A Christmas Story Christmas.

Review #2326: A Christmas Story Christmas.

Cast: 

Peter Billingsley (Ralph "Ralphie" Parker), Erinn Hayes (Sandy Parker), Julie Hagerty (Mrs. Parker), Scott Schwartz (Flick), R. D. Robb (Schwartz), Zack Ward (Officer Scut Farkus), Ian Petrella (Randy Parker), River Drosche (Mark Parker), and Julianna Layne (Julie Parker) Directed by Clay Kaytis.

Review:

I'm sure you already know this, but A Christmas Story (1983) was a modest success upon its release. It took 12 years to actually get the movie made. Sure, Bob Clark may not have got along all the way around with Jean Shepherd (a peddler-type of showman that deliberately fibbed about his upbringing, he once described his work as "anti-sentimental"), but there was a certain magic to it all in those series of vignettes that everyone and their mother have probably seen at least once around the holiday season. Far from just "“Dickens’s Christmas Carol as retold by Scrooge", there was a curious magic to it all that really could only be done once. Sure, Shepherd and Clark tried it again with My Summer Story (1994), but nobody cared enough to even find time to criticize the movie. But the nudge to talk about A Christmas Story has persisted. Hell, the house that was part of filming is now an actual Municipal Landmark of the good city of Cleveland (perhaps ironically, this film could not get access by the current owners of the building to scan the house and neighborhood for referencing). As late as 2017, people even tried making live versions of the damn movie. It should prove no surprise, then, that one would find themselves stumbling onto this movie. Peter Billingsley wanted to do a movie as both sequel and origin story for the original film, for which he co-wrote the story with Nick Schenk, who in turn co-wrote the screenplay with writer/director Clay Kaytis. You might wonder why I would make an exception to a movie that was released onto streaming on HBO Max by Warner Bros. Pictures. Well, it is easier to make fun of streaming (which I will call the stupidest way to release a movie imaginable) when one notices that this did in fact have a DVD release for all to see.

Admittedly, making a movie sequel nearly 40 years after the fact is a tough prospect. For better or worse, falling into a description of "endearing" is exactly how I would describe the whole experience of watching the movie. Sure, it probably would've made Jean Shepherd seethe in the clearest of ways, but it does manage to have enough energy to carry itself for a few laughs with a game cast to at least justify a look for 98 minutes. You get your little moments spent looking at footage from before, but it isn't peppered in one's face for too many "remember?" smirks. It all rides on Billingsley, who narrates the movie and takes up a good chunk of the general action (one wonders what has more "things that happen" and I would suppose it is this one, which involves a would-be writer and Christmas shopping). He pulls off the best performance because of his commitment to showing the face of a man having to pull ashore to familiar trappings where dreams and disappointments run hand in hand with each other while having his own family to try and deliver a worthy Christmas for this time around. Now he sees the strange perspectives of youth from the side of an adult, which is different when one thinks of a kid in the 1940s compared to, well, 1973. Hayes makes a suitable match on the side of ones with their own quirks and desires for a quality Christmas to seal a year up, (silly or otherwise). One sees things click best when Billingsley, Schwartz and Robb share the screen together in goofy energy that could only come from middle-aged folks engaged in trifling matters (but most of us are always wrapped in trifling matters, so chew on that). Hagerty captures some of the qualities originally played by Melinda Dillon (who passed away in early 2023), albeit on a much smaller scale. Drosche and Layne round it out with fairly ordinary performances (read: kid actors) that accompany a general feeling of people with varying levels of hang-ups; consider, however, the fact that one sees imagined sequences again from the character played by Billingsley and wonder how it looks when you are seeing them from a child as compared to a family man. Beyond the popping in of familiar sights (one might chuckle at a bully reforming so they can be a cop) is at least a sense of commitment in trying to rise above not quite Midwestern-trappings (okay the movie is set in Indiana but really, is one going to tell it apart from say, Hungary?). The sequence at Christmastime is probably the most the film has going for it in the warmth that arises from taking action in the usual drudgery of mundane living. In general, I went with the movie with pretty reasonable expectations (to expect something to suck is not a fun way to live) and the movie pretty much landed right where I thought it would. Call it silly, call it a mild follow-up, but one thing it most certainly is not is a movie lacking in commitment. It aims to fit neatly in the shoes of second glancing after one has already had their fill of a familiar story and rewards those who settle for a few chuckles and a fitting enough ending to make the circle complete in offbeat holiday times.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Terrifier 2.

Review #2272: Terrifier 2.

Cast: 

Lauren LaVera (Sienna Shaw), David Howard Thornton (Art the Clown), Elliott Fullam (Jonathan), Sarah Voigt (Barbara), Kailey Hyman (Brooke), Casey Hartnett (Allie), Charlie McElveen (Jeff), Amelie McLain (the Little Pale Girl), Johnath Davis (Ricky), Samantha Scaffidi (Victoria Heyes), Leah Voysey (Clown Cafe TV host / Nurse), Chris Jericho (Burke), and Felissa Rose (Ms. Principe) Directed by Damien Leone (#2271 - Terrifier)

Review:

 “I’m trying to transcend the slasher genre and make something you really haven’t seen in a long time… We’re always trying to push it as far as we can and deliver the goods above and beyond everyone’s expectations.” 

Well, when you have a sequel, you go all out for it. When Damien Leone had envisioned a film involving the character of Art the Clown after filming his short film "The 9th Circle", it involved a character basically dressed up as an angel (with a plot outline that he described as "basically Rob Zombie's 31"). So, now here we are with a "heart and soul" for this feature film, which he wrote the first draft of the screenplay in 2019. While this film would have funding come from private investment, he did launch an Indiegogo campaign in order to do a practical effects sequence for $50,000 - it proceeded to make four times that. After a COVID-interrupted session of filming, the movie was finished in 2021 before release the following year. As before, Leone edited the film to go with writing/directing. There was enough demand for the film to be in theaters for more than a week, and it ended up making, well, millions of dollars. 

Honestly, some of the horror movies are enjoyable not so much for the level of terror or gore they show but for the curiosity they generate when it comes to "how did they do that?" Maybe it is a geeky thing, but really, that bedroom sequence is a fascinating one in execution when it comes to the mix of churn and execution that really does drive the imagination beyond the splatter (for those who like to read details, here). Sure, it can feel long at 138 minutes when it comes to trying to go through the whole gauntlet of its setup (particularly since it was built with a sequel in mind), but I had quite the treat with the movie specifically because it just has the energy of a madman that takes you on a ride worth rolling with. For a movie about an equal-opportunity killer clown, it sure the kind of experience that can raise up a chuckle at the strangest of times (I say "equal-opportunity" because yes, he is as violent to men and women on the same level when it comes to general skullduggery, whether that involves nibbling or using a gun). The first film felt like a demo reel of potential involving a few decent effects and a budget that looked like its budget (around the Roger Corman level but not derogatory) that I accepted for all of its average executions. The second is the logical extension of having time to really draw out a solid lead performance to go along with the already apparent talent in drawing curiosity in a mime that really can be scary (funny or otherwise). Oh, and the gore, but I'm sure you don't need me to sing too many praises about (mostly) practical effects (incidentally, it isn't that often one can watch a "Not Rated" movie). Leone had stated one of his regrets in the first place was in the lack of character development, and it is evident that LaVera is given a chance to really make something worthwhile beyond the usual "final" cliches. In that sense, she is engaging enough to follow along with in likable charm that doesn't fold (i.e. get overshadowed too much by the obvious) under the pressure. The rest of the cast is generally interesting enough to be set up for the inevitable trap (i.e. not particularly hateable). Maybe I'm just a nut, but there are actually a few darkly amusing moments within such commitment to gore, probably best represented with the nightmare sequence involving an attempt at building cheer before getting tommy gun'd to death. Of course, I can also cite the costume shop sequence in casual terror and amusement, because seeing silly glasses getting tried on wordlessly is hard to resist. While I can't really explain the "Little Pale Girl" particularly well, I will say that having a wordless "patty cake" in a laundromat while one tries to clean up is about all one might need to explain the strange qualities that come up for the moments ahead. Admittedly, the climax is a strange one to swallow when it comes to drawing out how to keep interest in a sequel and not go completely into doing a "slasher ending" bit, which here happen to involve, well, swords and body stuff (some "final girls" end up coping better than others, suffice to say). But I accept it because it was a neat ride that did not bump off the rails into safe-town, so on that note I can safely say it did what one wants most from a sequel: live up to the original and exceed it with fanfare. Terrifier 2 has an obvious target in mind: people who go for the gore and the craft that comes from it. It invites interest in a third film, so on that note...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

X (2022).

