Sexy Beast.

Review #2501: Sexy Beast.

Cast: 

Ray Winstone (Gary 'Gal' Dove), Ben Kingsley (Don Logan), Ian McShane (Teddy Bass), Amanda Redman (DeeDee Dove), James Fox (Harry), Cavan Kendall (Aitch), Julianne White (Jackie), and Álvaro Monje (Enrique) Directed by Jonathan Glazer.

Review: 

"I’m not the kind of director who has 10 projects on the go to see which one works out. It feels more like music to me — I have this idea for an album and I want to make it. If I do something, I have to do it well and sometimes that takes a little time."

I suppose I should've done this one sooner. Sexy Beast was the debut feature film of Jonathan Glazer, who grew up in London to a Reform Jewish family (he noted that that in his childhood, he encountered various "East End Jews who had moved to the suburbs for a better quality of life" that imprinted on him with their culture) saw him attend Jewish Free School. He then went to art school because he believed that drawing was the only thing he was good at. However, he got into the habit of directing because there were friends of his in bands that wanted him to shoot music videos for them. Eventually, after graduating with a degree in theatre design from Nottingham Trent University, Glazer got into making film trailers and eventually got into doing commercials; eventually, he did videos for bands such as Radiohead. Apparently, Glazer was slated to direct for the first time with the movie Gangster No. 1 which was written by Louis Mellis and David Scinto based on their play before disagreements with the casting led to all three people leaving (Paul McGuigan eventually made the film in 2000). According to Scinto, Sexy Beast "was born, out of a reaction to all that chaos and soap opera", going from a stage play draft with the working title "Gangster No. 2" to, well, Sexy Beast; the two had one further collaboration turned into a film with 44 Inch Chest (released in 2009 which also featured McShane and Winstone). Made for a budget of roughly $4 million that premiered in the festival circuit in 2000 before going into theaters in 2001, the movie was a light decent hit with audiences, apparently more so in America than expected. Glazer has since directed select commercial advertisements and three further films (which unlike Beast had Glazer serve as co-writer) with Birth (2004), Under the Skin (2013) and The Zone of Interest (2023), which won an Academy Award for Best International Feature Film*.

Glazer apparently called the making of the film "perfect baptism for me" because of the writing that he could trust completely for a film that is particularly intense in its dialogue for what Glazer once called "neo noir" that is basically trying to have a heist while avoiding being a "heist movie". Shaggy dog heist film or not, there is plenty of mischief to experience within the obvious qualities that come with Winstone being paired with Kingsley. It's because you get a passively bulked sunburned lead presence paired with someone who basically is fighting with him on a primal level with such a level of containment that is actually pretty frightening. At least, for a movie that basically shows the upcoming storm by having a boulder crash down the hill onto a pool in the opening minutes. So yes, you can't really hide from your past, but you can sure try to confront the present to maintain a worthwhile future. Within its aspects of the thriller is black comedy that actually is quite entertaining in the machinations of how you can make 88 minutes roll along where you aren't thinking about the heist as much as you are experiencing pros at work. Kingsley just has that magic to startle you with his presence and where he packs his expressions and dialogue in a way that just sounds tailor-made to him while Winstone lumbers as one could only do as someone who aspires to stay in their particular corner of the burning sun (as opposed to the burn of the heist). McShane is intimidating enough in the brief moments one sees of him around the scene of the growing crime (consider how the last scene sees him and Winstone talk about the various truths that lie under the surface). The heist in London isn't the point, it's a film all about what you see and hear in Spain more than anything, I imagine. As a whole, Sexy Beast is basically an acquired taste that either sticks with you or just leaves out the back door. I thought it was curious enough within its maneuvering of the crime film with humor and solid enough performances to make the journey worth watching.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*It was set in 1943 in the life of German Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss filmed in German, Polish, and Yiddish. I hear it's a good movie. I just want to mention that film mostly because the Oscar speech he did talked about the ongoing Gaza war that managed to make a whole bunch of people look like petulant children. 

A Sound of Thunder.

Review #2477: A Sound of Thunder.

