Wonder Woman 1984.

Review #2191: Wonder Woman 1984.

Cast: 

Gal Gadot (Diana Prince / Wonder Woman), Chris Pine (Steve Trevor), Kristen Wiig (Barbara Minerva / Cheetah), Pedro Pascal (Maxwell "Max Lord" Lorenzano), Robin Wright (Antiope), Connie Nielsen (Hippolyta), Amr Waked (Emir Said Bin Abydos), Natasha Rothwell (Carol), Ravi Patel (Babajide), and Oliver Cotton (Simon Stagg) Directed by Patty Jenkins (#942 - Wonder Woman)

Review: 

Admittedly, there were quite a few films that fell by the wayside in 2020. This was released on Christmas Day in a mix of theaters and streaming because, well, certain studios really suck at releasing movies (as done by Warner Bros, The Suicide Squad had the same thing happen to it the following year). But I guess I was just not up for this particular film or maybe I am just very picky, because how many of you would even guess that there have been eight movies based on DC characters in this decade? This is the sequel to Wonder Woman (2017), which as one asserts, was a character originally created by writer William Moulton Marston and illustrator H. G. Peter. Patty Jenkins returned to direct this sequel along with writing the story with Geoff Johns to go with their screenplay that was written alongside Dave Callaham (each were different from the last film, which had Zack Snyder, Allan Heinberg, and Jason Fuchs). Any chance for a third film were dead and buried in 2023 with the impending idea to explode the DC film glob (as one might call it) into a new and different form. Or something.  You know, the first film was pretty decent from the one time I saw it...nearly eight years ago. It was a period piece movie, but it generally made for a useful movie when it came to actually showing what could be done with a character like Wonder Woman for a solo movie beyond just being in team-up movies.

Confusingly, Wonder Woman 1984, makes me see a collision of mush. One only has a litany of questions to ask: 

• Why the hell is this movie 151 minutes? 
• What was the need for a character who already wished to have the power (and sex appeal) of Diana Prince to then want to become an apex predator? 
• How does one wish to "become the stone" and not have it immediately end with them being a rock? What exactly are the consequences for a guy who uses a satellite system to try and suck people's lifeforce from wishes only to see it undone? 
• Was their really a need to bring back Steve Trevor but have it be so everybody other than Diana just sees him as some random guy? 
• How exactly does Diana work at the Smithsonian Museum - does she just fake wear a wig every few years so people don't get suspicious about how she never ages? (as opposed to the show, which amusingly has her wear glasses when working in the office)
• Would the entire world be so nice as to receive a wish only to renounce it because someone told them about how it might be bad? 
• Okay, sure, one only manage to turn a coffee cup and a jet invisible (in like, the span of years), but one conversation with Steve can have her learn to fly with that lasso too?

The answers to these questions are: oh hell, some movies really don't know when to start and end (well, and that doing a Quantum Leap swap without (beloved) Dean Stockwell and Scott Bakula seems like a bad idea). My brain felt dumber watching this movie, which seems like it wants to be entertainment on the level of an 80s movie with an adversary influenced by real-life conmen like Bernie Madoff to go with movie kinds of conmen in '78 Lex Luthor. Somehow, it just doesn't gel well. Jenkins apparently wanted to make a film set in 1984 because of its mark as "the height of Western civilization and society", but I really don't think the film did anything with its setting or goal beyond unintentionally honoring 1980s comics sequels Superman III and Superman IV. Hell, for a movie about people who go around wishing for things that could be harmful (wishing a lady wanting the Irish to get deported to have a heart attack to, well, any other probable wish made around a certain geographic area in 1984), it sure seems tame on not actually showing anyone suffer the possibility of consequences. Pascal's character basically absconds away with his son having totally learned the futility of focusing his time on wishes broadcasting on TV instead of his son (totally - wait, if you renounce your wish to be the stone, where did it go?). 

The strange thing about the movie is that it feels so empty in characters: imagine a superhero movie where you can count the ones to focus all attention on (people who deliver exposition or serve only for a flashback [Wright and Nielsen] don't count) on one hand. Bringing Pine around to basically cheapen what was already kind of an odd decision to kill him off in the first film (your milage may vary) ends up just seeming hollow in the long run, because it pretty much just results in the same kind of ending as before in making that fateful choice that isn't as striking. The problem is that without him, Gadot seems to lack that edge in making a true interesting hero beyond "fish out of water", particularly when it comes to (no, really) that little lecture across satellite at the end. It isn't so much bad acting as it is just one that seems off-key. Besides, it is Wiig (first choice Emma Stone declined) who ends up with less to work with, unless you count the attempt at showing a diminishing sense of humanity in the nerd-turned-meathead as anything other than just passive. Comedians can make interesting villains, but this is certainly not one of those times, particularly with a climax that mishandles both her and Gadot. Pascal ends up as the highlight of the film because, well, one really can just play an interesting conman if they set their mind to it, but it only makes you wish there was a better way to get things going than to have the clash of a wishmaster and someone having to remember not the folly of lies but instead to remember why one has sacrifices in the first place among humans. In the long run, it is a muddled mess of a movie, one placed in the exact moment one would feel tired in not needing to see these kinds of movies every single year without the utmost need for being there in the first place. The first film was interesting if not muddled in an okay climax and a dubious idea for being set in the far-away past, this one stumbles out of the gate and never rises to the occasion, which is a real shame.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Possessor.

