Predators.

Review #1722: Predators.

Cast: 

Adrien Brody (Royce), Alice Braga (Isabelle), Topher Grace (Edwin), Walton Goggins (Stans), Oleg Taktarov (Nikolai), Louis Ozawa Changchien (Hanzo), Mahershala Ali (Mombasa), Danny Trejo (Cuchillo), Laurence Fishburne (Ronald Noland), with Derek Mears, Carey Jones & Brian Steele (the Predators) Directed by Nimród Antal.

Review: 

Well, I suppose the Predator series needed to do something again to maintain relevancy. Robert Rodriguez had a script in mind for a film in the franchise since 1994, right around the time he was developing Desperado (1995), which he described as just a writing assignment (i.e. one that was designed to try to entice Arnold Schwarzenegger, albeit with no budgetary limitations); 20th Century Fox didn't have interest for fifteen years, and while the treatment wasn't actually used, Rodriguez did serve as producer (using his company Troublemaker Studios). Alex Litvak and Michael Finch served as writers for the film, while Hungarian-American director Nimrod Antal found his way through to serve as director; he was best known for his feature debut Kontroll (2003), which received international notice. Honestly, the movie sure has a thing for killing off the most interesting seeming people. On one side, you have a wacko Fishburne and his imaginary friend in a glorified 15-minute cameo, then on another side you have a guy with three fingers that can still use a sword that doesn't talk much, and another side you have Danny Trejo playing Danny Trejo. But sure, go ahead with Topher Grace as the totally innocent one among these weirdos. I think you can take three guesses who ends up persisting through to at least the climax, and the only curiosity is to see exactly how predictable it can get. That isn't to say that Brody is the wrong choice for what is needed, because the filmmakers wanted to home in reference points in from the first film without having a burly lead, which I can get behind. Technically speaking, the only memorable film involving the title creature is the first one, so that is a slight point. Of course, by trying to hone so many nods and references to the film from 23 years prior, the actual movie one finds is just incredibly average in comparison. 

To be fair, the movie has interest to generate, mostly with the fact that there are a few predators to look for that don't look like CGI abominations. Besides, I find they are more interesting than the ensemble cast turns out in the overall endgame, mostly because one wonders how much of a movie could be done with just the feuds between the predators as a whole. Ah, but one needs things to seem just a bit familiar to make sure you aren't watching something that dares to not sequel-bait itself. I don't even think Alien vs. Predator managed to bait itself as much as this one did, but then again it is amusing to think of one movie trying to ignore the other that really are more alike than they think (in terms of overall energy, not so much in plot). The actors are okay, but the script gives them the bare minimum to work with when it comes to anything besides cursory moments (and swearing, but that is probably expected and/or easy to see coming). As such, Brody is okay with the strong silent type that comes from a lead role intending to be a stark difference from the usual leads in the series, but really it just means that one is begging for someone with a bit more charisma than just wry disposition (i.e. dry), where grunts and gravel voices go about as far as a heavy weight put into a kiddie pool. Braga plays the peacemaker to these cardboard figures, and that is basically more of a shrug than a compliment from me. Grace is the odd duck for a movie that thinks it is going to really be clever with using him for the climax. This works about as well as you think: not very well. He isn't a bad actor, but it is such an obvious role. Goggins is kind of interesting, in that one could probably make more out of the fact that a guy playing a killer/rapist is the most interesting presence in a film like this. Taktarov and Ozawa are there to say a few words, but the latter at least gets to have an interesting sword fight. This was actually an early role for Ali in a decade that soon saw him turn into a star; naturally, this means he plays someone with the bare minimum personality slated to vanish (ditto for Trejo). Honestly,  Fishburne and his one note weirdo role is more interesting in the span of nearly 10 minutes than anything else in the film- and it isn't even that drawn out! The movie runs at 107 minutes, which is a fair pace despite my middling feelings on the matter. By the time the movie tries to bait a further adventure into the middling lives of gravel voiced elite killers, I was pretty checked out. I didn't hate what I saw, but honestly, there just isn't anything here that really stuck with me. It may be better than previous features with the Predator, but that isn't saying much. To me, this is barely better than if someone had just remade the original movie, but at that point one might just stay home. Green blood may look gooey, but that isn't enough to make a proper gore film. Well, the film was fairly successful upon release (making three times its budget, which was $40 million), and yet the next film in the series (The Predator, I am not joking) followed along different lines in its story, and it probably doesn't help that only two actors have ever been in more than one Predator film. Honestly, the only thing this will inspire is the argument that one could just stick with the original feature and not lose a beat. Having an admiration of the original film is a nice ambition, but it does not ultimately make for a nice effort.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

King Kong (2005).