Review #2133: X.

Cast: 

Mia Goth (Maxine / Pearl), Jenna Ortega (Lorraine Day), Brittany Snow (Bobby-Lynne Parker), Scott Mescudi (Jackson Hole), Martin Henderson (Wayne Gilroy), Owen Campbell (RJ Nichols), Stephen Ure (Howard), Simon Prast (the televangelist), and James Gaylyn (Sheriff Dentler) Written and Directed by Ti West (#1893 - Pearl)

Review: 

It's the damndest thing. I found myself not having enough time to pick out this film when it came out in the month of March in 2022, but when it came to Pearl, billed as "An X-traordinary Origin Story" (as filmed on the same sets in New Zealand as this film) released in the latter days of September of that same year, I had all of the curiosity necessary to use it as a good way to start a month of horror. So, here I am basically trying to quantify my blunder in not just watching this film when it was new and wondering just how dumb I was in not picking it earlier. If you didn't already know, West had made a name for himself with a steady collection of horror features that started with The Roost (2005). This is his eighth feature film and just like the rest of them, he also wrote and edited the film himself. Sometime in the near future will be a sequel called MaXXXine, as already mentioned for those who were lucky enough to have seen Pearl, which will feature West and Goth again as one would hope makes a proper horror trilogy. 

Spoiler: well, I'm an idiot, I should've watched X back then. What better way to touch upon both a look into the world of X-ratedness that comes in porn and horror than a film like this? Sure, you might find something a bit familiar here with, say, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974). Both were at a crossroads as the 1970s were about to end, and the advent of video (with stuff such as Debbie Does Dallas, released in 1978) was a big reason for that, because now one could find a market interest in something that wanted to see flesh in their own homes. In other words, one could get away with doing something for themselves for others without having to go with Hollywood or through those proper channels, which could be places such as say, a farm in Houston. It has an amusing pace to it beyond the grisly elements that come in both the bloodshed along with the cries for being past one's youth that make for a really enjoyable time. It is craftsmanship of the best kind when it comes to the fear that comes in both delusional visitors and in becoming old, complete with prosthetics used to make a film that isn't just riding on CG-mush. When it comes to showcase, it goes doubly for Goth, who plays two roles that work in the view of people who desire a life for themselves filled with what they look like on the inside and out (whether that is a cocaine-sniffing actress or someone who obviously saw plenty in the 1920s when it comes to youth). This desperation makes for some curious scenes, such as their first scene together (after one is seen watching the other skinny-dipping in a pool that narrowly misses an alligator, anyway) that is uncomfortable in dreary enjoyment for one looking upon a younger one. The filming of the nudie scenes is particularly interesting when it comes to trying to construct something both pleasing and fitting to what looks and sounds right for both cameraman and cast undergoing it all that works for Parker and Mescudi (best known as Kid Cudi) for timing in performances. Henderson makes a worthy minor note in would-be film huckster, which compares pretty well when you think about Campbell and Ortega reacting to the idea of being involved more than just behind the camera (consider that reaction from the former in the aftermath carefully). It is the dynamic of Ure and Goth, however, that drives the film to where it must go, because even love must go hand in hand with sadism when it comes to helping others realize their desires, which is probably more unsettling than anything, at least when compared to the blood and gore (or the televangelist that occasionally appears on television, for those who don't care to hear of hucksters of the religious kind). One could actually feel bad for this character in the basic sense of aging, because, well, no one can be as young and free as they want to be forever, no matter what they may pretend to think (whether with others or by themselves, although the lonely usually die faster anyway). I especially like the ending for the subversion of the usual final person tropes when it comes to just wanting what they want, an ideal representation of "F you, got mine" if there ever was one. As a ballad of sex and violence with lingering degrees of uncomfortable styling, it makes for a highly interesting start to a horror series I really did not see coming (X and Pearl may actually be neck-and-neck with each other when it comes to how each do their own pastiche of a certain genre). Far from just a tribute or just an excuse to show skin and gore, this is the kind of film fit for its era when it comes to delivering unsettling entertainment with little to no false notes detected in the best of ways possible.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

I hope you folks have enjoyed this procession of October in Horror films (with one exception) in this historic month. I wanted to do a month packed with a handful of the usual names you might expect from horror, whether that meant a Vincent Price film or a John Carpenter effort and put them all together. There were plenty of films considered that didn't make the cut that I'm sure could be covered next October...or with Halloween The Week After, Year Five.

Crimes of the Future (2022).

Review #2132: Crimes of the Future.

Cast: 

Viggo Mortensen (Saul Tenser), Léa Seydoux (Caprice), Kristen Stewart (Timlin), Scott Speedman (Lang Dotrice), Welket Bungué (Detective Cope), Don McKellar (Wippet), Yorgos Pirpassopoulos (Dr. Nasatir), and Tanaya Beatty (Berst) Written and Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future, #1127 - eXistenZ, #1220 - A History of Violence, #1239 - Stereo, #1624 - Shivers, #1712 - The Fly [1986])

Review: 

"Crimes of the Future is a meditation on human evolution. Specifically - the ways in which we have had to take control of the process because we have created such powerful environments that did not exist previously."

It was reported that David Cronenberg was considering retirement from filmmaking because of the difficulty in funding his films. Imagine a world where Maps to the Stars (2014) was thought to be his last directorial effort, and it happened that 2014 was also the same year he published his first novel. But here we are anyway with a film done by him that apparently had been in development once upon a time earlier in the 2000s that never got off the ground now and back again. It was reported in 2002 that he would do a film called "Painkillers", which involved a high pain threshold artist that was offered to infiltrate a subversive group. This inspiration came from a fellow student that attended the University of Toronto with him that had wrote a story about a man who cut off his own hand, to the shocked impressment of Cronenberg. Four years of development in script led to ideas of casting (maybe Nicolas Cage for the lead?), but, well, that film never came to be. So yes, to him, the idea of the body being reality could lead to ideas of a changed world because of how one changes that body (with its perceptions coming through said body (he had cited Arthur Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation). Producer Robert Lantos asked him to re-consider that old script he had done, which after a couple of years wrangling funds ended up being made as what you see. Now, at 79, here he was with a new film that wasn't exactly an audience hit but it's always good to say one is back (Cronenberg is apparently in development of a new film already), particularly since this is the first film of his involving horror of any kind since eXistenZ (1999); he stated that key references to other scenes and moments from select films of his would be seen here, because it would serve as some sort of "continuity of my understanding of technology as connected to the human body."

To this film, surgery is thought to be the new sex. It makes for a relaxed 107 minutes of weird horror (don't let anyone tell you otherwise, it's horror) that won't be ideal for everyone, but it makes for a curious experience to sit through at least once. It is the kind of film that looks as dreary as the future it likes to depict, right down to an opening that would be unsettling for anyone to think about: a kid depicted eating plastics who is then smothered by their mother in quick fashion. That's just one of the crimes committed by oneself against the body. Anyway, the film involves a duo of performance artists that do live surgery to remove newly grown organs that arise in one of them while they deal with constant pain. Mortensen and Seydoux do make an elegant pair when it comes to that refined showmanship pair one would hope for in a film that engages more in glances at the body rather than straight stabs, especially when it comes to scenes such as looking at a new thing done to the body, such as say, small horns or a zipper on the waist. I guess there is supposed to be something quite interesting about weird bureaucracy with McKellar and Stewart, but all I can focus on is the latter's whispery voice for seemingly 95% of the time she is on screen that makes me wonder if I was meant to be taking it as a joke. I do like Speedman's pathetic desperation when it comes to trying to make a point about the new type of evolution with what the film is presenting (are you ready for this): people wanting to adapt with a digestive system fit to eat toxic waste. There is something fascinating about watching people's eyes look upon this surgery involving tattooed organs that makes you wish the eventual conclusion reached some sort of meaningful point beyond that mild sort of peace that comes about with the final sequence. It just doesn't feel as confrontational or as pulsating bizarreness as it wishes to be (at least with some of these fools of wavering degeneracy, which even shows a man with many ears at one point), but I did find something worth looking into with the overall experience to appreciate in the long run. Cronenberg may not have had a profound return to form here, but it is still a curious one to watch within the long arm of his general interest of the body and horror regardless.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

We did it! Well, I did it, but you readers got to see 40 reviews in a month, a new record of quality and quantity. Oh, but I have a surprise, one more horror film later tonight...with X.