Review #2131: Possessor.

Cast: 

Andrea Riseborough (Tasya Vos), Christopher Abbott (Colin Tate), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Girder), Sean Bean (John Parse), Rossif Sutherland (Michael Vos), Tuppence Middleton (Ava Parse), Kaniehtiio Horn (Reeta), Raoul Bhaneja (Eddie), Gage Graham-Arbuthnot (Ira Vos), Rachael Crawford (Dr. Melis), and Gabrielle Graham (Holly Bergman) Written and Directed by Brandon Cronenberg.

Review: 

“I never made a conscious decision to embrace horror specifically. It’s just where my instincts are right now. I’m making films that are honest and creative impulses. One of the things that I like about horror is that it explores parts of the spectrum of human emotion in a way that other genres don’t. That’s satisfying to me. I don’t want comfort food when I’m sitting down to watch a film. I want to be pushed into a different headspace."

Okay, to get it out of the way: like father, like son. Brandon Cronenberg was actually interested in books growing up in Toronto as the first-born son of David Cronenberg and Carolyn Zeifman. He thought about being a writer, painter, or a musician, but he soon found that film was his real interest in terms of study. As such, he studied it at Toronto Metropolitan University. He made his first feature with Antiviral (2012), a Canadian/French production that came out of his 2008 short Broken Tulips involving injecting viruses harvested from celebrities that was inspired by an infection he had when in film school. The time between that film and this one saw time spent developing the script to the latter along with doing a short film with Please Speak Continuously and Describe Your Experiences as They Come to You (2019). The idea for the film essentially came from his experiences in promoting his first film in public (and a few other things) that had him think about personal identity within public personas in the media self with its own life without oneself. 

Oh sure, you could probably say that you've seen films before that engage with acting in someone else's body, such as say, Being John Malkovich (1999). But it is a fascinating subject when in the hands of someone who clearly is interested in showing a horror far beyond just being wrapped in someone else's body: the reality that is to befall the one who ends up actually keeping control of said body when all is said and done. You have an assassin with an interesting relationship with violence (specifically when it comes to methods of choice or in general) to go with a wandering grip on reality. Oh, and there is a handful of practical effects utilized for wonderful execution. The opening sequence isn't the big highlight of the film, but it gets the film on the right foot as a testing ground for what is next to come in terms of clinical effectiveness of possession in the ideal sense of chills on the inside (complete with a tear right before a suicide by cop). It is a grisly and bleak film set in a distinct type of setting where the best assassins are left to their devices to basically serve as actors for a time in the most cynical and clinical way imaginable for the clean kill. Just like in life, the best type of actor really does endure the longest above all, I suppose. In that sense, Riseborough and Abbott have the best type of challenge possible for a film like this, since by the time we are introduced to the latter (not particularly too long into the 104-minute runtime), one is seeing a mesh of puppeteer and puppet that jumps in definition depending on who looks in control. It might feel like a bad case of phantasmagoria, but it is a very apparent nightmare for our lead focus. The most interesting sequence to show this challenge might be the "data mining" sequence involving Abbott's character that is trying to do descriptions involving drapes in the background of certain videos, which at one point involves zooming past sex. The assassins and data miners are more alike than they wish to admit when it comes to paring people down to simple data points. I also particularly like the sequence involving Riseborough trying to practice the dip back into mother and wife for a couple of (on-screen) minutes that is full of great artifice. One can only be playing with fire when it comes to how long they spend acting as someone else right before they violently kill that part off, especially when they undergo evaluation each and every time when one finishes a job (in this case to see if they still regret killing and mounting a butterfly when they were young). Leigh makes a suitable logical master of puppets, if you think about it, since one never sees a veneer of grimace at the very nature of the character besides wanting the best in a certain type of labor. Bean isn't exactly in the movie too long, but he makes the kind of craven type that would find someone to kill off as a threat just as much as he would be a target of himself. Of course, the sequence involving the melting of one's face to reveal the other when it comes to that fateful possession is a damn great one in squirm-inducing curiosity that throws you in the right loop. Regardless of what you would expect for its ending, it makes for a suitably satisfying note to close such great horror in terms of identity that has managed to find just one thing at the end of confronting attachments and logic: death. Possessor is the kind of body horror film that makes you wonder aloud just what you possess about yourself as a person and the people that you associate with in labor and beyond. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next: Cronenberg-Cronenberg for the big 40. 

