense, myself) to picking this one, because who can resist seeing...cats? As it turns out, quite a few people, judging from the fact that this is already projected to deliver losses for Universal Pictures, and it only has been out for less than two weeks. It seemed like this was a film destined for ridicule (and not much else) from the moment one got a view of yet another example of the uncanny valley - this time with cats. In fairness, utilizing CGI and motion-capture technology does seem like something that probably could've worked in making an alright movie - too bad it is utilized for an absurd mess. This is an adaptation of the stage musical of the same name composed by Andrew Lloyd Webber, with its original London (1981) and Broadway (1982) productions setting records for longest-running stage productions for several years; the musical in turn was based on T. S. Eliot's poetry collection Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats (1939), which was a childhood favorite of Webber. In 1998, he oversaw the orchestration for a direct-to-video musical film, retaining Gillian Lynne (the original choreographer of the musical), which had a few cuts and a new stage to recreate the musical with a mix of cast members from various productions of Cats that ran 115 minutes (this film happens to be five minutes shorter, oddly enough). All of this foundation that I am writing is really more to just make sure that I am not running blind into writing about a film adaptation of something that did not have much plot to begin with. Context helps sometimes - but it can't quite mask the very fact that this is a vacant kind of movie, one that will inspire plenty of giggles for the few who dare to encounter it.

Think about this - exactly who was this made for? Exactly who in this cast comes out with much dignity? One could simply just say veteran actors like Dench and McKellen, whose crucial parts have a bit more impact than the others (in the same way that one big bite of familiarity seems better than literally anything else). Perhaps one could say Corden and Wilson, who are at least meant to generate a few laughs (the result being mixed, if one is incredibly generous) - on second thought, maybe not. Maybe it is Hayward, a member of The Royal Ballet that at least clears the bar of having a better film debut than Kurt Thomas from Gymkata (1985). Or perhaps it is Elba, who seems like he is having some silly fun. On the other hand, Derulo and Hudson won't quite garner as much appreciation, if only because mediocrity is everyone's excuse when it comes to such ridiculous material (with co-writing and co-producing duties belonging to its director). I suppose Davidson and Swift do just fine - I can't even remember their time on screen. No one so much delivers a bad performance as they just seem completely lost in the ridiculousness of what is going on around them. For pete's sake, it's a bunch of actors with VFX dots singing song after song with large sets (get it, because they are cats) that twist the film around in such a mawkish way to the point where parody seems too kind for this dreck. Sometimes it really does go to show that not every musical needs to become a film - or at least not every movie needs to be done in live-action - for pete's sake, I think people would've at least tried to accept an attempt at making a cat costume (you know, like in a play). It never really feels like interesting camp either, as if big colors and a pale execution really is going to work - apparently the director finished final work on the film the day before its world premiere, which didn't seem to matter too much, since that version ended up being modified due to reports of CGI glitches. I would almost think the next folly to befall this film would be a stunt involving releasing a pack of cats throughout the movie theater to ''generate good attention'', but alas that isn't quite the case. How does one really judge this film fairly? Is it really just too weird for its own good? It shows traces of garish camp that at least makes the things around the singing-singing-singing things seem like an okay place to look forward to, but a middling attempt at an arching plot leads to confusion and overall frustration that leads to a bit of boredom. You could probably take a nap during the film and still be just as confused at what is really going on. The people who made this film behind the camera and the people who starred in the film may recover just fine from embarrassment like this, but it sure won't be forgotten in years to come. Honestly, there is only one way to describe the film: it is an utter cat-astrophe that deserves to be hairballed in the litterbox when it comes to execution, a felined-felony that deserves to be clawed out of its misery.

Next Review: To close out 2019, Movie Night ventures out and picks a Western to once again serve as the year finale with True Grit (1969).

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.

Review #1311: Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.

