Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby.

Review #1706: Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby.

Cast: 

Will Ferrell (Ricky Bobby), John C. Reilly (Cal Naughton Jr), Sacha Baron Cohen (Jean Girard), Michael Clarke Duncan (Lucius Washington), Leslie Bibb (Carley Bobby), Gary Cole (Reese Bobby), Jane Lynch (Lucy Bobby), Amy Adams (Susan), Andy Richter (Gregory), Houston Tumlin (Walker Bobby), Grayson Russell (Texas Ranger Bobby), David Koechner, Ian Roberts & Jack McBrayer (Hershell, Kyle & Glenn), Pat Hingle (Larry Dennit Sr), Greg Germann (Larry Dennit Jr), Molly Shannon (Mrs. Dennit), Ted Manson (Chip), and Rob Riggle (Jack Telmont) Directed by Adam McKay (#526 - Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, #693 - Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues, #1574 - The Big Short)

Review:

There are just a few movies that are inevitable to watch, as I've said before. I was waiting to do this film for quite a while, so why not today - the fifteen year anniversary of its release? It's strange to say this, because I've had a strange time of memories when it comes to NASCAR. Honestly, I remember being a fan of racing as a kid, mostly because my dad was fan of the sport (particularly with Dale Earnhardt, as I recall); I haven't kept up with it as much, but I find it an interesting curiosity (granted, this also applies to the Indianapolis 500 but not so much with Formula One). Honestly, it is probably an interesting task to try and make a worthy movie about stock car racing when the argument about the best one at that point was between Days of Thunder and Cars (of course, one could be charitable and add The Last American Hero)? But hey, one needs a good ballad involving Talladega Superspeedway and the art of racing in the hot sun and hoping to avoid "The Big One", as the saying goes. The idea for the film came to Ferrell and McKay when the former was working on Elf (2003); despite not being huge fans of the sport, they soon got swept up in the phenomenon involved with the track experience (incidentally, Ferrell actually studied sports information at the University of Southern California). This is the second of five collaborations between director/writer McKay and Ferrell (who had met on Saturday Night Live, as McKay worked as a writer and Ferrell as a performer), who each wrote the script for this film. 

It doesn't take too many words to say that I enjoyed this one. It has fun with the sports movie formula (specifically the biopic angle) by coming off as fairly authentic in its enthusiasm for the sport (one filled with cars driving for brands, if you remember) along with having a well sense of timing and improvisation that one can see with the end credits and its various takes on certain little moments that never rides a gag for too long or overstay its welcome in 108 minutes. It rides the wave of clichés well, extolling itself about family and the spectacle of victory without condensation or fluff. Ferrell plays the title role with great relish, confident in his timing that lends itself to plenty of zingers and brash charm beyond just the race track. Reilly makes a worthy counter to Farrell, a useful second fiddle with earnest infectious charm, while Cohen zings his way through eccentricity as the main foil that plays to consistent chuckles when paired with Farrell in any type of scene, which either involves a friendly conversation about broken arms/crepes to the nature of needing to beat the other at driving. Duncan was always a solid character presence, and he certainly makes his little moments count for what is needed, made clear with an amusing sequence where he and Reilly try to "gently" help Farrell's character out of a chair and end up with two knives. The rest of the cast make it count fairly well with chuckles and warmth, whether that means with the transient (and brilliant) Cole or zippiness in Adams or even with the snappy Tumlin & Russell (Bibb and Lynch each serve as worthy counterparts to Ferrell, lest I forget). Germann rounds it out as the occasional straight man (paired at times with a spirited Shannon, naturally) that fits the film to a T with amusement that keep the film on its feet without seeming beholden to desperation; the races don't dominate the focus of the film, but one gets their fill and enjoys what they see from Talledega and perhaps sees the appeal of what draws folks to a place in Alabama every year. As a whole, it moves through its arc of rip-roaring racing and humor with plenty to offer for those who seek a feature that has not lost any steps to time that might be McKay and Ferrell's most solid work together, one for the folks who desire a bit of speed in their lives along with someone to go with it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Man of Steel.

Review #1669: Man of Steel.