A Quiet Place Part II.

Review #1683: A Quiet Place Part II.

Cast: 

Emily Blunt (Evelyn Abbott), Cillian Murphy (Emmett), Millicent Simmonds (Regan Abbott), Noah Jupe (Marcus Abbott), Djimon Hounsou (Man On Island), John Krasinski (Lee Abbott), and Scoot McNairy (Marina Man) Directed by John Krasinski (#1073 - A Quiet Place)

Review: 

Honestly, I don't really think much about a sequel to a modern movie. Really, think about this for a second here from a guy who still likes to look upon what interesting movie can sit on the shelf for the next time being. I had to wonder just how weird that might seem from looking in my archives about the ratio of original to "adaptation" in the films I saw in the last big year for movies in the theater: 2019. That year saw 31 movies seen mostly in theater-form but ended up having just half that was actually based on original material. Ah but one really wants to think about the year before that with 2018, and that is how we get to A Quiet Place, which was one of the few original ideas to really sit on my "conventional" radar, and it might have actually been the best horror flick I saw that year (with a year for Hereditary and Halloween, the argument could be a tough one for each). It shouldn't be forgotten that the original script had been done by Bryan Woods and Scott Beck, for which John Krasinski (who had two comedy-dramas to his credit with Brief Interviews with Hideous Men (2009) and The Hollars (2016), incidentally) had read that script and found it appealing; he would end up enlisted by Paramount Pictures to re-write the script and direct the movie. A Quiet Place ended up as an interesting movie because it wasn't quite a gimmick movie that one might think of it (besides, there are quite a few movies that don't have much dialogue if one wants to spur their memory, such as All is Lost (2013)). Sure, the creatures are ones that rely on sound to stalk their prey (with a loud bustling modern world, good luck), but it was also a deep family movie. With the success of the film, rumblings for a sequel did not take too long to bubble to the surface, for which Krasinski would write and direct that had its premiere on March 8 of 2020 that was meant to be released into theaters twelve days after that, two years after the original release (the reason for this recap is mostly for my memory, but also because I can re-iterate my one pet peeve for any horror movie that is released in the spring. Simply put, get your horror priorities in the fall where it belongs, but 2020 has some stretching grounds). Fourteen months later, here we are with a sequel.