Cast: 
Carrie Fisher (Leia Organa), Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Adam Driver (Ben Solo / Kylo Ren), Daisy Ridley (Rey), John Boyega (Finn), Oscar Isaac (Poe Dameron), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Naomi Ackie (Jannah), Domhnall Gleeson (General Hux), Richard E. Grant (Allegiant General Pryde), Lupita Nyong'o (Maz Kanata), Keri Russell (Zorri Bliss), Joonas Suotamo (Chewbacca), Kelly Marie Tran (Rose Tico), Ian McDiarmid (Palpatine / Darth Sidious), and Billy Dee Williams (Lando Calrissian) Directed by J. J. Abrams (#009 - Star Trek, #150 - Super 8, #665 - Star Trek Into Darkness, and #769 - Star Wars: The Force Awakens)

Review: 
Well, isn't this an interesting day. Nine years of Movie Night in written form, and I celebrate it with the ninth (and last) film of the Skywalker Saga (alongside being #98 in the Theater Saga). It sure has been quite a ride over these 3,287 days - basically a review every 2.5 days. The best is yet to come ahead for Movie Night 2020 (or Season X, if you will). If I am not mistaken, this may actually be the longest review yet. May the force be with you. 

How did you picture the last Star Wars movie in a trilogy was going to end? That's a question you can now ask three times and get three different answers. One trilogy conclusion had the burden of closing the loop on what was thought to be a six film saga while also sealing up loose ends of its own. Another trilogy conclusion had the burden of ending its story with its beloved characters that made for a worthy space fantasy adventure worth telling again and again. This trilogy conclusion has the burden of sealing a trilogy of trilogies once and for all - 42 years and nine main films with various actors tasked with interesting (for the most part) characters and worlds. Some landed better than others, but there are plenty of people who can say they grew up with a Star Wars trilogy, for better or worse. It is the journey that counts in the end when it comes to Star Wars, really, where George Lucas used his imagination alongside inspiration to cultivate a film all those years ago. He loved his comic books, his fairy tales, his Saturday morning serials, and he loved creating a mythology for a new generation. Everything gets picked apart in the age we live in nowadays, but it doesn't diminish the basic core of what made this series endure for so long. It will be nice to have a rest from these films for a little while, I must admit. After five films in five years, one can appreciate something else taking over the landscape for a bit (for those who refer to television, I have my own things to cycle through). This may seem like an elegy for Star Wars, but it really isn't. I am trying to express my train of thought when it comes to the realization of seeing a saga come to a close yet again and how it ended up following up not just its "polarizing" predecessor film (The Last Jedi, which I ran out of time in regards to re-watching it before doing this) but the others as a whole. Look, the last film had Leia pull herself out of space through the Force and then decided to kill off its big bad villain suddenly (complete with a jump to lightspeed to obliterate a ship because...[BLANK]) and wrote itself into a corner with mawkish sentiment. An intriguing corner, but still a corner that is not easy to pull out from without some sort of effort.

Could it really do a better job at closing a saga that Return of the Jedi did three decades prior? Honestly, it didn't. It sure tries hard to seal it all into a big ball of entertainment, and I applaud the effort - but the film is a mess. However, I enjoy big messes when there is enough positivity to go around (or camp), and this has that in spades. It becomes evident right from the very opening, where text crawls say the dead rise and get things rolling with quick editing and plenty of shots to go around. This is a 142 minute movie (somehow being ten minutes shorter than its predecessor), yet it sure feels like a big roller coaster ride that doesn't want to end. It tries to please everyone and may very well have a different kind of result. That doesn't mean it will go down as a monumental thing to ridicule, it just means it will go down as something to argue for/against when it comes to imagination for a space opera about laser swords and space beliefs. At a certain point, one has to wonder if this is meant to be a comeback on the scale of Elvis, where fan service deliver greatest hits very much like Abrams' previous work in this trilogy - wrapped with a tinge of bittersweet fervor. You know it is the end, I know it is the end - but it wants to throw everything at the void to make sure the end doesn't come easy. If the last one was inherently too ham-handed to stick to its principles in the face of the past, this one is inherently determined to glue everything together to land certain twists down without making too much laughter come out than needed. Allow me to use one pop culture analogy here: this is essentially the equivalent of when Homer Simpson tries to build his own barbecue pit and frantically tries to build it before the wet cement makes it stick permanently, just replace the grill with story toolbox and Homer with...you get the idea. Seriously, the film has four credited writers: Abrams and Chris Terrio for the screenplay while the story credit went to Derek Connolly, Colin Trevorrow (the initial director slated to direct this film before leaving production due to creative differences), Abrams and Terrio.