Cast:

Henry Cavill (Clark Kent / Kal-El), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), Michael Shannon (General Zod), Kevin Costner (Jonathan Kent), Diane Lane (Martha Kent), Laurence Fishburne (Perry White), Antje Traue (Faora-Ul), Ayelet Zurer (Lara Lor-Van), Christopher Meloni (Colonel Nathan Hardy), Russell Crowe (Jor-El), and Harry Lennix (General Swanwick) Directed by Zack Snyder (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and #1011 - Justice League)

Review:

"Am I a provocateur? A little bit. Is my job to make some pop-culture piece of candy that you eat and forget about the next day? Nah. I would rather fuck you up in a movie than make it nice and pretty for everybody."

What does one desire from a Superman story? Or more specifically, what does visualize when they hear the word? It can depend on what exactly sticks out the most in the world of storytelling, that much is for sure. Superman (1978) is undeniably the one film that stands out, this much is for sure. It still stands tall today as an influence that looms over the superhero genre. Superman, as we all remember, was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster in 1938, having tried to sell the idea to comic strip folks for five years that evolved from a vagrant-turned-telepath into the sensational hero that touched the hearts and minds of numerous readers for several decades. Over the next few decades, imitators and media adaptations of Superman would follow, which ranged from radio to television to film, all with their own perspective of what made Superman the great hero that all look up to as the ideal, one that could be described as more powerful than a locomotive or a fighter for truth, justice, and the American way, and so on and so forth. Every adaptation has their perspective of Superman, acting as a reflection of the time and standards. Consider the Superman shorts that were created by the Fleischers in 1941 - not only were the shorts fairly popular, they also proved an influence in moving Superman from merely a hero who could leap from place to place to having him just fly (the reason? It looked better in animation). Superman: The Animated Series (1996-2000) aspired to look like those short films in its animation while downplaying the character's power to an extent, which resulted in an underrated classic. The radio series The Adventures of Superman (1940-1951) featured the use of kryptonite as a weakness for the title hero before it was absorbed into the comic canon in 1949. The 1978 film adaptation was the first to introduce the 'S' on the costume as a Kryptonian crest (Superman: Birthright (2003-04), written by Mark Waid as the second origin story for the hero in the modern era, would take that and have Superman's crest represent a symbol of hope).

That film seems to be both a blessing and a curse, since that film is undeniably still the best adaptation of the character ever put to film, as Richard Donner achieved the verisimilitude that he felt was needed to capture the reality of the comic realm without falling prey to parody. Don't get me wrong, this film is fine, but it is somehow nowhere near what the first film managed to do with its spectacle and mythic draw of strength. Man of Steel will likely reflects its era just as much as the original film managed to do with in terms of sensibility and effects, which for better or worse does what it needs to do in the job job at bringing the character back onto the screen after far too many years away. The easiest question is to wonder just how far the ends will justify the means when it comes to infusing a darker sensibility to the most famous superhero in the realm of comic books into a film. For some, it will serve as a necessary evolution for Superman in the realm of film, setting itself apart from previous iterations as a setting stone to further usage from an auteur in Snyder. For others, it will serve as a ham-handed, self-righteous puddle, one that thinks that Superman merely needs a bit of edge and a peculiar usage of the snap zoom to get their kicks and say to the world, "Look! Superman isn't an overgrown boy scout!" (a producer, leading the development of trying to make the fifth Superman film, actually described him like that) with no irony detected. Snyder, has his own perspective within comic book adaptations, since he was previously at the helm for 300 (2006) and Watchmen (2009), which each are certainly distinctive in the perspective of adaptation in style for better or worse (the latter adaptation is probably more polarizing as an adaptation). Snyder felt that the thesis of the character was one where superheroes can't knock things around without consequences, and he would follow up with two further films with Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016, which also includes an Ultimate Edition that added 30 minutes of footage to make a three-hour cut) and Justice League (2017/2021; Snyder would do a director's cut to restore the film to what he had intended prior to leaving production), although his plan of a five-film arc that would lead to the full potential of the character would not come into full fruition.