Did I mention my surprise about a sequel? Honestly, does every horror movie need a follow-up movie? I remember the ending of the first movie just fine, one that had a character with a weapon ready to aim at the creature, having figured out what one figures out in a time of silence and hearing aids. It might be a good omen or a mild harbinger that the opening scene involves a brief glimpse into what the world was before the noise-monsters came, and Krasinski certainly does well with setting the stage for what was and what is to come within the family angle and the key addition of Murphy to the cast. It reminds me of the dubious question one has when it comes to seeing it in a big theater or not, in that a movie depending on folks getting away unheard is best seen in a big screen but without paying too much attention to too much crowd noise (such as...popcorn?). But hey, one can watch movies with subtitles from around the world, so why stop now? I think most of this paragraph is trying to hide the easiest point: it just isn't as good as the first film. It is not so much that it isn't scarier than before, or even so much because the acting isn't as good, because on a technical level it works pretty good. But really, think hard about this: it has the same problem in rhythm of continuation that seems comparable to Halloween II (1981). Roll with me on this for a moment. Both movies take off right from where the last one ended with the bare hint of a follow-up, and both find themselves with a narrative that splits the characters up, and both probably try to one-up the level of terror from before a bit too much (sure, one movie has a needle jabbed into a sensitive spot, but this movie has someone get their foot into a bear trap, so am I really pulling your goat too much?). Ah, but here's the problem: At least Halloween II didn't feel like it was begging for more at the end, and it seemed to have more stakes involved with its climax for the characters left at the end (I doubt that A Quiet Place will turn into a movieblob of a franchise like Halloween, but apparently a spin-off is in development). Weird twists may reign true with the older movie, but at least I appreciate its schlock factor more so than a movie that could be thought of as half-hearted with actually being a sequel. With a run-time of 97 minutes, one can wonder exactly how A Quiet Place Part II will do with the passage of time, or at least when considered in the context of the wait that befell it when really the best way to describe it is just "okay". It's an okay movie, filled with a decent cast and some level of terror within the idea of monsters that will just charge and destroy your world like that...and maybe there is still some room for folks to eke out a living. But hey, let's start with the cast and go from there. Murphy certainly plays it exactly to the bone for what is needed in a bleary movie that hints at cynicism, and it is refreshing to see him there and be paired with Simmons. In that regard, Simmons continues well with her performance (done mostly in American Sign Language, as one remembers from before), which serves for a fairly useful time, showing a bit more maturity that is expected - the dynamic between them is almost engaging enough to carry the film. Alas, one doesn't find as much engaging balance on the other side, because Blunt manages an okay performance that can't quite react to the terror as well this time around. Let me put it this way: monsters seem to lose a bit of their effectiveness the more you see them in a sequel, so one has to find a way to make the stakes and drama count, or they will end up seeming as concerned as being in Jaws 2 (1978). Jupe's best scene involves him having a visceral scream after being bear-trapped, really. Hounsou and McNairy make momentary impressions on the coin of societies made after the disaster that relates to water (get it, because the creatures not only are blind but can't swim). They are okay, but inevitability always seems to strike at the points you think will happen but not as many times as possible. Think about it: each movie has six actors (Krasinski is technically seven, but can you count a flashback?), and this doesn't even count the baby (don't get me started on babies in horror movies). I feel that the first film did a better job in handling the bleakness of trying to hold together as a family in a nightmare better than a film that doesn't do much with the idea of trying to expand beyond that, and the climax only seems to serve as a hard nudge for another movie (sure, it closes the narratives similarly, but...), and in general I feel that the movie only has moved narrowly in trying to maintain the scares of creatures that rely on you not talking. It might not fall into the realm of gimmick-making, that is for sure. Inevitability is a tough thing to accept, but the film ultimately proves that it can be okay to be average enough if the attention is built enough to hold it for the masses, for better or worse. If you really want to know what happens when you pull the covers all the way through the bed for the monster, you could do okay here, but just don't be disappointed at where that goes from there.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Wander Darkly.

Review #1662: Wander Darkly.

Cast: 

Sienna Miller (Adrienne), Diego Luna (Matteo), Beth Grant (Patty Healy), Aimee Carrero (Shea), Tory Kittles (Liam), and Vanessa Bayer (Maggie) Written and Directed by Tara Miele.

Review: 

“I think as humans, story is our deepest faith, right? Story is how we make sense of the world. And I do think at the end of the day, they have to meet in the middle in this place, right?"

You are probably wondering the same question that I had when I looked at it the first time: What? Who? I have to admit that this film figuratively came out of left field, as it is the latest beneficiary of timing and attracting interest on the shelf circuit (I said shelf circuit, not streaming circuit), and March seemed exactly right for this kind of movie. This also happens to be the first work of Tara Miele to reach a certain kind of attention, since it premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in early 2020 (remember that year?); it serves as the fourth feature film for the Long Island native, as she had started her feature career with the indie film The Lake Effect (2010) after entering films with a couple of shorts (beginning with Miss Gentilbelle in 2000); she has also done some work in television. The impetus for this film came out of a car accident that Miele and her husband suffered several years ago (occurring during an argument with their kids in the car that left her with a concussion). She wanted to explore the parallels that come from one's perception after suffering an injury and the cycle of grief that all experience at some point in time. So basically, one is experiencing the fragility of life through narrative therapy that will involve flashbacks and dreams while one faces the truth about what it means to be alive.