Golly, there sure a whole bunch of actors and characters present. Some are given their time to shine, some are thrown in there all of a sudden, some are given a bit less to do from before, and some are somehow back in the thick of things (for better or worse). You really have to just roll the dice and see what works and what doesn't, honestly. I didn't so much see a bad performance as I saw actors trying their hardest to stick through a big sprawling adventure with plenty of skepticism and fear circling around. I find that the best ones to come out of it are Ridley and Driver, a duo with their odd own kind of bond of vulnerability and fear over who they think they are and what they must face to step forward beyond their doubts. They definitely do well when it comes to lightsaber fighting, graceful despite rocky environments like a bit of water to get in the way. Granted, their paths seem a bit easy to draw out, where I wonder if it had been better to have swapped the focus to Driver as the main focus (or perhaps better framing to have a trilogy that spans more than a year in movie time). Boyega and Isaac try to fend off being wooden with humor, which goes off okay. They felt better together four years prior with the seventh film, but I do find myself at least going along with them on essentially a scavenger hunt, where characters pop out to wedge their own part to play, because I suppose one needed to try and give some sort of backstory/shared thing for people we just met to people we barely know much of through three films. It is quite striking to see Fisher appear on screen for a few minutes (in the sense just as much as she did for the other two films), where the re-purposed footage of her works for what is needed and gives her a fair way to make farewell without going overboard. It is nice to see Daniels get a bit more scenes to chew upon for another trip down the lane for our favorite fussy golden robot, who delivers a chuckle or two that is welcome here. The sudden new blood of Ackie, Grant and Russell prove alright, moreso for the latter two in that one can seep right into an obvious villain trap without having to get outside and the other can just wear a mask and beat some nobodies for a bit. Gleeson, Nyong'o and Tran seem like they drew small straws when it comes to "Who gets to be in another Star Wars film but doesn't have much meaningful things to say?" (which proves amusing if thought as essentially being Jar-Jarred out of importance). McDiarmid and Williams return to their roles with ease, in that neither have to really move too much to deliver their lines to serve the plot, where it is nice to see them again, if not for the camp of the former and the smooth charm of the latter. Granted, it barely makes sense to see either come back - but why not? The film feels like a whole batch of why nots. One might wonder how much of this is a hand-wave of what happened before - the jokester in me is slightly delighted at the idea of shaking the head-turning predecessor, even if that means more predictability. A good adventure is all that it takes, and this does fine with that. It won't be the kind of thing that inspires navel gazing or anything when it comes to analysis, but always take to heart four words: It's just a movie. Turning off my brain a bit for some ridiculous things in a Star Wars film didn't give me a headache as it did just help my throat get some chuckles.

At least the effects work themselves out pretty good. Sometimes you really need a bunch of flashing lights on a stormy dark world to really make something ooze out well, really. You don't need spoilers to know that the film will fling whatever it takes to make things work - a Skywalker has to stand triumphant after all. It isn't like anyone actually thought this would end on a downbeat note (much like how Lucas liked his happy ending for VI) - by golly one has to sell this product somehow (besides, Rogue One wedged in hope even with its downbeat stuff). One does tend to get tired of saying "X was better than Y", so I'll try to refrain from said comparisons too much. What we have here is an okay sequel trilogy, packed firmly between what was done before through Lucas and others - and that's okay. I'll probably look at these films in retrospect as ones that had their moment in the sun and did what they thought made sense - churning some nostalgia and Internet frothing for better or worse. They aren't the best or worst things to happen to the franchise, that much is for sure (a statement one could even see someone saying about the previous trilogy). Everything moves in a flash to get to some sort of point that matters, and I liked more than what I shook my head at. If you want to see something with space action and a bunch of things that relate to the stuff of the past, go right on ahead. If you want something a bit deeper or perhaps more fitting for the end of a space opera, consult oneself first. In my heart I enjoyed this weird little film, but I know the rating it really does deserve - it's an average film, but at least it isn't a complete mediocre one for the books.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Knives Out.

Review #1306: Knives Out.