Cast: 

Edward Burns (Travis Ryer), Catherine McCormack (Sonia Rand), David Oyelowo (Marcus Payne), Ben Kingsley (Charles Hatton), Jemima Rooper (Jenny Krase), Wilfried Hochholdinger (Dr. Lucas), August Zirner (Clay Derris), Corey Johnson (Christian Middleton), Heike Makatsch (Alicia Wallenbeck), Armin Rohde (John Wallenbeck), and William Armstrong (Ted Eckels) Directed by Peter Hyams (#233 - 2010: The Year We Make Contact, #326 - Timecop)

Review: 

Hey, ever read A Sound of Thunder? Well, there were rumblings of making a film adaptation of Ray Bradbury's short story of the same name (as originally published in 1952) since at least 2000, when Renny Harlin and Pierce Brosnan were tapped to work on it for Franchise Pictures, with Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer tapped to write the script (Gregory Poirier later worked on the screenplay to get credit with the duo, known for co-adapting Sahara). They wanted to fast-track production before a possible actor strike, but the following year saw Harlin taken out for Peter Hyams and eventually Edward Burns was cast over Brosnan, who wanted re-writes. Franchise Pictures went down under during post-production, which got in the way of a movie that was meant to be $55 million. In 2004, Franchise filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The movie was being filmed in Prague when an actual flood hit the area that saw re-scheduling and a post-production that went on for nearly two years. Previsualized software (and sub-contracted work) was used to basically save time what became a nightmare. This was the 18th feature film for Peter Hyams, who had previously started the 2000s off with The Musketeer (2001), which didn't exactly rock the world. After this, he made two more movies: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (2009), a movie that may actually have even less of a reputation than this movie, and Enemies Closer (2013), a film that had a limited US release; the then-66 year old also shot for Universal Soldier: Regeneration (2009), as directed by his son.

In the future of 2055...people spend money to go back in time to wait for a guy to tell them when they can shoot a dinosaur dead. Sure. It almost seems too easy to say this movie is really, really bad. There's something to be said about a movie that talks about "time waves" and "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" with the confidence that audiences would just accept the malarkey that comes across for a mess in both visuals and as a time travel movie. What you get here is a bland movie, one that has a handful of bad green screen effects and dopey-looking creature effects that would've seemed ripe for an Irwin Allen movie. But even if the effects were magical or invoked some sort of interest, it was not going to override the lack of an interesting story that can't really evoke the Bradbury story. The original story wasn't really much besides saying "careful about stepping on something, otherwise everything goes to hell because, that insect was important millions of years ago" (the name of the story came from the firing of a rifle), but here you get a movie where for whatever reason the changes to the timeline happen from wave to wave that makes plants and stuff grow weirdly. All from a mess-up where trying to shoot up a dinosaur that was planned to die (notice how shooting the gun doesn't have an effect on the stuff around the dinosaur). With how the characters have to go on a trip to see who messed up with the stepped-on thing, I wonder if someone watched The Warriors a bit too much. It also lacks an interesting hero or villain to really latch on to, and that's even with the presence of a white-haired Kingsley. Burns might as well be transparent with how he brings nothing to the table as the lead focus: there isn't a sense of guilt or adventure to anything he goes through, and McCormack can't actually make the consequences of time travel seem compelling either. You would think Kingsley would know better than to do stuff like this, but between him trying to be "funny" here and a "villain" in BloodRayne (2005), I suppose money does win out. The others don't end up any better, mostly being used to basically serve as fodder (given that the ending never seems in doubt, obviously the dead-count is back to zero). There just isn't anything to laugh with in terms of humor or anything to really gawk at for interest, and the climax is all about...using a few seconds to say the right thing and save the insect. As a whole, even when knowing that the film took years and years to actually realize its vision, there is no slice of hope to be found here with how bland and uninvolving it all is.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Twisted Pair.

Slipstream (1989).

Review #2379: Slipstream (1989).

Cast: 

Mark Hamill (Will Tasker), Kitty Aldridge (Belitski), Bill Paxton (Matt Owens), Bob Peck (Byron), Eleanor David (Ariel), with Robbie Coltrane (Montclaire), Ben Kingsley (Avatar), and F. Murray Abraham (Cornelius) Directed by Steven Lisberger (#098 - Tron)

Review:

"It’s hackneyed to say this but I liked SLIPSTREAM because it was character oriented. And so few films can find a balance between character and effects. Great directors like Peter Yates say "I'll show them how to do it properly,’ and KRULL is the result! 1 can’t get excited over WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT for the same reason in terms of its special effects breakthroughs.”