Facing Nolan.

Review #2110: Facing Nolan.

Cast: 

Interviews and archival footage of various individuals:

Nolan Ryan, Ruth Ryan, Reid Ryan, Pete Rose, Jeff Torborg, Ivan Rodriguez, Craig Reynolds, Joe Posnanski, Eric Nadel, John McClain, Randy Johnson, Art Howe, Tom House, Tom Grieve, Bobby Grich, Randy Galloway, Jose Cruz Sr, Roger Clemens, Rod Carew, Enos Cabell, George W. Bush, George Brett, Craig Biggio, Alan Ashby, among others. Written and Directed by Bradley Jackson.

Review: 

Tonight is Game 1 of the American League Championship Series, which features a Texan's dream for those who love the great game of baseball - the Houston Astros against the Texas Rangers for the American League pennant. Obviously it could only mean that I cover this film. Also: Go Astros!

"I grew up in Houston in the '80s and '90s, and if you grow up a sports fan in Texas at the time, then it's mandatory to be a Nolan Ryan fan. His persona, his records and his mythological status are just larger than life." - Bradley Jackson

You probably already know Nolan Ryan, but a little rundown doesn't hurt: to put it mildly, Ryan was the first great Texan pitcher in Major League Baseball, which saw him throw seven no-hitters with 5,714 strikeouts that are both Major League Baseball records. He played his first five years with the New York Mets, which included a trip to the World Series in 1969 before turning his career from thrower to starting regularly with the California Angels for the 1972-1979 seasons. He then spent his final fourteen years in Texas, spending nine seasons with the Houston Astros (while becoming baseball's million-dollar contract man) before closing it out with the Texas Rangers from 1989 to 1993. The film covers most of the hallmarks listed there and a couple of others, whether that involves a baseball brawl or going out at the age of 46 when his arm gave out. The man could throw balls really fast but could also throw a great curveball. Incidentally, Ryan would become a key operator of an ownership group that owns the Triple-A team Round Rock Express (which naturally is named after his nickname. Ryan is easy to remember for those familiar with sports stars from our great state, or if you happen to be familiar with the book K: A History of Baseball in Ten Pitches, which I've read a handful of times when it comes to the baseball fever. Roughly over two dozen people are interviewed for the film, as one figures from the cast list, which involves Ryan, members of his family, and most importantly, the teammates and batters who played with (or against) him...and folks like George W. Bush (before becoming a topic for what America was like when he was president, he had ownership stake in the Rangers, no I'm not joking). Jackson was inspired to do the film after having seen ESPN's documentary series on Michael Jordan (The Last Dance) in 2020. While Ryan wasn't too positive on the idea at first, his family was friendly to the idea, as evidenced by the producer credits.

With caveats, the film is undeniably right for the baseball season. It isn't hard to assess how good Ryan was as a player, because, well, the film shows enough clips of him in action to make anyone see how much finesse it takes to throw a ball that hard and that effectively, but one thing that isn't as easy to see coming is just the sheer talent he had beyond the no-hitters: he has both the record for strikeouts and walks, but how many people can also say they had over 30 games where they allowed just two hits? He won over 300 games, but it sure felt like if his team played jus a bit better, he would've been closer to 400 wins, that's for sure. The man is shown in his element, one who loves to raise cattle on his ranch that really thought he would be dealing with treating animals after his career ended shortly (remember that in the offseason in those years, one would work to make further money, which in this case involved him installing central air units) but instead found a lengthy career. Of course, this is a family story else, because if anyone is the biggest fan of Ryan, it is his wife Ruth above all else who understands him (their second date was a baseball game to watch Sandy Koufax, another legend of baseball, at work). 

The perspectives from the players and teammates is about as interesting as you expect, which mostly involve hearing the ferocity that came from a drive to win more than anything (as helped by pitching coach Tom Morgan), whether that comes from legends such as Pete Rose (insert personal reference here) or watchers that would go on to be damn good pitchers in their own right like Roger Clemens. The funny thing is that the film lightly touches upon his playoff performances. He appeared in the playoffs four times in his career (only one of his teams in 27 seasons ever won 100 games), and he was only thought of as a bullpen man for his World Series ring in 1969 (the film covers his NLCS appearance that saw him get the win but not the two innings n the WS). Heck, his start in the 1979 playoffs, his first of seven as a starter (he went 1-2 with a number of no decisions), isn't mentioned, nor is depth spent on the three postseasons with the Astros besides a bit on the ending of his Game 5 start in 1980, when an array of hits led to a 5-2 lead in the 8th implode. Honestly, I also wanted to see the perspective of Ryan when it came to his business interests, whether that involved him serving as team president and CEO of the Texas Rangers or executive adviser for the Houston Astros (where he got to work with his son Reid). But hey, the film is really a love story, so maybe this is just a bit of a nitpick. Of course, the biggest bone I have to pick is the narration. Technically, as a buildup of a tall tale to eventually reveal a man, it makes sense, but, well, it is corny as hell and you can do without it when it comes to crafting a documentary of perspective. Call me an offbeat man, but I could almost do without covering the tale of him being confronted by Robin Ventura on the mound that resulted in a good ol' fashioned brawl (not exactly surprising Ventura declined to be interviewed). The mechanics of his pitching and just how good he was when he finally had a pitching coach is what matters, especially since one obviously can't have a clip for every great Ryan start (not just the no-hitters, which are cool anyway). That's the stuff that makes for entertainment in baseball. As a whole, this is a worthy celebration of a Texan that managed to captivate so many people when it comes to his sport of choice that is still fascinating to view in the lens of how much the game of baseball has shifted in the three decades since his retirement. The legend was more than his strikeouts, no-hitters, or intimidating presence on the mound, he was a man of integrity that loved his family as much as he loved the game that saw him be rewarded in both fields. It is the imperfect ideal for a guy like Nolan Ryan.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next time: Back to horror - The Black Cat (1934).

The Munsters (2022).

Review #2090: The Munsters.

Cast: 

Sheri Moon Zombie (Lily; Donna Doomley), Jeff Daniel Phillips (Herman; Shecky Von Rathbone; Zombo), Daniel Roebuck (The Count; Ezra Mosher), Richard Brake (Dr. Wolfgang; Orlock), Jorge Garcia (Floop), Sylvester McCoy (Igor), Catherine Schell (Zoya Krupp), Cassandra Peterson (Barbara Carr), and Tomas Boykin (Lester) Written and Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007), #1590 - House of 1000 Corpses, #1751 - Halloween II (2009), #1756 - The Devil's Rejects, #1920 - 3 from Hell)

Review: 

“The Munsters’ was exhausting. That was an exhausting movie to make. It took almost five years of non-stop pushing. And then, being in a foreign country during the height of COVID was not as much fun as you would think! So the whole experience was very draining.”

As surely mentioned at least one person familiar from old television in your life, The Munsters was the show to go when it came to horror makeup on a sitcom as created by Allan Burns and Chris Hayward (with development by Norm Liebman and Ed Haas). Well, when you come from folks that had been involved with The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends (while being produced by the duo that had created Leave It to Beaver), I'm sure you can understand what the show generally felt like, and, well, yes, it was fine for the time. And yes, it is the kind of show that once had a quote about the only thing that "matters is the size of your heart and the strength of your character." Anyway, here we are with a Universal film with Rob Zombie...well, I take that back. It isn't so much a Universal Pictures project as it is a co-roject of Universal 1440 Entertainment (known for such vaunted films as Bobbleheads: The Movie) and Spookshow International Films, complete with select filming in Budapest that had a release of both Netflix (you know the reaction I have) and on video, but it falls just over the line from the direct-to-video stuff you'd see in the 2000s...barely. Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised Rob Zombie directed the film, because he once did a song called "Dragula" (as named for the dragster car in the show) that had a music video mimicking a car ride by the Munsters. It is the first theatrical film involving the show since Munster, Go Home! (1966), after a handful of television movies and one TV remake. The story of the film, if you didn't already guess, is really more a prequel than an adaptation of the series, since, well, there's no child Munster involved here. The film was mandated to be filmed in color rather than black-and-white like the show (aside from the closing sequence), so Zombie elected to shoot in vibrant color, citing it as seeming like a "live action cartoon". Zombie has stated his plan to not make another Munsters film, citing the rough production. 