Review #1540: King Kong.

Cast: 

Naomi Watts (Ann Darrow), Jack Black (Carl Denham), Adrien Brody (Jack Driscoll), Thomas Kretschmann (Captain Englehorn), Colin Hanks (Preston), Jamie Bell (Jimmy), with Andy Serkis (Motion capture of Kong / Lumpy), Fred Tatasciore (Vocal sound of Kong), Evan Parke (Benjamin "Ben" Hayes), Kyle Chandler (Bruce Baxter), John Sumner (Herb), Lobo Chan (Choy), and Craig Hall (Mike) Directed by Peter Jackson (#1486 - Bad Taste and #1507 - Heavenly Creatures)

Review: 

"No film has captivated my imagination more than King Kong (1933). I'm making movies today because I saw this film when I was 9 years old. It has been my sustained dream to reinterpret this classic story for a new age."

I don't know if you needed to hear another description of King Kong (1933), but most probably know it as a great classic, one that has tremendous stature as an adventure in its revolutionary effects for the time (done in stop-motion and miniatures by Willis O'Brien and his crew) that can still hold its own in entertainment after over 80 years since its release. Granted, not every aspect of the film has exactly aged gracefully (with the occasional wooden actor or so), but it definitely stands true in the ace of films that came in subsequent years involving its titular gorilla. Its sequel (Son of Kong, released the same year!) was a rush job that did not capture the magic of what made things special from before. King Kong vs. Godzilla (1962), while fairly decent in entertainment, is a hodgepodge of ideas that benefits its latter monster in every which way (particularly with its effects) as a Toho film (I haven't see their other production in King Kong Escapes, which is a co-production with Rankin/Bass of all things). The 1976 remake of the film was described by me as a "jumbled flow of effects and 70's style filmmaking that can be hit or miss", which translates to just not being good enough (Jackson described it as a disappointment as a kid and later called it "kind of kitsch"). I suppose it only makes sense that if someone wanted to make another King Kong film, it would have to be something really intriguing for a big effects director to make on a big budget and big scope. Jackson called the 1933 film his favorite, and he had been offered the chance to do a remake by Universal Pictures that would've been released in 1998, but worries by the studio over the upcoming releases of Godzilla (1998) and Mighty Joe Young (1998) led to them stalling by 1997, with Jackson going on to do work on adapting The Lord of the Rings to film. The success of those films led to Universal approaching Jackson to do the film he wanted, with a budget that would reach over $200 million by the time it was released, with Jackson co-writing the effort with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens.

Why don't I first start with the stuff easiest to highlight. I do applaud the idea of keeping the film in the 1930s, mostly because we are talking about a film needing a reason to go to a strange island to do a movie and find a big gorilla - it would seem a bit clunky to do that in 2005 as opposed to 1933, I assert. There is great care done here to make a worthy period piece in the costumes and feel that I appreciate more than if it was just a monster film lost in itself, particularly since it fooled me a bit with its digital effect enough to make not make fun of it as a bluescreen-fest. Kong himself is a tremendous accomplishment, as they have captured a great effect that towers well over everything present. The advent of these effects and having gorilla footage to study means that Serkis accomplishes wonders in a motion capture body suit that goes with Tatasciore in vocals to make a useful curiosity. Watts handles the challenge of spending a majority of time with Kong with resilience and charm that make for an interesting 1-2 act that makes a special bond with Kong that doesn't seem forced or ridiculous. Black (weird wig and all) is generally enjoyable, seeming to have a grasp on the manner of Orson Welles with some of the drive and compelling spirit of a carnival barker that doesn't seem too much of a cheesy bit. Of the others, I would say probably Chandler has it best, mostly because he seems to be having fun playing a ham without doing a wink to the audience. 