There is exactly one statement that can help sum up this film: It's a weird achievement to have made half of a good Superman movie in one whole movie (while running at the exact runtime as the 1978 film - 143 minutes). It has an interesting picked cast, and it certainly likes to hone its references to the canon of Superman, this much is for sure. David S. Goyer wrote the screenplay while co-writing the story with Christopher Nolan. It is likely the boldest average superhero movie to ever come through this decade, but it sure is a useful one to serve as a contrast to what one might see from other films of its ilk in that time. Cavill had a few film roles under his belt, although his best known role was a lead role with the television program The Tudors (2007–2010), although it should be noted that he actually was one of numerous actors that had been considered for the earlier attempt at reviving the Superman film series a decade earlier (the same can be said for Adams, incidentally). He certainly does a fine job, mostly because it actually seems distinct from what one has seen before while inviting curiosity that had been sorely missing from the anticlimax seven years prior. Granted, it is a bit shaky at first, because all folks need to find their gravitas with confidence - there eventually seems to be something there in earthy promise, although it seems more prevalent with the hero aspects more so than with Clark Kent. Adams has some of the tenacity needed to play the character, although the spark of wit seems more prevalent in the first half of the film more so than the second, which seems more a reflection of the film seeming to stick itself a bit in technobabble, although at least it invites the idea of seeing the grounded elements of Cavill and Adams. Shannon is the final key piece of the trio with the hardest tasks, one where you have to believe in some way has a point even in madness. In that sense, with a warrior-by-blood attitude that is handled by Shannon quite well, fierce but never completely off the deep end that serves as a great overall threat. Lane and Costner make up the Kent family with okay results; one wonders how that perception differs with someone who had seen Smallville (2001-2011), but I honestly I usually forget about the Kents (minus of course one scene, of course). It is Crowe who seems more memorable at any rate, standing in the shadows of Brando (at least without cue-cards this time) with that smooth edge that gets a bit more mileage than one expects (Zurer on the other hand is a bit more murky). Others do okay in support, such as the hint of Fishburne in dogged persistence or Meloni and his tough-guy charm (this may or may not hinge on how much Law and Order: Special Victims Unit hinges on one's favoritism list).

I will admit that there are quite a few gripes, ranging from playful to ones that make me roll my eyes. Zod make his first appearance in a film since Superman II (1980), and it will play right into a great trivia question of which Superman films don't feature one or both of either General Zod or Lex Luthor. They might be the most memorable villains in the Superman lexicon, but it still seems odd to not tap into further compelling adversaries (as evidenced by television adaptations of Superman such as the animated series and Smallville). Sure, they may not be as familiar in the lexicon, but it certainly strikes irritation with its choice of villain just like Superman Returns (2006) had done earlier (for the record, Brainiac would be the definite choice). At least you can say the film is a definitive vision of one director's idea of what the ideal of Superman represents. And then of course there are those two scenes that spark debate over exactly what should or shouldn't be done in a Superman story. I'm sure this isn't spoiling an eight year old film to say that the last scene with Cavill and Costner is the one that makes me roll my eyes more so than the death of Zod. There is a sense of hokeyness that somehow comes out in a show of trying to hide one's strength until they are truly ready that seems off-kilter. Heck, he saved a bus full of kids as a child, and the Kents seemed to have made that seem ordinary, so I doubt there will be that many shockwaves for a blur deciding to whip their father out of the way of a tornado (in any case, the death of one of the Kents is nearly inevitable in these origin stories). The occasional segues into non-linear storytelling will either help or hinder the idea of a layered hero story different from usual, so your mileage may vary. The savior narrative is the only other thing that seems more on the nose, and one can only get away with so much before it collapses in self-seriousness; it isn't the first time that this has been presented in Superman, since "creative consultant" Tom Mankiewicz stated how he fostered analogies between the story of Jesus with Superman and his father - you can roll your eyes at its attempt or just let it pass by with reverence/deference. By the time one gets to the climax, the thing that really draws on my mind is trying to make sure one has not succumbed to cut-scene syndrome within its stroke of action. The use of the snap zoom (i.e. a zoomed in shot during an action sequence) only will serve to demonstrate the duality of a director that can appreciated for kinetic action and style or ridiculed to the point that one can make a drinking game based on how many times it is used again and again. As a whole, it works enough in the basic department of taking certain risks with making a fair start to reigniting the flames of the pinnacle of all superheroes into film without bursting into a fiery failure or becoming a flamed-out mess of mediocrity, showcasing Snyder's interest for hard-lined realism in tandem with style and action to make a movie that will drive the curiosity of its admirers and detractors in the ways that matter most for as long as they make superhero movies that dare to be bold.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Arrival.

Review #1628: Arrival.

Cast:

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

Review:

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

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars

Her.

Review #1566: Her.