Cast: 
Daniel Craig (Benoit Blanc), Chris Evans (Hugh Ransom Drysdale), Ana de Armas (Marta Cabrera), Jamie Lee Curtis (Linda Drysdale), Michael Shannon (Walt Thrombey), Don Johnson (Richard Drysdale), Toni Collette (Joni Thrombey), Lakeith Stanfield (Detective Lieutenant Elliot), Katherine Langford (Meg Thrombey), Jaeden Martell (Jacob Thrombey), Christopher Plummer (Harlan Thrombey), Noah Segan (Trooper Wagner), Edi Patterson (Fran), Riki Lindhome (Donna Thrombey), K Callan (Wanetta "Great Nana" Thrombey), Frank Oz (Alan Stevens), and M. Emmet Walsh (Mr. Proofroc) Written and Directed by Rian Johnson (#1027 - Star Wars: The Last Jedi)

Review: 
To have a good murder mystery is to have something worth looking at once enough to want to see it again. Entertainment is one thing, having something that compels you into its little game is another, as is the intent behind Knives Out, which has certainly gained a bit of buzz leading up to its release. It sure is amazing to see something as wonderfully average as this proves to be, as if someone wanted to make the dumbest smart mystery movie. It does prove a bit irritating to wonder how much one can really say about a movie mystery like this without seeming like a spoiler hound waiting to bite. Whatever you may say about "subverted expectations" when it comes to movies, it also proves irritating to manage to make a farce as opposed to a real intriguing mystery on a consistent level. The fact that it does just okay with its ensemble cast should inspire annoyance rather than rapture, really. You could've made this with average marquee-sounding actors and nobody would shout to the balcony about how it was exceptional in its execution. But hey, what are deftly built murder mysteries for when you can have snide humor and creaky foundations? You too can hit for the low hanging fruit for humor and mystery if you have the PR push (edgy political commentary for current year flavor? Ooh, tell me more before I stick a fork in my brain and call it art), where using buzzwords for certain moments makes for okay satire.

It certainly has the style to inspire charm, and there are no real bad apples in the acting bunch, so that does tend to help the film in its favor. If you happen to be in the mood for eccentric family drama, this probably seems right up your alley, unless one is more into the sleuth and his southern fried accent. In this case, Craig is easily the best part of the film, amusing in his mannerisms when it comes to working out the oddities that tend to arise, never overstaying his welcome in any sense. Armas makes for a fairly compelling lead to follow when faced with the mystery and the facts that surround her, handling things with a dash of grace and confidence. Evans is tasked with delivering oozy charisma (while doing it in a silly sweater) for the film's second half, and he proves just fine with that in mind, where brash confidence at being the entitled black sheep of the family just comes with the territory. When it comes to the other members of the family, I find myself gravitating towards Curtis and Shannon when it comes to how they interact with the others in their family, for better or worse. Honestly, I feel like the film could've just focused on them even more, since the film doesn't even have red herrings or anything that would lead the mystery solely back on these quirky caricatures besides flashbacks. Plummer is wry and easy to follow as the center of this whole film for when needed that fits the film's bill to a T.

Am I so jaded that I can't appreciate the idea of a mystery that is ever so clever in not really being that much of a mystery? Sure, it seems to want to have cryptic seriousness, before it deluges itself with self-awareness that seems as smug in trying to be clever as having a character vomiting when they lie. Gee, I wonder if this will be used over and over for laughs. By the time the film tries to deliver on its payoff, I was thankful moreso because it meant that the film actually meant something to make 130 minutes seem worth more than just hearing about grandstanding praise for a film that teeters on being dangerously hollow. The film does have a nice look to it, seeming fairly authentic when setting up its story trappings, complete with plenty of knives. It seems cruel to nitpick at a film like this, because my fair expectations were met with mild entertainment alongside confusion at its ultimate execution. Sometimes you can shoot the target and still hit for average in the final tally, but I do at least see myself wondering what could come next from Johnson at least. Curiosity can prove rewarding for this film, if it manages to hit all the right buttons for those who seek it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood.

Review #1303: A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Fred Rogers), Matthew Rhys (Lloyd Vogel), Susan Kelechi Watson (Andrea Vogel), Chris Cooper (Jerry Vogel), Enrico Colantoni (Bill Isler), Maryann Plunkett (Joanne Rogers), Tammy Blanchard (Lorraine), Wendy Makkena (Dorothy), and Carmen Cusack (Margy) Directed by Marielle Heller.