Honestly, the film isn't even as good as Munster, Go Home!, which I'm sure you remember as the only other time that the Munsters have been featured in a theatrical format. If the original series was like a piece of candy corn that was sweet if not just a tad bit light, the film is essentially that same corn but made with cotton candy to hide the fact that there is less of the candy to go around. It is a strange film to mark in Zombie's line of work because it is the only one as of now that you could show to your children, because the rest of his stuff is, well, not PG-rated fluff. I can see the energy present in why he would want to make a movie based on a show that he seems to really love, but I also see that the film exists as an example for people to hold against him as something he either shouldn't have undertaken or wrote by himself. It seems to be a case where the cast and crew seem to be having more fun than the person watching it. Simply put: for a film full of corny jokes and a bit of spiffy makeup, you would think there was an actual body full of life in there, and yet it all comes out stiff. I understand the desire for having it focus on the core three members (Phillips, S.Zombie, Roebuck), but the general story around them doesn't make for a whole film when the jokes are not as funny as the source material that it tries to play tribute to. Of those three, it is only Roebuck that seems to get a grasp at the character as originally played by Al Lewis. He has that conniving but warm spirit that inspires a good deal of the actual chuckles generated from the film. You might wonder the fairness of trying to compare actors playing a role once inhabited by people from a half-century ago, but, well, Yvonne De Carlo and Fred Gwynne were solid picks in 1966 but Phillips and S.Zombie probably wouldn't have made for good second choices in 1966. Simply put, they don't make great presences in roles that should feel familiar and they don't really make a solid presence for a newcomer to see for laughs anyway. Phillips plays it too much like a ham, chomping at the bit to raise the voice for what ends up seeming like a video parody while S.Zombie somehow seems anywhere other than where she should be. It is that kind of bland haughty spirit that seems ripe for (wait for it) parody rather than an interpretation of familiar ground. Lewis and Gwynne were just so good together in comedic chemistry back then, and Phillips and Roebuck here don't even get to attempt to try and be funny together. The fact that McCoy may be the most interesting supporting presence before being turned into a bat is probably the punchline said on the burial of this coffin. I can't even fathom why the film has a whole plot about a castle takeover, unless they were so confident that scenes in Translyvania were more interesting than actually getting along to the familiar looking mansion from the show (spoiler: if you can cut the fat, why not do so?). Brake and Garcia seem like fine folk, but you could cut them and Schell and possibly not lose much in the way of chuckles for what seems too long at 110 minutes already. The film at least does use its color choices for useful effect to make amusement in tacky quality (again, the overall film is tacky, but the look is better than the jokes).

How is it that you can't make a more compelling adaptation of an show than the two Addams Family films (1991, 1993)? Not to veer too off-topic, but those films took a subject (neat little family looks strange to outsiders) already familiar to audiences with them from a decades-old show and newcomers to make for interesting entertainment. Here I just find a middling film that doesn't seem to really have a grasp of what the show really seems to be about. Yes, it was a sitcom, and yes, it had a few (?) corny jokes, but it also had a strong core cast and also a strong grasp of fun for family entertainment that emphasized just how cool it was to be around these cheerful folks despite the odd things that came from the folks who reacted around them. The film may be bright and it may look nice at times, but it doesn't gel well to justify anything other than a rental for those who need to fill time with something light. I can't give it a positive recommendation, because simply watching the show would be the best way to start one's autumn than doing so with a movie not worth your time.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Satanic Hispanics.

Review #2086: Satanic Hispanics.

Cast: 

"The Traveler" segment: Efren Ramirez (The Traveler), Greg Grunberg (Detective Arden), and Sonya Eddy (Detective Gibbons) Directed by Mike Mendez. 

"También Lo Vi” segment: Demian Salomon (Gustavo) Directed by Demián Rugna. 

“El Vampiro” segment: Hemky Madera (El Vampiro) and Patricia Velasquez (Maribel) Directed by Eduardo Sánchez (#1294 - The Blair Witch Project). 

“Nahuales” segment: Ari Gallegos (De La Cruz) Directed by Gigi Saul Guerrero.

“The Hammer of Zanzibar” segment: Jonah Ray (Malcolm), Jacob Vargas (El Jefe) and Morgana Ignis (King Zombie) Directed by Alejandro Brugues.

Review: 

Admittedly, the title gets your attention. Latino or not, I'm sure we all appreciate an attempt at giving you a bunch of stories for the price of one. The film was originally shown on the festival circuit in the fall of 2022, but it is only now that one can have a chance (if in certain areas, obviously) to see it in a theater, which I had the chance to do on a late Thursday night. There are three writers credited in Pete Barnstrom, Alejandro Mendez, and Lino K. Villa. Viewers that like to delve into even more films than the usual standard may recognize at least one of the five filmmakers present here, whether that involves the obvious one in Eduardo Sanchez (director of the original The Blair Witch Project), or perhaps Mike Mendez (with the aptly titled Big Ass Spider!) or Alejandro Brugues and his Cuban-Spanish zombie production Juan of the Dead (2010), Gigi Saul Guerrero (Bingo Hell) or with the Argentian Demián Rugna (Terrified). 

The first segment is really just the wraparound in between segments, unless you really want to consider the story beyond two bland detectives trying to pay attention to what an alleged immortal is telling them. The film is 105 minutes (credits included), but for the sake of my amusement, I elected to give you a minute count for each little segment. Technically, it is the longest segment, since it has its own climax (involving San La Muerte) and structure (swat team finding a guy cutting his hand leading to a detective meeting before eventually getting to who that figure is going after and you get it) that make it run about 30 minutes when you add it up, but I'll be damned if I can say anything positive about the parts around its title character. Ramirez actually is quite effective, ice cold in mystery that really does seem the type of person who has things beyond the usual comprehension that we humans have. Granted, it is communicated with a number of cliches, but he holds his ground. The same can't be said for his two counterparts (Grunberg and Eddy), who make the whole proceeding seem nearly pointless in even having a wraparound segment, as if Tales from the Crypt (1972) wasn't an ideal way to just do a wraparound segment to "tie it together". It depends on what you think should matter most in an anthology film, a wraparound trying to make a loose connection to the stories to come...or just having a bunch of stories and getting on with it. Any way you put it, "The Traveler" is okay but probably would've been just as fine in a trimmer form.

The second segment ("También Lo Vi") runs at 22 minutes. It involves a prodigy that likes to deal with Rubik's cubes in a really fast manner and (for whatever reason) dabble between Spanish and English within conversation. It ends up being framed as a semi-solid ghost story that plays the one setting it has (a haunted house) to the trimmings you would expect without skimping on those moments of gore (you can say it for the segments minus the Traveler, but hey). The ending is perhaps a bit convenient, but as the title goes, one really can see it too in wondering just what lies beneath puzzles and eyesight. The third segment (“El Vampiro”) runs at 19 minutes. Your milage may vary on the segment, since it is the goofiest of the four that Sanchez has stated was influenced in comedy by letting his star in Madera be himself. Those who find vampire comedies such as, say, Vampira (1974) or Love at First Bite (1979) to beyond their funny bone tastes will probably roll their eyes a bit. However, the jokes that come from a paunchy vampire trying to fiddle his way out of a city amused me with its campy energy, and Madera makes a solid presence of an old fool who finds that beneath all of the cheap thrill of blood is a thrill for being with the blood that has tied him for years. Eh, it isn't exactly the best segment for the horror kicks, but, well, it tickled my interest, so that works out.

 

The fourth segment ("Nahuales") runs at 19 minutes and is probably the most infused in folklore to go with its effects for the eventual climax. The effects stand out the best here in a snarling and violent feature involving spirit beings within ancient Mexican lore. As such, it asks just where the real monster lies beneath the surface. So yes, that is the segment that probably could linger in your head moreso than the others, although it is hard to say just which segment really fits the overall film title more than this one, but this one might have been the best one to fit its own film. The final segment (“The Hammer of Zanzibar”) runs for 19 minutes that deals with trying to deal with a demon after a mishap involving recordings and folks falling into the hand of death, with a mild performance from Ray. Admittedly, one can find it a bit odd that the middle of the segment finds time to spend on a cock-and-bull story about just what a "hammer of Zanzibar" really is that involves a joke that comes and goes and comes and goes and you get the idea. Eh, I do appreciate jokes run into the ground when it seems dumb enough to do so for bad taste, but I won't exactly make fun of someone who thinks of it as something to cringe at and not cringe with. At any rate, it is decently executed when it comes to the overall result, albeit with a lasting twist that perhaps isn't the best punchline possible (there is a line said right after the story ends that is funny, but if you have a hammer that looks like a certain shape, how could you not use said shape for the obvious joke?). As a whole, one will probably find something to appreciate within the attempt to play on Hispanic culture for a meaningful film for those who want something with roots that seem right at home. It is a mediocre anthology film in the manner that you can see in various other examples, one that has a few highs and no true low points to make a passable recommendation for those who linger inward at the sight of the title rather than smirking away. Whether you are the type to say Hispanic on a silly survey question or not (or be the odd man "Other"), this mixed bag of tales may or may not fit the bill in getting a start in the great fall season of spooks and scares. The best saying for the film is that you get "más y menos" of what you hope for at least one tolerable viewing experience.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Talk to Me (2022).