I imagine there are two extremes one can fall into when thinking about the experience they had with the film: one will either find it to be an interesting look upon the fragility of life and memories that make for a surreal and soothing experience...or they simply will not care for its maneuvers into therapy that seems like a clunky gimmick for those who don't have the kind of patience for what it wants to say about things that might seem obvious. It really depends on just how much one goes with its existential question of what makes life worth living and all the wanderings that come from. For me, I thought it was an okay movie, because its main duo is the one sticking point that keeps things afloat when it comes to charisma in a film that practically wears "indie" on its sleeve. It aims for some sort of hope in the face of grief and manages to get a marginally useful experience out of it, in that it kept the attention going for 97 minutes without falling prey to all the clunky clichés of the surreal...in that it only gets to pick from the bag of tricks a few times, right down to trying to play with just who is exactly leading the other from the realm of the dead in a love story that I'm sure you've seen before and will see coming yet again. It is strange, because there are small moments that work much more handily in keeping one on the toes rather than the handful (i.e., hands and hands) of exchanges between Miller & Luna saying what is/what is not real in memory - consider a sequence involving our lead checking the baby in its cot, one that is not breathing or moving that alarms her before one realizes what exactly is up. At any rate, Miller and Luna are tasked with matching the other in naturalism that have distinct qualities that draw/repel each other. Miller sells it a bit better, one that expresses the doubts and fear that come from new-found purgatory nightmares that is quite captivating, wandering into terror with fair enough timing that drive the film, whether that means stuck by oneself or stuck wondering how she and Luna were ever a thing to begin with. As for Luna, he does well with what is given on the other side of the coin in terms of striking doubts and tense tenderness, and one could see the film from his perspective just as well as one could do with Miller without thinking either is overplaying their hand in drama or the inevitable argument of who seems more right (to which I shrug my shoulders). Grant and the others in the small cast play the moments with our main folks just fine with no puppetry required. The climax might prove the most interesting or the most "okay, sure" in terms of what it ends up doing in maneuvering the logical end-point for this procession of memories and grief and moving forward, which for me is mostly in the latter category - at least it isn't a complete cheat or something silly, because at the end of the day the movie wants one to end on a poignant moment and that I suppose is enough. At the end of the day, it is an okay movie, curious in its little moments spent with memory and grief that will stick with you if it connects with you after it ends or it will just pass on by with the curiosity of two decent actors to help lead it by - in that sense, being okay with a writer/director having their perspective told for a passion project is not a bad place to be.

And so we close Women's History Month. It was an interesting time trying to do fifteen reviews that would (in my mind) celebrate the month within female directors and stars, particularly in the differences that came out from era to era in perspective. As always, I hope you folks enjoyed this little series of reviews and I will see what will be done in the months ahead to keep up interest in what makes film so fun to write about.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Tenet.

Review #1618: Tenet.

Cast: 

John David Washington (the Protagonist), Robert Pattinson (Neil), Elizabeth Debicki (Katherine "Kat" Barton), Dimple Kapadia (Priya), Martin Donovan (Fay), Fiona Dourif (Wheeler), Yuri Kolokolnikov (Volkov), Himesh Patel (Mahir), Clémence Poésy (Barbara), Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Ives), Michael Caine (Sir Michael Crosby), Kenneth Branagh (Andrei Sator), and Denzil Smith (Sanjay) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk, and #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises)

Review: 
No question... the most ambitious film we’ve made. It’s a film of great ambition and great scale that takes a genre, namely the spy film, and tries to take it into some new territory, and tries to take the audience on a ride they might not have had before, and might not be expecting."

What one knows and doesn't know about this film likely could make for a good discussion between friends. But, dear reader, are we really friends when looking upon the flow of time or just strangers in the night? I imagine that statement probably made about as much sense as Tenet ultimately does in the long run: figure it out later after the experience is over. Honestly, the curiosity to doing this film came about months after its release into theaters (you may or may not recognize that fact with all the other things that happened in the year) - there was buzz and other such talk, but it seemed right to just wait it out for release at home (a release on physical media, mind you, as I will fortify myself on the hill of physical releases and/or cinema releases in a pandemic-less world forever). While the script took six years for Nolan to develop, images and concepts for the film were there in his head over the past two decades. He wanted to make a spy film that captured the excitement of films like the James Bond features (for which he is a fan of) that would be like working from a memory rather than specifics. It does not contain as many visual effects shots as his other films like The Dark Knight Rises (2012), but the creativity in its execution with certain sequences can't be overlooked, including a sequence with a real plane being used for an explosion, and I am sure the inversion scenes will catch one for a loop.