Review: 
“You know everyone has lots of ways of feeling, and all those ways of feeling are fine. It’s what we do with our feelings that matter in this life. I trust that you’re growing in ways that will help you with whatever feelings you may have. When you’re a child and when you’re a grown up. I hope you’re able to grow to respect whoever you are inside.” - Mister Rogers

I do admit that there was plenty of interest in my mind to see this film. I even watched a pair of Mister Rogers Neighborhood episodes to remind myself of the effect that the show and its star had when it came to charm and sincerity when it came to feelings. This is a biographical drama loosely inspired by the 1998 article by Tom Junod, "Can You Say ... Hero?",  published by Esquire Magazine. It centers itself on its reporter character and the impact that his interview with Rogers has on him, as opposed to a biopic. A documentary based on his life and guiding philosophy had already been released prior with Won't You Be My Neighbor? (2018), but it is still interesting to see what one can do with depicting a man as beloved as Fred Rogers - a beacon of goodness when it came to public television and beyond - on screen. In a time like this where skepticism and cynical outlooks seem more and more prevalent in both media and life as a whole, it does seem refreshing to see a film that doesn't need to escape through action but rather careful honesty. It confronts its drama with the kind of style one could see from the show when it dealt with one's emotions (which work with children just as well as with adults) without becoming overly mawkish. Hanks drives the film all the way forward with care and sincerity, a portrait very much like its subject that inspires some thought alongside a smile without being in the film as much, looming even before he is formally introduced to his costar (helped by a nicely recreated opening sequence of the show, no doubt). Rhys has the task of playing someone racked with vulnerability and world-weariness for a character whose arc leans more towards fiction with its family drama trappings. Ultimately, his striking distinction serves the movie fine, proving worthy enough to follow in the film without needing to see Hanks pop out until proven necessary. It all comes with the right air of care, where one finds to accept their flaws and open themselves through the eyes of someone who strove to be honest and good on and off the camera while still being human. Watson does fine with the family drama without being in the background often. Cooper gives off a few layers to make an interesting play on the family drama without being too predictable. The rest of the cast fill in the environment fine. On the whole, it is the little moments that provide big results, such as a sequence involving silence in a public setting (itself a take off an actual call for silence by Rogers at an awards ceremony), or even just sequences around the Neighborhood set that seem so inviting. One can find themselves invested into this world because it doesn't try to evade or hide its human self, where fact and fiction work themselves into a well balanced thing to spend time with. Maybe it will inspire some emotion within the fellow viewer, but it certainly will inspire a look within oneself inside and outside.

Well, well, a Sunday review. Actually, I had meant to do this earlier, but this whole week has been a busy one. Oddly enough, today is my birthday - so why not break the (unofficial) no-Sunday tradition just once? Good to be another year older, too.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Ford v Ferrari.

Review #1302: Ford v Ferrari.

Cast: 
Matt Damon (Carroll Shelby), Christian Bale (Ken Miles), Jon Bernthal (Lee Iacocca), Caitriona Balfe (Mollie Miles), Tracy Letts (Henry Ford II), Josh Lucas (Leo Beebe), Noah Jupe (Peter Miles), Remo Girone (Enzo Ferrari), Ray McKinnon (Phil Remington), and JJ Feild (Roy Lunn) Directed by James Mangold (#912 - Logan)

Review: 
I do not consider myself a big fan of racing. Granted, I do partake in flipping channels to see a race from time to time, but I can't say I know much about the 24 Hours of Le Mans or really much about manufacturers (one can do that when being on their feet to travel anywhere). Granted, one doesn't really need to do sports to enjoy sports dramas, and this film proves that assessment well with its execution. It has a dynamic cast that sit into the 1960s trappings without any hesitation and plenty of charm to go around to drive a fair rendition of the fact to make something worthwhile for 152 minutes without losing itself. The 1966 edition of Le Mans had already inspired a book with Go Like Hell: Ford, Ferrari, and Their Battle for Speed and Glory at Le Mans (2009) and a documentary with The 24 Hour War (2016), but this manages to inspire curiosity for its main subject without seeming trapped in too many familiar territories. 