Cast:

Joaquin Phoenix (Theodore Twombly), Scarlett Johansson (Samantha), Amy Adams (Amy), Rooney Mara (Catherine Klausen), Olivia Wilde (Blind Date), Chris Pratt (Paul), Matt Letscher (Charles), and Luka Jones (Mark Lewman) Directed by Spike Jonze (#1308 - Being John Malkovich and #1533 - Adaptation)

Review:

“There’s definitely ways that technology brings us closer and ways that it makes us further apart — and that’s not what this movie is about. It really was about the way we relate to each other and long to connect: our inabilities to connect, fears of intimacy, all the stuff you bring up with any other human being.”

If you make four feature films in the span of fourteen years, one can only yearn to have the breadth of curiosity and interest generated by the ones done by Spike Jonze. Filmmaker in features, short films, music videos, this is the fourth feature film (and most current as of 2020) for the director that are interesting for their distinct features in terms of genre that nevertheless verge on the point of yearning to connect with something or someone. Jonze was inspired to do the script in part on the experiences that he had briefly involving a website where one could exchange messages with an artificial intelligence program - and he wanted to capture the excitement of that moment of interaction between person and AI that he wanted to see play out longer than a few minutes. To me, it reminds me of Cleverbot, which I remember getting a brief kick out of having a "conversation" with a program that relies on human input to do said speech (of course one could also just find familiarity with Siri, but one does not engage in references to Apple). In any case, what could be a starting point for some sort of farce or something strange with AI on the loose is actually a film not about the technology but instead about the connections we have and don't have in the modern sense.

What we have is a film about what it means to have romance in an age of technological differences that make it clear about just how one can square a romance up into a neat little package ready for delivery. In other words, finding something to appreciate and care for is one thing, finding someone to connect with and find a place in is another. Love can be passionate, fleeting, star-crossed, or all the other words to draw upon when making their own love story for film. None could have gone as strangely or as off-kilter as this could have been, and none prove as interesting to see play out in most of its execution as this film does. It isn't exactly the best feature that Jonze has made, but it certainly proves a worthy curiosity for what it sets out to do with its lived-in look and color scheme that creates an intriguing challenge for its main star and voice to prove worthwhile without being a weird duck. If one can find themselves making pen-pals with people miles away from them or find friends on the Internet in certain communities, I can see where you can go with a virtual assistant that can either just be an organizer of your stuff or have it grow into something more. 2013 and 2020 are more than just years to say in a sentence when it comes to connectivity versus what really goes on in the little hole we make for ourself and hopefully for others, perhaps now more than ever, where numbness could almost be thought of as fashion sense. With all of that in mind, Phoenix is exactly the one to make this come across with the instinct and integrity required here, one that is meshed in clay of numbness that grows upon a path with romance that we do at least see some sort of connection to - loving the voice from a box is more than that when you share a smile that isn't a pained movement. Johansson was brought in to replace Samantha Morton (who Jonze liked, but he felt that the film needed someone different) - she does what is needed in terms of running the vocal gamut that is quite caring and useful in carrying the film in gentle marvel without having to even bat an eye. Others contribute to the other degree of varying connectivity, whether that means a sparkful Adams or an honest Mara (when compared to what we view and then hear of her) and brief interludes with television presence Wilde and Pratt. What we have here is a film structured on what we see and believe when it comes to feelings that can be consuming just as quickly as they seem fleeting, and there really are no easy answers beyond trying to keep growing and not become stuck with all the other voices of other lost souls. With a 126 minute run-time, it surely makes for an interesting original work that will leave the viewer by its ending with a chance to go out and find their own place to sit upon and connect the dots for themselves.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Catch Me If You Can.

Review #1305: Catch Me If You Can.

Cast: 
Leonardo DiCaprio (Frank Abagnale Jr.), Tom Hanks (Carl Hanratty), Christopher Walken (Frank Abagnale Sr.), Nathalie Baye (Paula Abagnale), Amy Adams (Brenda Strong), Martin Sheen (Roger Strong), James Brolin (Jack Barnes), and Nancy Lenehan (Carol Strong) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, and #1068 - Ready Player One)