So, after all that hubbub in the twilight, how is the overall film in entertainment? Oh, it is a fine movie. If one tries not to understand it but instead feel it, they hopefully will get a feeling of enjoyment rather than the worst-case scenario of frustration. It is likely a film that will require a second viewing not so much to try and absorb more of what it really is all about but more just to see how it resonates in its excitement and narrative decisions from viewing to viewing. But ask yourself: how many folks will go through the time of 150 minutes and decide to do it twice to try and improve upon fine spectacle? I imagine that I will do the film over again at some point in time, probably when I ever look back upon one of Nolan's other big-scale films involving science fiction in some way such as Interstellar (2014). In other words, some of it made sense, some of it will probably make sense another time, and the rest falls somewhere in between, one that will please those who desire a bit of cerebral interest while making the action folk have a bit of glaze in their eyes. Washington, a former high school/professional talent that found his first prominent role in the TV show Ballers (2015-19), certainly hits the mark when it comes to collected pace and on-the-go charm, which is required to make sure he isn't lost in the action pieces. Pattinson (having done quite a few smaller budget films over the past few years that received some notice) does well here, a worthy one of the time needed in following his instincts for a crisp and interesting performance to go right with Washington when needed (reportedly one of his inspirations was an attempt at trying to do an impersonation of author Christopher Hitchens). Debicki also does well with those moments of balance between calm and growing tension that makes a key effort in interest and grace. Branagh definitely seems to touch upon the "Bond villain" aspects a bit, right down to the attempt of a Russian accent and for what the film needs it goes alright in fatalistic interest. Others have their moments, such as an elusive Kapadia, but the real star proves to be in the staging of action, which for the most part is pretty good (sound mixing jokes aside, because the magic of subtitles makes me worry less), and I imagine that finding out more about the nature of those effects being created will be thought of just as much as folks who try to level out all the explanations about exactly how much Tenet makes/doesn't make sense. It is playing a game on us, and the way to win is to just sit back and not hurl at the ride. The opening opera sequence is quite a ram-shackling highlight, alongside a sequence that one gets to think about twice involving action. As a whole, it is a strange piece of ambitious entertainment, one that will strike at the heart of curiosity for those wanting something with a bit of thought placed into the trappings of action and sci-fi, although for others it will just seem opaque in the measure of its plot alongside other aspects; in short, one can call it the most intriguing film Nolan has ever made, or find it to be one of his lesser efforts - I find it to be right in the middle. If one needs a puzzle, sometimes one just needs to feel up to it to see how it all goes, and Tenet will certainly prove a curiosity for it.

Well, the year is up, and this happens to be the tenth review on New Year's Eve for Movie Night, which seems apt enough to mean covering a film from 2020 (a most quiet year for new releases when one focuses on everything else instead). Happy Holidays, and we will see each other again in 2021 for Season 11.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Bill & Ted Face the Music.

Review #1592: Bill & Ted Face the Music.

Cast: 

Keanu Reeves (Theodore "Ted" Logan), Alex Winter (William S. "Bill" Preston, Esq.), Kristen Schaal (Kelly), Samara Weaving (Theadora "Thea" Preston), Brigette Lundy-Paine (Wilhelmina "Billie" Logan), William Sadler (The Grim Reaper), Anthony Carrigan (Dennis Caleb McCoy), Erinn Hayes (Princess Elizabeth Logan), Jayma Mays (Princess Joanna Preston), Hal Landon Jr (Captain Jonathan Logan), Beck Bennett (Officer Deacon Logan), with Kid Cudi, Amy Stoch (Missy), Holland Taylor (The Great Leader), and Jillian Bell (Dr. Taylor Wood) Directed by Dean Parisot (#237 - Galaxy Quest)

Review: 

“We wanted to ask, ‘What would happen if the things that you were told your life was going to be about when you were a teenager turned out to be wrong? How would you cope with it if you based your whole life on it? How would you deal with the disappointment? And how can we make that into a movie that is absurd and silly and embodies the buoyant spirit of Bill and Ted?"

To borrow a phrase liberally, perhaps it would be most excellent to start at the beginning. The genesis of what became Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (1989) came from a routine done by writers Ed Solomon and Chris Matheson in 1987. The routine involved (what else?) but two teenagers who need to pass a history test that resort to collecting historical figures. The development of going from a potential sketch in a film to a feature-length film only resulted in one real change: having them also be recruited by figures from the future to stay together as a band to unite mankind. There were plenty of moments that involved them saying "bogus" or "excellent!" to go around, although it is weird to try and look back upon its place among teenage hijinks films of its time (it proves superior to offbeat films like Weird Science and Heathers, that much is for sure). It is a silly, charming little movie, with no illusion of being anything other than just good ol' entertainment (I mean, this is a film where they go back to the 1400s and end up with girlfriends). Any movie that has a group of friends just having fun without needing to verge into philosophy beyond having an excellent adventure is probably going to turn out fine. With Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey (1991), Matheson and Solomon had them meet Death alongside evil robots of themselves. So basically, it was a fine sequel, continuing the tradition of hyper-real sincerity from Reeves and Winter, although the odds of either retaining their 8/10 ratings is 50-50 at best. Perhaps it is the fact that these are such light enjoyable movies that proves an interesting paradox: who saw a third film coming if two seemed enough? I saw the original two films in 2010, and the strangest thing is by that point the wheels were turning to make a script for a new film. It seems only fitting to see an 80s product find new life again, but it actually took several years to even find producers willing to do it...and then of course 2020 meant that the film received a simultaneous release in select theaters and video-on-demand.