It is a crowd pleaser, but it is a convincing crowd pleaser that works to gain attention for more than just parts involving cars going around fast (which is of course a great attraction in of itself). Undeniably, the highlight is Bale, capable of charm and eccentric nature that rolls well whether with Damon or his on-screen family. Damon is also well on his game too, relaxed yet endearing with delivering with the auto drama with conviction that serves the material with dignity. It really could just be a buddy film between these two, really, complete with grocery fights and wrench throwing. Balfe and Jupe also prove fine in the family aspect that gives a bit of depth when it comes to seeing a racer back home off the element. On the other side of the auto drama involves Bernthal, Letts, Lucas, and Girone in trying to capture the Ford-Ferrari rivalry (alongside micromanagement conflict, naturally), and each do their roles alright. For a film that doesn't really drive home an adversary but more so just drives conflict (specifically with Lucas' character) with a bit of amplification, at least one can see the passion behind trying to show a tense war of manufacturers trying to make their cars run fast and run well for a whole day on a world stage. It makes you care for a race like this much in the same one can get caught up in the moment when they watch their first ever auto race. If you never watch another race like this, at least you can say you had the privilege, which certainly rolls in this film's favor. It is a film about ingenuity in the fact of having the guts and talent to challenge the standards (in this case, racing), and that can be something you can find in plenty of sports films. It sure does prove to be a good time for while it lasted, that much is for sure.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Joker (2019).

Review #1282: Joker.

Cast: 
Joaquin Phoenix (Arthur Fleck / Joker), Robert De Niro (Murray Franklin), Zazie Beetz (Sophie Dumond), Frances Conroy (Penny Fleck), Brett Cullen (Thomas Wayne), Douglas Hodge (Alfred Pennyworth), Dante Pereira-Olson (Bruce Wayne), Glenn Fleshler (Randall), Bill Camp (Garrity), Shea Whigham (Burke), Marc Maron (Gene Ufland), and Leigh Gill (Gary) Directed by Todd Phillips (#564 - Starsky & Hutch)

Review: 
I would not be the first to admit that this film picked up traction for curiosity in the months before its release. Actually, the interest for most probably was pretty much there from when it was announced back in 2017. It certainly seems to be the kind of film to have staying power, particularly in conversation over its merits as a different kind of comic book film (along with some other conversations about its tone possibly inspiring real word violence, which really does come off as a big joke that could only be done by hack writers repeating the same fear that did not transpire for other films, like Do the Right Thing). It surely has taken influence from films such as Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, where it tries to ground itself in its look of a man from the other parts of society, where warmth seems like a commodity waiting to be crushed into the ground and chaos seems only fitting for a place like this. Phillips also co-wrote the screenplay with Scott Silver, which certainly likes to play itself as a creepy tense drama along with moments of humor, each of which work themselves well enough to a degree. For all the posturing one could do about the subject matter or its tone, the easiest thing to say in my mind is that Joker proved to be just fine. It isn't a masterpiece by any means (which is apparent if you compare it the two films I just mentioned or not), nor one becomes engulfed by mediocrity, which is certainly fun to say when it comes to having a good time and then having to think about exactly what they just saw.

This is a movie about a failed comedian who ends up turning to crime while dressed up as a clown, after all. If one can see the origin of Batman several times on film in the past few decades, why wouldn't there be an origin on his greatest foe? After all, each portrayal of the Joker (as created by Bill Finger, Bob Kane, and Jerry Robinson) on film has their own take of the criminal mastermind since Cesar Romero in 1966 (with most of them being pretty good, minus the previous one). It only makes sense to do an origin story (of sorts), where it isn't beholden to the outlines delivered by the comics featuring the character on-and-off over seven decades but instead makes its own path forward. In that sense, Phoenix is positively the one for this role, undeniably captivating to watch in seeing such a pained broken man, whether physically or through a matter or laughing. The others of the cast make their moments count fairly well for a film that tries to have its cake of commentary and its origin story with small moments for the supporting characters to grasp at. Beetz is fine, having a smooth quiet chemistry with Phoenix for what is needed, if that makes sense. De Niro playing a homage with a talk show host crossing paths with a failed comedian does work out alright for his few minutes on screen. Conroy and Cullen are just as alright for the needed moments, all things considered. It should come as no surprise that the film indulges itself in violence at times, to where one almost could see this as horror (bit of a stretch, but think about it) rather than a psychological thriller, but it doesn't come off as unnecessary or to the detriment of the film and its intent, which works itself out just fine. It verges as a sometimes thoughtful look on society and what could happen when one's binders to the world around them wears off. The film is a wild weird mess at 122 minutes, but I applaud the efforts to make a dark film out of a comic book, as it is the kind of bold film that will surely have plenty of fans and detractors to write screeds about, for better or worse. It is a movie that is dreary, cynical, riveting, and plenty of other descriptions that fits its title character as well as anyone could really expect.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Ad Astra.