Review: 
We all have a collection of lies in our lives, with some having more fabrications than others. We tell it to ourselves, our children, our loved ones, our friends and even random strangers if necessary. They can range from white lies to the outrageous. In this case, this is a film inspired by the real life story of Frank Abagnale Jr, a case of con-man forger turned consultant that wrote about his exploits as a teenager in 1980 with Stan Redding. Attempts to produce an adaptation had persisted for years with several directors attached before Spielberg (who had co-founded of Dreamworks Pictures and initially signed on as producer) ultimately became the one to direct. In any case, Catch Me If You Can is a wonderful crook tale headlined by a wonderful tandem performance from DiCaprio and Hanks that rolls for 141 minutes in consistent stylish entertainment. It takes the expected route to fact and fiction blending, but let it be said that the exploits of Abagnale are still a bit fuzzy even after several decades. Granted, there are significant differences, which range from minor stuff like a consolidated time-line to changing the name of the pursuing FBI agent to his family life (i.e. no siblings). It is a compromise kind of film, where the scenes with DiCaprio and Walken after he runs away from home are warm while being a product of movie-magic, which can be forgiven for a clever film like this one.

DiCaprio drives things along with such suave nature, a charming wunderkind of fabrication that never seems inauthentic to watch, where he doesn't seem too old to be playing a teenager-turned-criminal. Hanks is just as entertaining as the other side of the coin, where he doesn't become privy to the old traditions of the FBI pursuer of gritted teeth or Lt. Gerald style obsession - one trying to do their job without much of a family life (very much like the person pursued) but with a sense of commitment one would see from a composite (loosely based on real FBI Agent Joseph Shea). Walken plays things smooth, where one likes to see him talk to his on-screen son with caring warmth, and Baye does just as fine to portray this on-screen family before things go awry, a picture of a family that you might think was just fine. Illusions aren't limited to cons, you might say. Adams does pretty well with a lively performance to round out the edges of the caper filings. On the whole, the film does best in its look at the pursuit through technical lenses, such as the cinematography by Janusz Kamiński and a jazzy score from John Williams that each give the film plenty of surrounding atmosphere to go around. The film works best when seeing how DiCaprio and Hanks are when in their surrounding environments, or when they speak to each other (it should be noted that the real life Abagnale and Shea did have a long-standing friendship as well) that help the film be more than procedure. You aren't rooting for our lead to be caught, but instead are captivated by what goes on next with someone who goes from plucky kid to pilot passenger. We live in such a different world now compared to the late 1960s that the film presents, but that doesn't mean the con of assuming a different identity is a thing of the past - some just happen to be better than others. This is a case of someone who did it with embellishment, with a film that seems as appropriate for entertainment that is easy to expect from Spielberg but always interesting to see in how it actually plays out.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Justice League.

Review #1011: Justice League.

Cast: 
Ben Affleck (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Henry Cavill (Kal-El / Clark Kent / Superman), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), Gal Gadot (Diana Prince / Wonder Woman), Ezra Miller (Barry Allen / Flash), Jason Momoa (Arthur Curry / Aquaman), Ray Fisher (Victor Stone / Cyborg), Jeremy Irons (Alfred Pennyworth), Diane Lane (Martha Kent), Connie Nielsen (Hippolyta), J. K. Simmons (James Gordon), and Ciarán Hinds (Steppenwolf) Directed by Zack Snyder (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice)

Review: 
To fellow readers: I did not intend for this review to be over 700 words, but here we are. Hopefully this review is consistent enough and useful for you.

Admittedly, the DC comic book films over the past few years have a been a bit...diverse (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, #828 - Suicide Squad, #942 - Wonder Woman), with their own particular brand of taste and style (and that is putting it lightly). This remains the case with this film, which is certainly a strange movie for one that is also wildly mediocre. Sure, I enjoyed the movie, but it is easily one that won't go down as anything great (in fairness, it's not like Thor: Ragnarok will go down as a hallmark of comic book films). It's clear that this movie wants to be lighter and fun, with varying results that come off as slightly inconsistent, particularly with characters like Batman, though that is not the biggest flaw. In any case, let me start with the main six, which is certainly an interesting bunch.