So here we are, a film with the same two writers in Solomon and Matheson (in their fifth collaboration together), with the same main stars in Reeves and Winter together again. Each have had their own place in film in the decades that followed those films, whether that means an action presence (past and present) for Reeves or filmmaking (and technology advocate) with Winter. In a long, strange year, sometimes one really can't go wrong with a little bit of comfort filmmaking. It doesn't come off as a complete re-hash of what has been done before because it presents the ultimate contrast to the happy go-lucky folks from before in one way: hitting the reality of middle age, which it does fine without seeming hollow. It is probably just as goofy as the other films, even if it may not perhaps be all that it is cracked itself up to be with its attempts at staying excellent when it comes to nailing humor all the way through and through. It proves endearing for those who desire one last ride with some enjoyable presences or perhaps from those who like to see something with a bit of syrupy appeal for music "to unite the world". It all depends on how much luster still shines with Reeves and Winter at the helm. For the most part, they seem just fine in fitting right back into these roles, mainly because time hasn't seemed to wither them in cynicism. Reeves is calm but just as well-placed as usual with a breezy role that while not his best performance (since one can be spoiled by his run with John Wick) is at least on the target. Winter proves just as on balance when it comes to zippy charm within silly situation and the occasional effects shot (since both of them spend a bit of time together traveling forward in time...to themselves). It's obvious to see their engaging chemistry with each other that has made for a most interesting wholesome kind of trilogy, really. The action doesn't stop with them, since Weaving and Lundy-Paine make up their time count as the well-cast descendants to mirror Winter and Reeves without seeming like stale copies, having a decent chemistry with each other in rallying their own story with other figures. Schaal (taking the place set by the late great George Carlin in the previous films) does alright here, having a quiet usage in exposition and the occasional quip. Sadler, showing up only in the latter half (of a 91 minute film) arises to useful returns, in that it is nice to see him and his attempt at a light Death once again. Carrigan does what one can do with an insecure role, which is to say not too much. Others come here and there with mostly fair presence, in that no one is entirely distracting from what goes on (even if it is a cameo, as is the case with one appearance), which result in a movie that moves from point to point with at least some cohesion for a gag without pleading for it (although its effects can distract from that at times). Inevitably, it all rests on how much of the journey to find "that perfect song to unite everybody" really means to the person who ends up watching it. It's like an old sock that has come back from the wash ready to be done again after a long wait, with a hole looking to come out somewhere that nevertheless still gets worn for enjoyment anyway. The future is yet to be written, but if one needs a movie about two cheery friends staying together once again to get involved in time travel antics and music, you can't really go wrong here. In a year like this, that may surely prove more than enough.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Invisible Man (2020).

Review #1359: The Invisible Man.

Cast: 
Elisabeth Moss (Cecilia "Cee" Kass), Oliver Jackson-Cohen (Adrian Griffin), Aldis Hodge (James Lanier), Storm Reid (Sydney Lanier), Harriet Dyer (Emily Kass), Michael Dorman (Tom Griffin), Benedict Hardie (Marc), and Amali Golden (Annie) Directed and Written by Leigh Whannell (#1093 - Upgrade)

Review: 
I don't know how to go with this one. On the one hand, it is admirable to see Universal Pictures try something different from their original intent in reviving The Invisible Man for a new audience, where the film (with thoughts of Johnny Depp in the main role) was set to be part of their star-crossed attempt at a cinematic monster universe, fittingly dubbed "Dark Universe", which essentially nosedived into oblivion with the release of The Mummy (2017), a film that coincidentally I forget to even think of ignoring. Instead, the focus is now to do individual story-telling (i.e. literally just doing a horror film a fresh take like the first time), with Blumhouse Productions being the prominent production company behind this film (with Universal as distributor). Like the 1933 film, it is a loose (insert adaptation joke here) adaptation of the H. G. Wells novel of the same name, set in contemporary times just as before. This of course isn't the first film inspired by the novel in this century, with Hollow Man (2000) existing as a sci-fi horror thriller with Kevin Bacon in the main role. This is a movie that re-directs the focus from its main horror figure, which I suppose does help in trying to deliver a fresh perspective on something that has inspired at least ten theatrical films (some involving horror and other mainly involving sci-fi). There certainly is a decent selection of casting, where no one really seems to stick out in error, mainly since Moss dominates the attention for its benefit. The film also does work itself out well for its effects with the titular character when it feels like doing so, since the idea of a monster you can't see is still a scary concept if done right.