Review #1277: Ad Astra.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (Major Roy McBride), Tommy Lee Jones (H. Clifford McBride), Ruth Negga (Helen Lantos), Liv Tyler (Eve McBride), Donald Sutherland (Colonel Pruitt), John Ortiz (General Rivas), Greg Bryk (Chip Garnes), Loren Dean (Donald Stanford), John Finn (General Stroud), and Kimberly Elise (Lorraine Deavers) Directed by James Gray.

Review: 
Admittedly, the interest for this film was fairly mild, with tinges of interest revolving around the approach of making a hostile space sci-fi movie, which one could probably see resembling Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. If the film is at least halfway accurate to reality with regards to space, that also helps too. Really though, one film I did see some parallels with was First Man (2018) with its focus on a closed off astronaut who holds in his fear for an important mission. Then again, that film didn't have a lead that voiced over several parts of the film, wonderful shots of other planets, killer baboons, or moon pirates. Really, with all that in mind, this likely could have been one of the most interesting space adventure films to come out in the past few years (this said for someone who hadn't encountered Interstellar first). It sure turned out to be an unbelievable movie - one that is so unbelievably average to the point of frustration. This feels like a film that needed another re-draft (for a film co-written by its director alongside Ethan Gross), and this is for something that reportedly had re-shoots that drove its budget higher than the initial $80 million - but does one need to know the budget to care about a movie? No, but it sure helps to make a movie that looks good and entertains just as well too.

There are highlights to be found here, such as the opening sequence involving a free fall to Earth. It is quite mesmerizing, seeing someone fall and fall to the Earth, even if you know that they will come out of it in at least one piece. The lunar rover scene with pirates on the Moon (or in other words, star pirates) is pretty captivating, interesting to view through the lens of space. The film also does have plenty of wonderful shots of other worlds, including when it finally encounters Neptune and its lovely rings. It just so happens that the film nearly collapses with the parts besides the ones I just mentioned. The loneliness of space sure seems like an interesting concept to go with, a better concept would be to make one that has two consistent halves to it. It does roll just fine for its first half in setting up its one useful lead and getting to Mars, but it sure does seem to seem less steady after that point. The baboon fight beforehand should've proved a worry already, but it barely even inspires a concern that our hero (I guess) will come out of it alive. By the time the film trudges to its climax, its attempts at inspiring some sort of spark of hope through an undeniably bleak and cynical foundation comes off as an utter joke. This is a film that makes cracks at having restaurants on the Moon with pricey blankets for the flight over there. It also seems to have shock for its main character that he won't get to go from Mars to Neptune to actually confront his kooky father (take your pick on how he reacts to that). Pick one tone and stick with it, especially since it probably could have just shown some actual moments around the locations it wants to go. But no, one really needs to see the plight of the sad lone space man again and again. The benefit is that a less competent director might have made these seem downright maudlin as opposed to mildly sobering. You know what did better as a one-man space film? Moon (2009), which actually knew where to go with its main character and his own crisis within the human element for a sci-fi film.

Nobody delivers a terrible performance, but they sure look constrained by what the script requires, especially a criminally wasted Jones. His scraggly beard and weary nature beg for more to do than this. Oh sure, Pitt looks to be gnawing at the idea of a literal one-man show where you can see his stoic nature to space travel and accompanying voiceover over being alone just fine. One can only take so much before wanting to just find something else to view alongside him, especially since nearly every other character is hopelessly incompetent or a shadow. Jones may be wasted, but Tyler and Sutherland make their own captivating contention for being underused. You could take Tyler out of the film and barely anything would feel different. Sutherland only seems to be there just to spew plot points before his 20 minutes are up. Maybe I am being a bit too harsh on these folks, or perhaps this is exactly the kind of film that deserves better and should do better. Mediocre movies can be tiresome, high-priced ones that can't live up to their own premise without nearly poisoning its own foundations with a big d'oh are especially tiresome. On the whole, Ad Astra does deliver on some of its promises when it comes to spectacle and a decent one-man show from Pitt. It proceeds to bewilder and frustrate for two hours by being as ridiculously self-serious as it wants with such amusement that it almost becomes parody. Perhaps a re-watch could give a bit of clarity and understanding to what makes this film tick, but one could just re-watch other better sci-fi films of its ilk instead. On a ranking scale, it would get a C, but since I use numbers, I suppose it averages out to being one to recommend, if only by slim margins. It is watchable, if not one to grumble at sometimes.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.