Affleck pulls off a pretty decent performance, being somewhat endearing even if seems like the character shifts tone from stoic to snarky, though it isn't too awfully distracting. Gadot is the best one of the group, being quite enjoyable and graceful as she was in her prior film. Miller is fairly entertaining in the film and is likely the most amusing part of the film. Momoa is fairly decent, though I'd say it takes time for him to really grow on you. Fisher is probably the weakest of the six, feeling a bit flat (though his character is at least useful to the plot). Cavill (with accompanying CGI-erased mustache) is decent enough for the time that he appears, but he doesn't really appear as much as he probably should've appeared. The supporting cast aren't really given much to do, and that can prove to be a bit disappointing (even in a movie all about the main six). It's not so much that Hinds does a terrible job as the villain as it is the fact that his character just isn't compelling to watch. with this being the worst part of the film. He is not a character that ever inspires fear or anything other than a mild expression, with his scenes with dialogue or fighting reminding me more of cut-scenes than actual scenes. Naturally, he is a villain that doesn't take too long to take down, with the victory feeling somewhat hollow that actually feels amusing to laugh at. The action sequences prove to be a mixed bag. On the one hand, they are sometimes pretty entertaining in their spectacle. On the other hand, the CGI just doesn't hold up that well, and for a movie that was reportedly made for over $300 million it certainly seems puzzling to see how it doesn't really work in the department. The film is at least sometimes amusing, and the cast does seem to have some good chemistry with each other, although at times it can come off a bit rushed, which can also apply in some way to the plot, which isn't too special, especially when it seems to go all over the place with its characters.

The film certainly feels a bit jumbled, no doubt due to post-production efforts in which Josh Whedon  (director of #312 - The Avengers and #706 - Avengers: Age of Ultron) was hired to rewrite additional scenes. In May of this year, Snyder stepped down during this process due to the death of his daughter, with Whedon taking over for rest of post-production, serving as director for scenes that he had written. In any case, Snyder is listed as the only director, though Whedon is given a credit for the screenplay (along with Chris Terrio, who had also co-written the story with Synder). The film certainly feels like a jumbling of numerous things, trying to give time for the three characters without their own film (Aquaman, The Flash, Cyborg). Subsequently, the film feels rushed when trying to deliver exposition for them.

Ultimately, this is a movie that achieves its most basic goals of being escapism and entertainment. It is ridiculous in how okay it is, but I found it to be fairly acceptable, warts and all. It isn't anything worthwhile, but it's a movie that will prove just enough for some audiences. Take this film for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Review #788: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Cast
Ben Affleck (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Henry Cavill (Superman / Clark Kent), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), Jesse Eisenberg (Lex Luthor), Diane Lane (Martha Kent), Laurence Fishburne (Perry White), Jeremy Irons (Alfred Pennyworth), Holly Hunter (Senator Finch), Gal Gadot (Diana Prince / Wonder Woman), Scoot McNairy (Wallace Keefe), Tao Okamoto (Mercy Graves), Ray Fisher (Victor Stone / Cyborg), Jason Momoa (Arthur Curry / Aquaman), and Ezra Miller (Barry Allen / The Flash) Directed by Zack Snyder.

Review
The idea of a movie with Batman and Superman facing off against each other is not a new concept (in fact, a script had been written back in 2002, though naturally that idea did not come to fruition), but in theory the concept shouldn't work, considering that Superman is....well, Superman. But of course this is not a movie about a face-off, it's a movie that attempts to establish other DC superheroes (such as Wonder Woman, Cyborg, Aquaman, the Flash) which I do applaud in the sense that the DC movie universe has had very little success with franchises not named Batman or Superman, with their biggest problem being that it took them this long to even put these characters to screen. But does it make sense to include numerous heroes in the same movie?

The answer to all the questions (including the unasked one of if it is actually any good) is a no. And yet, it works for April Fools Day because of the fact that I was laughing at it. It was the only way that I kept myself sane for a movie that has the nerve to be 151 minutes long and manage to feel even longer (apparently there is even a 3 hour edition, because I guess home media releases will really need it). When I said "establish" other superheroes, I did not mean a conventional way of say, having the heroes we know (like Batman and Superman) encounter them (save for Wonder Woman, who is in the movie for about 20-25 minutes)...but instead have them introduced to us via video files. The fact that the movie really doesn't do a great job in actually giving us a glimpse into heroes not named Superman and Batman is troubling, but not exactly the biggest sin in this movie.