Review #2065: Talk to Me.

Cast: 

Sophie Wilde (Mia), Alexandra Jensen (Jade), Joe Bird (Riley), Otis Dhanji (Daniel), Miranda Otto (Sue), Zoe Terakes (Hayley), Chris Alosio (Joss), Marcus Johnson (Max), Alexandria Steffensen (Rhea), Ari McCarthy (Cole), and Sunny Johnson (Duckett) Directed by Danny Philippou and Michael Philippou.

Review: 

What better way to close out the month than with a debut feature from a couple of Australians? Well, actually, the story is more interesting when you consider that these two directors originally started on YouTube. They grew up in Adelaide in South Australia and actually got into filming each other at a young age with backyard wrestling. Eventually,  after uploading some stuff involving "fake fails", the channel RackaRacka was created in 2013. I have not actually viewed the videos of the channel, but I'm sure that the description of videos with stunts and practical effects is accurate. The film was written by Danny Philippou and Bill Hinzman, and it serves as the debut feature for the Philippous, who plan to shoot any film they can in their native Australia, and judging by the preview screenings in 2022 that got itself right into a bidding war at Sundance the following year that fit for (successful) distribution in the States by A24, one might want to inquire further about where these folks can go from here. 

One thing that can be said is that it is an effectively paced film for a debut, one that doesn't go for cheap scares in 95 minutes. It makes a modern tale of possession through a ceramic hand that is basically done as if one was going through peer pressure (oh if only folks tried out weird hands rather than things such, as, say whippets). So yes, it starts out involving folks trying out a hand and being recorded when evidently letting the spirit in for about 90 seconds. Of course, one little hiccup can throw all of the fun (or "content", to be wry) out the window when the dread of seeing something hit closer to home looms. For that, it will strike as a dividing line between folks who will really appreciate the character-driven horror that isn't reliant on too much gore and goes for selective moments to twist the knife...and folks who react in their own ways to folks believing films are really "unsettling". I appreciate the effort the film takes to deliver surprises, but for me, the best aspect may very well be the fact that the film muddles through a foundation of the increasingly weird situations that come from "nay, don't slam the ceramic hand into pieces" for a dutiful ending above all. Well, that, and those select shock moments with effects that don't betray the ambitions set out by the filmmakers. Simply put, it is a decent effort, and it invites the curiosity for what other type of scares could come from the filmmakers (well, I don't mean it sequel-baits itself, but God only knows). As such, the group of fresh faces (read: Australians who are more familiar in their country moreso than ours, to their credit) fit the tone set put in making a feature that doesn't seem adrift enough for an American to stumble away from, which makes it pretty quick to go with these folks. Wilde carries the film about to where you might hope to see in a distinct manner that comes from the dilemma of bewitched terror. The other performances are fine, but it really is more her story rather than one to set folks up to be picked off, at least for the most part. It is a story about grief and the human element in reaction to that for which the film bases its self. Of course, there are those moments where I found a bit dark amusement eithin the plight of such weird befuddlement, so your milage may vary. I don't know, maybe I am just am the kind of person who favors the visceral timing of other horror movies, or maybe it merits further viewing, but I found it just fine, perhaps not the surprise I thought but more of an adequate burn rather than a straight burner of horror. The dread is around, I just found it moderately present rather thar a great terror to erase the little doubts that arise from thinking about horror films (at least this is one that tries to rely on phones rather than shying away from it). Going into it cold will help with expectations that one might have. As a whole, Talk to Me is a solid effort, one that merits curiosity for the people behind it within perspective and ambition to make their Australian identity more than just a filming ground that I can give a good deal of respect to.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Well, well, here we are at the end of July at 38 reviews. In my book, it is a modern record worth mentioning in the history of Movie Night, since the only other big month of 38 was June 2012, part of the old era. This is the first month ever with a review for every day (which I thought would be fun to do after realizing the pattern around the 10th), and I hope you enjoyed the quality of the reviews for such a historic month. August obviously will have its own sort of normal post rate for useful reviews that will be part of a theme, as was the case the last two Augusts. Stay tuned.

Suzume.

Review #2003: Suzume.

Cast: 

Nanoka Hara (Suzume Iwato), Hokuto Matsumura (Souta Munakata), Eri Fukatsu (Tamaki Iwato), Shôta Sometani (Minoru Okabe), Sairi Itô (Rumi Ninomiya), Kotone Hanase (Chika Amabe), Kana Hanazawa (Tsubame Iwato), Matsumoto Hakuō II (Hitsujirō Munakata), Ryunosuke Kamiki (Tomoya Serizawa), Ann Yamane (Daijin), and Aimi (Miki) Written and Directed by Makoto Shinkai.

Review: 

"There are a lot of these issues that I think we need to come face to face with that demand our attention. But it’s hard to face them in a way or put them into a context where younger audiences will be open to discussing it. So in some ways, I think Suzume is connecting the older and younger generations through this sort of communal or unified experience. "

Admittedly, I haven't had too much to spend on anime films as I would like to cover, probably because one can only cover so much ground (Japan, perhaps not surprisingly, is the most prolific non-American topic on Movie Night, taking up nearly 30% of the films listed as world cinema, which has only taken up around six percent of these 2,003 reviews). But one thing that definitely matters most is finding a new director to introduce to the lexicon (of course, this particular director has been dubbed by some as "Miyazaki's heir", so me using "new" is a bit ironic). Born in Koumi, Japan, Makoto Shinkai found influence for his passion as a youth to manga and anime when he was a teenager; he graduated from study of Japanese literature at Chuo University to work at Falcolm, a video game company where he made video clips and graphic design. In 1999, he made his debut into animation with "She and Her Cat", which was done with hand-drawn illustrations and 3D done in Adobe After Effects, for which he had the help of three others in creating a five-minute short done in monochrome. He quit Falcom in order to work on a new original animation, which became Voices of a Distant Star (2002). He made his debut as a feature director with The Place Promised in Our Early Days (2004). Since then, he has directed six further films (one being an anthology), with Your Name (2016) probably being the one that sticks out amongst people more familiar with Shinkai. That film, along with this one, were inspired by the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami (which led to the death of thousands of people); as such, the movie is both a road movie along a fantasy adventure. As is the case with his other films, it was produced by CoMix Wave Films with him as director and writer.

It is probably not a coincidence that the film, released in late 2022, managed to find a release into theaters here because of its widespread success in its native Japan, as it soon ranked up there as one of the highest-attended films in Japan...ever. You know, the thing about watching a movie with subtitles in a theater is that it is undoubtedly better to enjoy it with a complete sense of calm. Well, that, or with no one else around so you can enjoy your own mood without problem, which goes double for a movie that features someone turned into a chair early on. But it is an interesting movie because of what ends up happening beyond first appearances, which mainly involves the trouble of trying to deal with opening doors without first looking at what we have behind us. In other words, it is tying up losing ends that matter most rather than leaving things to spiral out of control, whether that involves bubbling tension or, well, mythical worms. It grows on you as a coming-of-age film that soothes the soul in wondering what matters most when it comes to memory that its moments of crisp visuals (for the most part, as the CG animation is iffy) to go along with a generally interesting adventure that checks the marks for interest without turning into the complete paint-by-number venture. This was the first anime role for Hara, and she does pretty well in exhibiting the vulnerability required in a role that adjusts on the fly to the events happening around them, which is key in a road movie that sees plenty of presences around her, which works probably a bit better than the lingering romance. Matsumura proves fine, representing the struggle of trying to maintain one's sense of self while keeping a bond with Hara that makes for a useful bond. The rest of the passersby folks (whether it involves relatives or a magic cat) prove involving enough to make this an interesting atmosphere to remind one that being wrapped up in fantasy doesn't necessarily one has to leave people behind on the way there, as signified by the dynamic between Fukatsu and Hara. As a whole, it makes for a play at learning to closing one's emotional doors while also having a worthy adventure for 122 minutes that will prove most of your time well. Being a pretty good anime film will probably be more than enough for those curious enough to do this sort of film, so take that for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Tár.