On the other hand, the film is a mild disappointment in the long run. It is occasionally scary, but it is a ride that seems a bit too long at a 124 minute pace, particularly with an ending that seems too neatly-packaged up to really have that last punch. I suppose my horror tastes might differ a bit from the buzz that encompassed this film upon release, since it is probably the first horror film of the year that didn't seem doomed to fail. Maybe people really do find this incredibly relevant to the modern age with its mix of invisibility and gaslighting. While I do having sticking points with the occasional horror films (whether liked or disliked), it can be waved away if the overall experience seems right to do so (i.e. not simply saying "it's just a movie" over and over). Without seeming like a complete spoil-sport, the key sticking point is in a scene that actually is fairly tense. It's a scene in a house, where the main character is (conveniently) alone and is fearful of what the invisible stalker could do next to her. She goes to the attic after calling and hearing her ex's phone up there. After finding it...she just leaves it there. Even just having him just take the phone back would have sufficed as an easy out. Look, I don't go to movies to pick at things like supposed "plot-holes", but thinking things all the way through does help in the long run for films, especially horror. In comparison, the original moved at a rapid pace with Claude Rains doing a well-done job at conveying a creepy (and sometimes amusing) presence into interesting horror entertainment, and that film was nearly an hour shorter than this one. In that regard, Jackson-Cohen does fine taking the reins in a role that requires occasional dialogue to make for some decent tension. Moss, as I mentioned before, is our main focus for the movie. She does a capable job, a presence that is easy to follow along with from her perspective, resilience in panic. Hodge, Reid, and Dyer round out the main core quite completely in filling the straight-edge counterpart to the horror trappings without being lost in the background. Dorman makes for a slimy minor presence, desperately needing more time to be on-screen to really stand out. In any case, the film does tend to look nice, pointing its camera to make you look to see if you can detect another presence besides what you see initially. Sometimes the film has a sense of humor, which delivers a chuckle that at least isn't meant to distract. As a whole, this is an okay movie. It isn't as put together as Whannell's previous effort with Upgrade, but it does ultimately provide adequate enough scares to likely win over a shaky yet mostly there foundation. Would I be interested in whatever Blumhouse could do next with a classic monster? Perhaps, if the story seems right enough to give horror thrills.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Sonic the Hedgehog.

Review #1353: Sonic the Hedgehog.

Cast: 
Ben Schwartz (Sonic), Jim Carrey (Dr. Ivo Robotnik), James Marsden (Tom Wachowski), Tika Sumpter (Maddie Wachowski), Lee Majdoub (Stone), Natasha Rothwell (Rachel), Adam Pally (Wade Whipple), and Neal McDonough (Major Bennington) Directed by Jeff Fowler.

Review: 
Honestly, I had meant to do this film earlier last month, but getting Tribute to the Decades to be completed in time felt more important at the time, and this applies to another 2020 film review in the future. 

As the cliché goes, looks can be deceiving. This is a film that was delayed from its original intended release of November 2019, with trailers being released in April (coincidentally two months before another film with a video game fur creature would come out with Pokémon: Detective Pikachu). However, negative reaction to the design of the main character (which had more humanoid features, particularly with the small eyes) led to a five-month redesign and a February release. It is interesting to think about comparisons about this film with its effects to the aforementioned Pikachu film, since both are based off video game properties with fur characters with varying success over three decades, with one film being set in a murky city and the other being a rural town (with some of the climax being in San Francisco). The Sonic series was developed by Sega through Sonic Team, with two main creators in programmer Yuji Naka and artist Naoto Ohshima. I have been a fan of the series for a few years, mindful of the critique and occasional ridicule that the games have had over the past two decades but appreciative of the charm brought by its main character that makes it just as interesting as say the Mario franchise, which had its own oddball movie adaptation. Video game films haven't had the greatest track record, perhaps because they can't quite hold up adapting the source material into something worth seeing as a movie. There is one easy thing to say about both films: they are incredible in mediocrity (with Sonic perhaps being slightly better), being silly charming films that are in need of more ambition for such PG material. The action proves as okay as watching an actual Sonic game. You know most of where it is going to go because you have been through most of these beats before, unless one really is a kid watching these films fresh of mind. If one enjoys the ride, then they'll be fine with where it dashes to. The most interesting thing about the film is not so much the title character itself but with Carrey. He exudes a manic energy that chews scenery like it is candy, which is important for a super-genius tech villain with only a few basic characteristics that desires camp from someone like Carrey to really generate interest. Sure, Schwartz does a fine main voice, one that makes a few charming quips and makes for a useful presence that evolves with the film for its 99 minute pace without too many hobbles. Marsden, as the straight man to a nut and a blue blur, proves fine. While the film seems more interesting in its brief moments not on Earth than in it, Marsden and the others hold water enough. The film may think it is clever to have bits about loneliness with its title character, but one just wants to see a snappy adventure (beyond quasi-road movie tactics, at least). If the film had been released with the original design, it would've been an average film to ridicule a bit at. Now it is just an average film, successful at entertainment that will hopefully inspire a follow-up more rewarding.

Next Review: The Bank Dick.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.