The movie starts out with (spoiler alert for anyone who's never heard of Batman's origins - which would be no one) the death of Bruce Wayne's parents (with some inspiration taken from The Dark Knight Returns, which I had read earlier in the week), but honestly there's no point to the scene because that (plus the scene with the bats) is completely unnecessary. The acting in the movie ranges from passable to deserving of mocking. Affleck is pretty decent, and it is nice to see an older Batman for once (unnecessary opening scene non-withstanding), but not even he can save a movie that can't keep focus. The plot feels very ham-fisted together, with events happening and going without any real definition. The dream sequences are especially jarring, mainly because they don't really gel well, only seeming to make the movie feel even longer. Saying the words "Jesse Eisenberg playing Lex Luthor" does seem a bit ridiculous, and his performance actually makes me wish I was watching Robert Vaughn in Superman III. He never seems evil, coming off more as a Willy Wonka reject, and he just gets on your nerves after a while.

Batman and Superman do indeed fight...for maybe 10-15 minutes. Naturally, it's a one sided fight (that is predictable if one saw the trailers beforehand), and while I will admit that it is a decent fight...it ends in the most idiotic of ways. It isn't a spoiler to mention that both of the heroes' mothers have the same first name of Martha. Yes, that is actually the word that essentially stops their conflict. Not an epiphany, not a third party hero, a coincidence that someone probably figured out when reading Wikipedia articles on Batman and Superman. It's weird how one can make a movie that feels so detached from reality (compared to other, better comic book movies); even scenes where cities are being totaled don't really evoke any feelings. The final fight in the movie (with Doomsday, who also was spoiled in the trailer, and manages to look really ridiculous) is a jumbled mess, but at least Wonder Woman is finally given something to do, like fight, for one thing.

The movie feels so bloated and so untrained that it made me laugh (albeit in a sad way); the fact that I saw it in a half empty theater is also a bit sad, but the fact that Marvel not only had a head start on making a movie universe, they also seemed to be the only one who can properly set a timetable on what to do. Even though the movie is bound to be a moneymaker, not even money can hide the sad fact that this movie just does not work. I understand if people like the movie (grim-dark is admittedly entertaining, and I did like reading The Dark Knight Returns), but for me the movie was only really enjoyable when I laughed to myself about it.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Muppets.

Review #522: The Muppets.

Cast
Jason Segel (Gary), Amy Adams (Mary), Chris Cooper (Tex Richman), Steve Whitmire (Kermit the Frog/Beaket/Statler/Rizzo the Rat/Link Hogthrob/The Muppet Newsman/Lips), Eric Jacobson (Miss Piggy/Fozzie Bear/Animal/Sam the Eagle/Marvin Suggs), Dave Goelz (Gonzo/Dr. Bunsen Honeydew/Zoot, Beauregard/Waldorf/Kermit Moopet), Bill Barretta (Rowlf the Dog/The Swedish Chef/Dr. Teeth/Pepe the King Prawn/Bobo the Bear/Beautiful Day Monster/Mahna Mahna/Behemoth/Fozzie Moope/Muppet Gary/Whatnot Hobo), Peter Linz (Walter), David Rudman (Scooter/Janice/Miss Poogy/Wayne, Nigel the Conductor/Bobby Benson), Matt Vogel (Floyd Pepper/Camilla the Chicken/Sweetums/'80s Robot, Lew Zealand/Uncle Deadly/Crazy Harry/Rowlf Moopet), Rashida Jones (Veronica), Jack Black (Himself), Alan Arkin (Muppet Studios Tour Guide), Bill Cobbs (Grandfather), Zach Galifianakis (Hobo Joe), and Jim Parsons (Human Walter) Directed by James Bobin.

Review
It had 12 years since the release of Muppets From Space (#377), and in that span the Muppets were confined to television specials only (Okay, okay, I admit to watching A Muppet Christmas: Letters to Santa when I was younger, it wasn't bad, but I don't remember watching any other special), until this film. I wanted to end this so called Muppet Trilogy of mine with this film because the first part of the trilogy began with the first, and so it only made sense to finish with the most recent (Muppets Most Wanted hasn't been released..yet.), and...this is a good Muppet film. It has its moments of fun, and Walter is a welcome addition for the Muppets, the human cast is interesting because Segel and Adams work alright together, and Cooper is pretty funny, and "Man or Muppet" is probably the most memorable song of the film along with being a really fitting one for a film like this. The Muppets are fine as usual and while not every joke works, the film still has enough passion for its subject to work. I hope you like this trilogy of Muppet films, as I enjoyed watching these films, and I hope you do as well.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.