Ultimately, it seems Jackson wanted to have his cake and eat it too in every minuet detail, considering the run-time of 187 minutes. It becomes a case of excess overriding an epic that can only go so far for enjoyment before bashing you over the head with what is believed to be needed in a remake. It seems more prescient in keeping a mix of wooden acting with fair acting than it does in making a period piece I actually want to see play all the way out for three hours (which can be extended 20 minutes longer in an extended cut if you are into that). The easiest thing to get out of the way immediately is one shining fact: Nobody, and I repeat, nobody, needs a whole thing about the backgrounds of the ship crew going to Skull Island, because very little people will actually care about it. The performances for these folks are...okay, but do I need a scene of someone discussing reading Heart of Darkness? How about details of someone being a World War I veteran? Cannon fodder-I mean creature fodder doesn't need this much time, because I am here to watch a gorilla and some creatures along with some sort of affinity between gorilla and woman, thank you very much. Of course the true offender in all of this is Brody, who easily hands in a bland performance without even having to reach the gorilla, and it is so baffling to see him present in a film that begs for some sort of charisma or interest from him when trying to act with Watts. By the time the film trudges onto the island and delivers some creatures to us, one is just begging to not have to hear from most of these folks ever again. One can appreciate the nuance of seeing vine action between creatures that we know aren't really real as opposed to having to pretend to care about a conversation about bravery or the dealings of the ship - Somehow, I remember Kong: Skull Island handling all of this significantly better twelve years later. If I don't think about the fluid quality of acting and see Kong, it works out only to the point of making an average film because of its obvious length. I almost wonder what would happen if you made a film just set on the island with no buildup on the ship and go from there (I shudder to think about a line-for-line remake of the 1933 film, although this takes lines from that film). But at least the climax back to New York works itself out in being interesting and capturing the spirit of tragedy when it comes to gorilla-on-plane action, wonderful in its execution that gives Watts and Serkis their moment to do what is needed (and keeping Brody chucked to the short-shrift where he belongs) before that repeated line to close out this film as was done before comes up. On the whole, I liked most of what I saw in the parts that matter to make a film worthy enough for a recommendation, even if its test of scope and patience may prove frustrating for others. Jackson wanted his tribute to the original mean something, and when compared to films that came following from that model, I'd say he made a commendable effort worth some credit in innovation. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Jacket.

Review #1142: The Jacket.

Cast: 
Adrien Brody (Jack Starks), Keira Knightley (Jackie Price), Kris Kristofferson (Dr. Thomas Becker), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Dr. Beth Lorenson), Kelly Lynch (Jean Price), Brad Renfro (The Stranger), Daniel Craig (Rudy Mackenzie), Steven Mackintosh (Dr. Hopkins), Brendan Coyle (Damon), and Mackenzie Phillips (Nurse Hardling) Directed by John Maybury.

Review: 
The Jacket certainly has an interesting premise to it, with a story from Marc Rocco and Tom Bleecker that was turned into a screenplay written by Massy Tadjedlin. Maybury stated that the film was "loosely based a true story that became a Jack London story." The story he is referring to is the 1915 novel The Star Rover (known as The Jacket for its release in the United Kingdom), which is a novel about a man put into a canvas jacket while in prison that tightly laced his body. The description of the device were based on interviews with Ed Morrell, a convict who was subject to the device during some of his time at San Quentin State Prison in the late 19th century/early 20th century. In any case, this is a movie that certainly likes to think of itself as one step ahead of the audience, although I would like to argue that the film actually staggers along with the audience while dangling some keys in front of them. Perhaps you manage to get more out of this psychological thriller/horror film than I do, because I found this to be a pretty average experience that doesn't stand out as much as it probably should.

Brody heads the cast, and he is occasionally effective, such as with the scenes at the mental institution and the jacket sequences, certainly looking the part. However, I don't find him to be as interesting to follow along with in the other sequences in "2007", being a bit too underplayed. Knightley does alright for what is needed, but this is a movie that perhaps needs a duo a bit more interesting to follow along with, especially since their chemistry is quickly established, and yet it doesn't feel particularly convincing. Think about this - Brody's character meets her character as a kid in 1992, then "meets" her again in 2007 - and they unite to solve a mystery surrounding the former character - and then they fall in love with each other, somehow. Kristofferson doesn't have as much to do as one would expect besides a few scenes that don't make him out to be too particularly menacing. A film like this really needs someone to rally around and rally against (while presenting some sort of interesting ideas to think about), and this one doesn't have much for either. Leigh is fine, having her own subplot that comes and goes with about as much effect (read: minimal) as you would expect. The other cast comes and goes, but Craig stands out with some charm that comes through in his few scenes  The plot involving the jacket and the mystery about Brody's character are occasionally intriguing, but it seems to stick out more for its style shots than anything while trying to play some tricks with the narrative. Instead of being compelling or chilling, I felt more a tinge of passiveness that could've been worsened to boredom, especially since there seems to be a skeleton of a film that can really make a winner. By the time that the film sinks itself into a climax, my mood wasn't so much one of disappointment as it was just one of slight apathy. If I don't care too much about what happens with these people, is the film really worth it? On some levels the film works out fine, and there are a few times that it is creepy, but other times I just couldn't find myself buying into it fully. Despite being 103 minutes long, there just isn't enough effective moments that last enough to really make this something I can recommend definitively.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.