What's in a name? You may or may not wonder just what exactly this movie is, particularly with a poster that bills itself as from the "producer of Star Wars and the director of Tron". Famously, Gary Kurtz had worked with George Lucas on American Graffiti (1973), Star Wars (1977), and The Empire Strikes Back (1980) before he split with Lucas to do his own ventures. He served as co-producer alongside Jim Henson on The Dark Crystal (1982), which was a mild hit with audiences. He got involved for a time in producing the American production side of trying to make a film of Little Nemo in Slumberland that he left after it went nowhere, but Kurtz served as an executive producer with Return to Oz (1985), a movie considered a flop at the time*. And then there was this movie. Apparently, the original script was written by Charles Edward Pogue in the wake of the success of Mad Max (1979). Kurtz liked the basic idea but found it "far too violent" and "heavily exploitation oriented". Enter Steven Lisberger. Fresh off Animalympics, a sports comedy TV movie that spoofed the Olympics but with animals that came out in 1980, Lisberger followed that with Tron (1982), an idea he had developed for years. The movie received better notices in the years to come, and Lisberger would return to direct five years later with Hot Pursuit (1987), a movie that came and went with, well, some money made? He was hired in Autumn of 1987 to help reshape the script, which he described as: "based on an outline from another producer’s ramblings back in the early ’80s. Pogue worked from a Huckleberry Finn travelogue base—a 14-year-old’s encounter with an android as he journeyed in the future, a coming-of-age saga mixed with sci-fi. But Mark Twain’s brand of narrative sarcasm was missing.” Lisberger called it in simple terms as "a futuristic western". Tony Kayden was hired to shore up the script and apparently had issues getting the script through the demands of both producers and Kurtz, who seemed to tussle over what they wanted in the script. Apparently, the movie was supposed to be more violent to help make the movie more coherent, but these scenes were not shot. Bill Bauer was credited for "based on story material" while Pogue either asked for or did not receive credit. Made for a budget of $15 million for "Entertainment Film" in February 1989...no one saw the movie. It received a brief release in the United Kingdom and Australia while managing the dubious distinction of having name actors for a movie that never was released in the USA and leading Kurtz to apparently go bankrupt; he produced two other movies in his lifetime that are even more obscure than this one. Lisberger has never directed another movie since this one (but you can read scripts of his on the Internet), which you can apparently find anywhere on the Web, along with a "making of video".**

Let's be real here: This is not a cult movie. There is no trumpeting for this movie to be re-discovered as some sort of sneaky good movie or one that has scenes worth looking into again. This is the kind of movie you find at the bottom of the barrel with nothing better to do that just happens to have a couple of familiar names involved...and man, that is sad. Really sad. The biggest sin of this movie is that for all the tropes the movie aims for as a wannabee sci-fi movie that might as well have cribbed elements of the Western while they are churning in desperation...it is boring. Sure, there are bits and pieces that are interesting to see in its execution (good or bad), but as a whole, there is not enough here to make one want to see it again or even show it to others. It died a quiet death in theaters because nobody could justify saying more than 50 words on why you would want to show it to a group of people. Lisberger can say the movie grows complex with the whole "android goes to Christ figure" thing, but it seems to be more a movie that you would only like if you have never seen a plane in your life. Slipstream doesn't even sound like a sci-fi title, it sounds like a name you would reject for a minor league team. The territory never feels tough enough to justify the tension, and you might as well call it a precursor to a bigger budgeted flop of the future in wannabee post apocalyptic films such as Waterworld. 

Now, let's get this out of the way: I like Bill Paxton, he was a good character presence in a handful of movies people love now and then...he gets the short stick here. Sure, it is nice to see his attempts at charm in a role that might as well have been ripped out of the dime-store Han Solo / Jack Burton playbook, but there is not nearly enough here to justify the eventual road set out by the climax. It just isn't as involving as it sounds to follow him in a movie that yearns to be a road movie but meanders. Feasible or not, it just seems like the role was meant for someone younger, but then maybe I just have, say, A Boy and His Dog on the mind. Peck was actually best known for his work in television such as Edge of Darkness (1985). And to be fair, his performance here is fairly interesting enough to make things watchable beyond just calling it a wannabee wanderer type. There are flashes of curiosity and yearning for someone who is adrift and, well, the movie really does have you thinking he is an android before it wants too. At least you can say Hamill tried. Hell, he apparently believed that if the movie was a hit, he could use it to play a Bond villain rather than doing stuff that was basically a take on Luke Skywalker. Ironically, Hamill ended up playing more noted villains in the form of voiceover work than stuff like this, and I can see why: it just isn't an interesting role to chew on. Sure, a good villain can involve folks that believe they are in the right, and we have a self-righteous person that wouldn't be too off from The Searchers, but, well, it just isn't a compelling threat to really watch. Its a pursuit movie where he just shows up and then boom, he's off for a bit. The climax screws him over. One minute he and Peck are in the plane fighting over control of it, then he's trying to quote the works of Byron to, well, the guy mistakenly referred to as Byron, then he seems to be hopeful the plane can make it out of turbulence, and then, boom, he's dead. Hell, Byron I guess is just one of those "explosion-proof androids", so he just moseys on out, as if barely anything's happened. Aldridge and David equally have little to really do to make anyone want to go forward with adventuring, suffice to say; rounding it out, the cameos from Coltrane (and two Academy Award winners with Abraham and Kingsley!) are, well, short and not exactly helpful for a film bereft of actual edge. As a whole, Slipstream aimed to be an adventure, but instead it flounders to the ground with a whimper. You might find something here with the names involved or just groan at the missed opportunities. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