Review #1965: Tár.

Cast: 

Cate Blanchett (Linda Tarr/Lydia Tár), Nina Hoss (Sharon Goodnow), Noémie Merlant (Francesca Lentini), Sophie Kauer (Olga Metkina), Julian Glover (Andris Davis), Allan Corduner (Sebastian Brix), Mark Strong (Eliot Kaplan), Sylvia Flote (Krista Taylor), Adam Gopnik (himself), Mila Bogojevic (Petra), Zethphan Smith-Gneist (Max) Written and Directed by Todd Field.

Review: 

"Well, I'd been thinking about this character for a very long time and sort of been asking myself, you know, some questions of how we look at power, you know? Like, who has it? Who feeds it? Who benefits? You know, and from the beginning of time, that hasn't really been a question."

Admittedly, defining a director by the number of films directed is pretty dubious. But it does lead to interesting discussions, as is the case with Todd Field. Born in Pomona, California but raised in Portland, Oregon, he honed his interests in music and acting, with his debut in the latter being in 1986. His interest in directing came in 1992, which began a slew of short films with the American Film Institute. In 2001, he made his feature film debut as the director and co-writer of In the Bedroom, an independent film success. He returned in 2006 with Little Children, which was a critical hit. However, his third feature film did not come for sixteen years, which occurred due to a variety of projects dying in development (of course, he also had the pleasure of parenthood as well, so he obviously had a point in setting a sight of doing particular material he wanted). Field wrote the script specifically in the hopes of getting Blanchett (and only her) to star in the film. Field might be one of very few people to benefit from a car crash, oddly enough. He had been told by Blanchett's agent that she would be too busy to work on any more projects for three years before he got into a car crash. Apparently, the agent felt sorry enough about hearing of the wreck that she stated that Field could be allowed to send Blanchett the script for her to read, which she liked. All diegetic music (source music) was recorded live on-set, whether that involves the piano, the cello, or the Dresden Philharmonic (used for the fictional orchestra seen in the film).

It is funny and sad at the same time to talk about a movie that came and went with mild fanfare that saw more people talk about the title character and so-called "cancel culture" rather than people seeing it. For the most part, I didn't even find the title character that particularly unlikable, instead finding a twisted pity for seeing how far a bully can go in a downfall when all they wanted to do was to be judged on their own merits that made them both a genius and, well, Tár. Hell, I actually read an article that (jokingly or not) thought that believed Tár was a real person (the name dropping of certain composers that were accused of sexual misconduct, is accurate, however). Field has stated that the film is in many ways a fractured fairy tale (since there has never actually been a female principal conductor of a major German orchestra). I would also say it is also an inversion of both the biopic and ghost story. This is the kind of movie where the lead character finds a mentor in Leonard Bernstein that is basically "I watched tapes of the famed composer and found something worth looking to".  I loathe the idea of calling a movie any certain kind of statement on something, but I will say that it most certainly is not a look into "cancel culture". Actual conductor Marin Alsop (the first woman appointed to lead a major American orchestra) slammed the movie as some sort of film that offended her as a "woman...as a conductor...as a lesbian". Besides, having a few similar characteristics to Alsop isn't particularly a bad thing when one is a movie involving an accused pervert and the other is real life (besides, isn't true equality about having ambiguous characters of all genders rather than sugarcoating?). But this is a movie about the all-corrupting nature of power, one that sees the highs and lows that come with trying to assert their status, which I think is universal beyond the genders (in other words, movies are not always going to be about likable winners making contributions to society, so pick better next time), which corrodes our ideals and fantasies until we don't even recognize ourselves. Besides, a movie can pack plenty of curiosity and interest in a subject with an (perceived) unlikable character if the execution is done right, and I believe that is the case here. Granted, it is a long and winding road to get there, but it ultimately proves worth it to those with the fortitude to see something with as much edge in descent as there is visual style present here.

In a movie with the titling style of a biopic, there is something amusing about that particular character finding it odd to see pupils interested more in the personal history and identity of a musician than their actual work. Blanchett listened to recordings of "razor-sharp, absolutely authentic public intellectual" Susan Sontag. She has stated that the character is basically one who tries to hide from both the unpleasant side of oneself and the inevitable specter of death, which she accomplishes well in ambiguity when you see the contrast between the public and private persona that are driven by sound.  As such, it probably isn't surprising that she dominates the film with a tremendous performance, one composed of such vaunted confidence as a dominator of timing and poise...which makes the eventual descent all the more entertaining. That doesn't mean the other actors are forgettable, since they each do pretty well as mere tools of transactional contrast with Blanchett, whether that involves ones engaging in complicity such as Merlant or the perfect enabler with Hoss or the perfect conniving company man in Strong. Probably the best scene to look upon her as a character is a scene where she is trying to teach a masterclass about composers and finds herself with someone not interested in Johann Sebastian Bach. It works so well in bitter amusement because of how it presents each presence in where each can be thought to be right and wrong in what ends up being a ten-minute masterclass in a long take vivisection (as executed by Field and cinematographer Florian Hoffmeister). It certainly is a movie that captures great scope for its 158-minute runtime, with Hoffmeister defining the film's visual style as "appearance, being, detachment, and intimacy", and I would say that makes this a highly interesting film to let sift in your mind, one where the second half is undoubtedly best to sift through in dissecting a downfall first-hand. Of course, the nature of its ending and the ways it gets there is entirely up to the viewer to see if it pays off in splendid ways or not (it does for me, with those last moments of seeing where the new skin of a genius at persona-inventing has led them). It is a movie all about details to look forward and backward through, one that asks probing questions about just what a genius means when it comes to the power they wield in public and private and where it can all lead to. Whether one believes it is one of the best films of the year or not, Tár is definitely an accomplishment for both its main star and director in striking power that makes it a curious film to recommend for those who look for contemporary enjoyment or to see what could happen the more times they find themselves coming back to it. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Babylon.

Review #1948: Babylon.

Cast: 

Brad Pitt (Jack Conrad), Margot Robbie (Nellie LaRoy), Diego Calva (Manny Torres), Jean Smart (Elinor St. John), Jovan Adepo (Sidney Palmer), Li Jun Li (Lady Fay Zhu), P. J. Byrne (Max), Lukas Haas (George Munn), Olivia Hamilton (Ruth Adler), Max Minghella (Irving Thalberg), Rory Scovel (The Count), Katherine Waterston (Estelle Conrad), Tobey Maguire (James McKay), Flea (Bob Levine), Jeff Garlin (Don Wallach), Eric Roberts (Robert Roy), Ethan Suplee (Wilson), Samara Weaving (Constance Moore), Olivia Wilde (Ina Conrad), Spike Jonze (Otto), and Telvin Griffin (Reggie) Written and Directed by Damien Chazelle (#1146 - First Man and #1577 - La La Land)

Review: 

I am sure you remember this film, one released at the last month of the year that is already considered a massive flop with audiences as a "polarizing" movie. There have been quite a few films that are basically "moviemaking love letters", such as Singin' in the Rain, The Player, Boogie Nights, The Artist, or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Perhaps there is inspiration taken from Kenneth Anger's infamous 1959 book Hollywood Babylon, a book about alleged scandals of Hollywood stars from the silent era that is full of flat-out fallacies, myths, and exaggerations (most notably claiming that Clara Bow once had a night of relations with the entire USC football team). So yes, there are mostly fictional characters present in the film (that take inspiration from real-life folks such as Clara Bow) with a few real names such as William Randolph Hearst or James Wong Howe. One thing I can respect is the fact that Chazelle and company had the balls to actually release the film in theaters. Yes, it seems a bit silly for any studio to need $250 million to apparently break even with a film about a tale of over-ambition and excess in the early Hollywood era, but it is always worth it to see films like this in a theater, packed or not. Decadence and depravity never looked so good in a theater, and I was happy to see this tale of ridiculousness, albeit in an empty theater that meant I could loudly watch the movie on my own terms.

Obviously, any scholars of the silent era can attest to the accuracy of a film depicting a certain time and age. But since we are watching a film that is trying to have its cake and eating it too, how much does it matter? Is it really important that the rage of the time might have been more about morphine rather than cocaine? (Wallace Reid died from trying to kick the habit of it, incidentally). To me, the movie may be presented as a "comedy-drama", but to me it really serves as a twisted "Hollywood Horror" story. I don't think I have ever seen a film that has such a love and hatred of everything it wants to be about, one that practically is screaming for its own head to be cut off so they can eat themselves whole. What other movie shows has a litany of images such as elephant defecating on people, urination on people, projectile vomiting, and the uncomfortable truth that, well, anyone is disposable in the moviemaking world. It is as self-indulgent as you would expect for a film that is 189 minutes long that is clearly not for everyone. I respect Chazelle for daring to make movies that try to be distinct from each other, whether that involves overrated LA love-letters such as La La Land or calm biopics such as First Man. It is the craft of obsession that matters most for Chazelle - now, whether that means Babylon is anything more than a glorified campground for debauchery is another matter. I enjoyed the movie, but it is understandable that someone else won't be as big on it as a gonzo weirdo film to experience in all of its senses that it draws out for three hours. Watching a movie that takes inspiration from the stories of people such as John Gilbert, Clara Bow, and Dorothy Arzner isn't a terrible thing to waste. 

Robbie has manic energy and physical bravado that swallows the film whole in dazzling charm that is meant to emulate "it girls" such as Clara Bow (it is Bow who once stated that she just had to think about "home" when it came to crying on cue). Of course, her self-destruction isn't quite like Bow, but Robbie makes the role her own in ferocious edge that makes it an absorbing performance beyond just being a brash fighter from the ground up, which makes the resulting tragedy all the more interesting. The same goes for Pitt in all of his bravado and melancholy, representing the falling star with tremendous confidence in where he believes the role must go to make it that more poetic in how it ends up. These two may be weird and wild in their gusto, but they are still people that you can still find worth your attention. Calva is fine to act around them, with a semi-effective story of soul-stirring passion that isn't too far removed from the action or the bigger names that come and go. Smart provides worthy support in acid-tongued charm that would make Hedda Hopper blush. Adepo and Jun Li are neat in their own ways when it comes to filling an ensemble of a certain time and place with roles that aren't merely there for the sake of being there, whether that involves a cabaret act or a particularly somber scene of a man being convinced to darken his skin for the sake of "film". The best all-around sequence is one involving the depiction of a filming day that sees a variety of amusing mishaps on the way to movie magic. Of course, the sequence involving Robbie and company trying to get one successful take on a sound set is exquisite in all of the painful ways that make it both tragic and amusing. Pitt and his inevitable fall from the stars is a close second, but that scene with Smart involving how one could be immortal in a sense by what they did on celluloid is right on the spot.

Personally, the supporting cast members are far more interesting to see. Calva, Smart, Adepo, Jun Li, yeah sure. Forget Garlin and all of those other names, this is a movie where you can see actors like Eric Roberts and Ethan Suplee have little scenes to make their mark (the former drunkenly stumbles onto a snake fight and the latter spits a bunch, but still). Hell, Tobey Maguire and his makeup that reminds one of a ghoul going around trying to show a producer a subterranean gathering space for debauched party of the underground is splendid to view in a perverse sense. You haven't lived in the world of weird film-land until you see what the hell one does for "fun" with a pale druggie that could top a man eating a rat. The bottom line that comes from the film is that a movie takes plenty of hard-nosed circumstance and crap to work its way into something for the rest of the world to see, and that it sure was a party for those who got to be a part of it. Any good movie worth their salt will have splendid cinematography, which is the case here by Linus Sandgren, as this really is a movie that pops in all the right ways, while Justin Hurwitz provides worthwhile music. The only thing that may rankle anyone daring enough to see the film all the way through in the row of debauchery is the ending, since it is a film that wants to have the whole cake of running through the gamut in a montage of films that dawned after the silent era came and went (such as Singin' in the Rain or 2001: A Space Odyssey, for example). It just seems quite unnecessary to have the montage for what really could've just ended a bit shorter when it comes to the image of a man looking back at a long-gone era interpreted by the status quo of Hollywood and weeping. I guess it depends on how one feels about a movie all about the debauchery of people in Hollywood going from weird and wild in the 1920s to, well, sound and less wild in the sound era...ending with a "gee, look at what film became!". Maybe that shameless rug pull is supposed to be the point. So, is the film and the response it received from audience some sort of representation of the movie-making landscape in 2022 when it comes to the divide between streaming and theater-aimed features or between the divide of "blockbusters" versus "movies for adults"? Having seen the film for myself, I can only state this: who gives a shit? Either you will like this movie for its sheer audacity or not care for it, it does not get any simpler than that. I personally think it is a secret film in human horror that screams at the viewer as much as it screams at itself. I doubt I will return to seeing this film in the near future, but screw it, the film is pretty weird, pretty loud, and all around...pretty bold to do what it does in wild child style. The fate of the film and its plot may be inevitable, but that is where the fun is.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Another year, another time. This closes out Movie Night's twelfth year of operation (hence the end of using a particular twelve-sided shape in every title card, hint hint), which has seen a review ten times on New Years' Eve, and this is the third straight Eve to close out with a movie from the year that was. 2022 ended with 1,781 total reviews, which means I did 167 reviews for Season 12. This is the fifth busiest year in Movie Night history, but the best is yet to come. Review #2000 looms, but the big thing is the advent of theme months to start the first quarter of the year to spotlight plenty of new and familiar faces in cinema. With that in mind, Have a Happy New Year in 2023.

Puss in Boots: The Last Wish.

Review #1947: Puss in Boots: The Last Wish.

Cast: 

Antonio Banderas (Puss in Boots), Salma Hayek (Kitty Softpaws), Harvey Guillén (Perrito), Florence Pugh (Goldilocks), Olivia Colman (Mama Bear), Ray Winstone (Papa Bear), Samson Kayo (Baby Bear), John Mulaney ("Big" Jack Horner), Wagner Moura (Wolf / Death), Da'Vine Joy Randolph (Mama Luna), Anthony Mendez (Doctor), and Kevin McCann (the Talking Cricket) Directed by Joel Crawford and Januel Mercado.

Review: 

You may or may not remember that Puss in Boots (2011) was eleven years ago. That was the culmination of years of development because of how much interest there was by DreamWorks Animation to do a feature film based on the character inspired by the fairy tale character of the same name (the origin of the fairy tale character is rooted in Italy, but the film character is depicted as having Spanish origin - incidentally, Banderas is the voice for the Spanish and Italian dubs of the character). Puss first was introduced in Shrek 2 (2004). The influences for the character are pretty evident, ranging from Errol Flynn to Zorro to bits taken straight from the voice actor in Banderas. Appreciation for the character were enough to scuttle the original idea to make a direct-to-video movie and instead make a theatrical effort instead, one that continued the trend of amusing takes on fairy tale characters (such as Jack and Jill, for example). It was a pretty good movie, but I think you can forgive me for having a bit of a hazy memory and doubt that this would be anything too special. The success of the film led to plans for a second film pretty quickly, but development took a considerable amount of time (such as restructuring of the script by 2015); an entire animated television series ran from 2015 to 2018 in that eleven-year gap between films, just to make the point clear. It was production designer Nate Wragg that pushed the idea for the animation to resemble a fairy tale illustration. So yes, 3D animation combines with painterly textures that might make one think of Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018). The screenplay was done by Paul Fisher and Tommy Swerdlow, while Swerdlow co-wrote the story with Tom Wheeler (the screenwriter / story co-writer on the previous film). This is the third feature film for Joel Crawford, who debuted as a director with The Croods: A New Age (2020) after working with DreamWorks Animation in the story artist department since 2006 on numerous films, while this is the first feature effort for Januel Mercado (he serves as "co-director", which in my mind deserves recognition).

It dawned on me pretty early on that I have only seen three DreamWorks Animation films in a theater when they were new: Madagascar (2005), Shrek the Third (2007), and Shrek Forever After (2010). The funny thing is that this movie actually became better than any of those films by about the halfway point. It aims for something not seen much in the prior film or the Shrek films in the eye for a darker tone that isn't leaden with edgy humor but instead a celebration of adventure. How many animated films even think about the subject of one's mortality? It manages to improve on the original by cultivating an adventure and dynamic between its main group that doesn't hinge on being just like the first feature, which basically means aiming itself as a take on the Spaghetti Western. The opening sequence alone is worth watching for the dazzlement it inspires in re-introducing the character in all of his "rockstar glory" (if you will) before launching its key setup: facing Death. The fact that one gets to see just how one can lose eight lives in the blink of an eye is pitch-black amusing. It is interesting to see how Banderas has kept this role fresh and interesting beyond just playing a silly cat that happens to look a bit like Zorro. The mischievous charm present in his last four vocal performances as the character is still here, which is now tinged with fear that he handles with compelling edge required to make the stakes all the more important. We like the actor and character already, so it isn't too much of a leap here, but Banderas isn't merely on autopilot in terms of just playing schtick. Hayek is just as charming in allure (the only returning actor besides Banderas), still showing worthy chemistry with Banderas. In a way, it makes sense that Guillen is part of this key trio, since the last film did have a trio with Banderas and Hayek, albeit in a different manner when it came to a quest. Guillen is the comic relief that in a sense is also the spirit of the whole film: carefree and wandering on its own path, and I think that results in a pretty decent performance, one with decent chuckles that don't derail the proceedings (well, maybe the bit about trying to do cute eyes, but other than that...). Moura makes for a compelling figure to loom over the proceedings, since, well, he is playing Death (literally). Granted, it isn't as prolific in time on screen as Mulaney, but Moura still makes for a solid foil with the proper delivery one would hope to see. As for Mulaney, he makes a chuckler as the other key adversary looming over the proceedings that reminds me of another Western pastiche: Harvey Korman from Blazing Saddles. This is basically a compliment in terms of timing worth every moment seen on screen. The quartet of reimagined storybook characters in Pugh-Colman-Winstone-Kayo is a nice one in terms of silly wannabee heavies, ones with desires and quirks that are actually compelling and make for an interesting dynamic.

Whether there is another adventure involving this character or not (green-skinned ogre or not...), I would say that it proved to be a useful use of my time when it comes to seeing animation done right. It has an inevitable moral about the nature of figuring out what one really wants, but it handles that with general patience and weaving that doesn't make for any easy outs. The movie feels like a breeze at 102 minutes, managing to show plenty of interesting visuals (such as the climax in a star) that make for a generally involving time. When it comes to making arguments about animated movies not merely just for children, this is a pretty good indicator of an animated film that can work for anyone. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Avatar: The Way of Water.

Review #1942: Avatar: The Way of Water.

Cast: 

Sam Worthington (Jake Sully), Zoe Saldana (Neytiri), Sigourney Weaver (Kiri / Dr. Grace Augustine), Stephen Lang (Colonel Miles Quaritch), Kate Winslet (Ronal), Cliff Curtis (Tonowari), Joel David Moore (Norm), CCH Pounder (Mo'at), Edie Falco (General Ardmore), Brendan Cowell (Scoresby), Jemaine Clement (Dr. Garvin), Jamie Flatters (Neteyam), Britain Dalton (Lo'ak), Trinity Jo-Li Bliss (Tuk), Jack Champion (Spider), Bailey Bass (Tsireya), Filip Geljo (Aonung), Duane Evans Jr. (Rotxo), and Giovanni Ribisi (Selfridge) Directed by James Cameron (#001 - Terminator 2: Judgement Day, #063 - The Terminator, #388 - Avatar, #574 - Aliens, #606 - True Lies, #1515 - Titanic)

Review: 

 "It will be a natural extension of all the themes, and the characters, and the spiritual undercurrents. Basically, if you loved the first movie, you're gonna love these movies, and if you hated it, you're probably gonna hate these. If you loved it at the time, and you said later you hated it, you're probably gonna love these."

Honestly, I hadn't thought of Avatar (2009) too much since I saw it the one time in 2013. Aside for the countless jokes about it being a blue version of Dances with Wolves or being like Ferngully: The Last Rainforest, I didn't really anticipate a sequel coming out that would elevate what I felt was pretty average fare. It can be granted that it was a movie that succeeded on the goals of presenting an old-fashioned jungle adventure with some sort of environmental conscience that basically took inspiration from countless adventure and science fiction books that made a basic setup in order to show some really pretty special effects (if you saw it in 3D, well, that probably went double). Cameron initially stated that the success of Avatar would guarantee two sequels. In 2016 (two years after Cameron had stated there would be sequels released in 2014 and 2015), Cameron stated that there would be four sequels, all shot simultaneously (with this film being done for a budget over $350 million), for which the sequels would have sperate stories that "have an overall arc inclusive of the first film." Here is a fun writing listing: the story was done by Cameron, Rick Jaffa, and Amanda Silver, while the screenplay was done by Cameron, Jaffa, Silver, and Josh Friedman and Shane Salerno. Nine of the original cast members from the first film return for this film, which had started shooting in 2017. Trying to do performance capture underwater ended up taking over a year to do because a whole process had to be invented for it (keep in mind, actors had to undergo training to be able to breathe longer than what you might expect, and a record for longest breath held during filming of an underwater scene was set...at seven minutes).

I will give this much credit: the best way to see the film is the way all films should be seen...in a theater. Granted, as much as I don't particularly care for 3D, it was a pretty interesting experience to immerse oneself. So yes, if you want a film that has turned Avatar into a generational family saga that happens to dabble with themes of environmentalism and colonization with a runtime of 192 minutes, here you are. Would you be surprised to know that the movie is a great visual experience but only just an average epic besides that element? It manages to be both diverting and amusing in all of the weird ways that I had anticipated, one that plays off many interesting viewing moments to go along with dialogue that is either family cliche or flat-out odd cliche (hearing "cuz", for example). Yes, a movie made in 2022 looks pretty, big shock. It is pretty good, although I would hope for more when it comes to the next film. It lingers on said imagery at times, whether that involves certain moments of higher frame rate or images from the sea or...you get the idea. 192 minutes means one viewing will either prove fair for the theater experience or daunting. Eh, it was fine. Oh, right, there is acting in the film. Worthington technically does fine in the morph to "family man", albeit with voiceover lines that basically states the obvious. Saldana is the other side of the family coin of, well, doing things. Technically this is a case of the story moving over to the offspring, but I surely remember her having more to do in the first film. Lang is the highlight for me, one who is abrasive as ever but still engaging enough to see where one could at least see how people would rally behind him. Besides, him playing the exposition of just how he returns is at least interesting when coming from him (and yay, he gets to come back for more, so I can only hope he gets to do more cartoonish things - maybe he'll shoot a space whale and make it dignified). Winslet and Curtis make fairly decent new people to do the schtick of "welcome to the sea, fellow blue-ish people". I admire Weaver taking a role where she has to play a blue teenager - granted it is a decent performance, but hey, I guess it needed to be Weaver when acting with actual teens playing blue teenagers. Of course, Champion is meant to stick out like a sore thumb as the wild child among blue people, but yea, he did start to get on my nerves after time.

By the first hour, the film has established the change from pursuit of "unobtanium" to basically trying to make a new Earth for the humans while the on-screen "Na'vi Family Robinson" makes their trip to the sea (look, I know they are called "Na'vi", but forgive me if I end up saying blue people). At least you get to see the return of Lang as the villain, if only because nobody wants to see a whole trip to the deep blue sea without some sort of weirdo new blue villain. The middle hour is pretty eventful: you get to see Avatar's version of whales with the "tulkun", the spiritual blood brothers that was reminding me to wonder just how familiar it might be to something like Free Willy (1993). So yes, space whales. Take a guess what happens with the space whales when there is one outcast among them. At any rate, don't forget about the weird conflicts between the reef people (i.e. green people) and the blue folks. I'll be honest, I did find it amusingly tiresome to remember that there are three siblings to this Na'vi family alongside two adoptees. When it finally labors itself past the 120-minute mark, now you get to see a battle to save the space whales from having their stuff sucked out for anti-aging serum (yes) and being drawn out by the villain. At least the crab-mecha thing (the time for getting proper names for things is long past) is fun, because god knows the action in the last act is probably the most interesting the film gets beyond showing images in the water. At any rate, by the time you finish this mix of school movies, animal flicks, and possibly The Poseidon Adventure, you probably will be interested in just what the hell James Cameron wants to do in this "family saga", where it will continue to push the elements of where special effects can go to go alongside wondering just how self-serious this story will go. I dug the movie, but any good movie has clear elements that could have gone down with the ship with lesser hands, and this is most evident here. This was a movie about family being everything along with the message that the environment (specifically water) will kick your ass if you try to mess with it...I think. Will there be material present in the further sequels that make this even more of a true epic, or will it be something that you could lightly make fun of it (probably while doing certain substances beforehand) while looking at the pretty images? Time will tell for the third film, set for release in the late 2020s...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.