*Well, if you want to call a movie "too dark", you might need a head check. Hell, they apparently said that (in lighter numbers) with The Dark Crystal, but eh, people like that movie too.

**https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67WdIRsBks8

BloodRayne.

Review #2317: BloodRayne.

Cast: 

Kristanna Loken (Rayne), Michael Madsen (Vladimir), Ben Kingsley (Kagan), Michelle Rodriguez (Katarin), Matthew Davis (Sebastian), Will Sanderson (Domastir), Geraldine Chaplin (Fortune Teller), Udo Kier (Regal Monk), Meat Loaf (Leonid), Michael Paré (Iancu), and Billy Zane (Elrich) Directed by Uwe Boll (#1765 - In the Name of the King, #1924 - Alone in the Dark, #2144 - House of the Dead)

Review: 

I forgot that Boll wanted to be a filmmaker because he saw Mutiny on the Bounty as a kid...the Marlon Brando version. This was the third film in what you might as well call the Boll Gaming Cycle that came in the wake of House of the Dead and Alone in the Dark (2005). The movie is based on the action-adventure game series of the same name, which began in 2002 involving various locations being visited by a member of the "brimstone Society" to deal with supernatural creatures and Nazis. An "unrated" director's cut came out on DVD, incidentally, which apparently came out with a copy of BloodRayne 2 on it (incidentally, the series has had just one game released since the film came out). The next video game movie Boll did for theaters was In the Name of the King (2007). You might recognize that the screenplay was written by Guinevere Turner, who apparently delivered a first draft a few weeks late that Boll went right in to pick and choose what to use immediately (which was apparently 20%) for the actors to apparently take a crack at it. While the movie was a financial failure, Boll would direct two sequels for the direct-to-video market: BloodRayne 2: Deliverance (2007) and BloodRayne: The Third Reich (2011), in which only Michael Paré appears in each film of the "trilogy". 

It probably goes without saying that Boll has not managed to achieve anything in the manner of effective entertainment even when having a video game right there for adaptation. In the aim of blood, dirt, and sex, the success rate is about on the same level as an apple becoming a tomato (one interview had him stating it would possibly be two hours but it ended up being 95 minutes long). It certainly never seems sexy even with its attempts at doing so with leather outfits and I kid you not, hiring actual prostitutes to be in a scene (as one does when filming in Europe). The thing about Boll is that he seems to direct things as if it was a blunt instrument to plow through regardless of who is cast or the scenario. He has a lead actress in Loken that might as well be playing T-X from Terminator 3 all over again. He has a movie where one actor called it an "abomination" that still would say yes to being in another Boll movie. The best parts in the whole movie is either Meat Loaf lounging around with prostitutes or the bits and pieces where Madsen seems interested enough to actually make effort (probably the result of liquid courage, but I can think of worse ways to get through a film). It probably is most amusing to see Zane in the film when you have the whole context: Zane liked being with such a "decisive" director even in a small role and he apparently gave Boll the idea to use Romar Entertainment (which Zane was involved with) as a way to handle distribution of the film to a target of 2,000 theaters...only 950 theaters ended up getting the film on opening day and Boll later sued Zane (incidentally, Zane co-starred alongside Loken in Boll's Darfur film, released in 2009). Christian Slater might not be a particularly great actor, but at least him being in the aforementioned Dark film seemed to make sense. But Kingsley? An Academy Award-winning actor wanting to play a vampire deciding to join here? I suppose it must be a British tradition in the Michael Caine sense, but even Caine was better at this, because Kingsley barely delivers actual substance to what is meant to be a villainous role. One sees more effort in the makeup job than from Kingsley, who can't even play to the cheap seats for something funny. The movie is listless and barely seems competent to actually approach what you might call filmmaking. It just feels like a movie patched together, where even a sequence of someone trying to dodge traps (and water, because ooooh, water) has little weight to actually level attention to. The sex scene might actually inspire confusion over how it is staged more than anything, and yet somehow this is a movie that is more tolerable than Bolero (1984), even with all of the godforsaken wigs. As a whole, this is merely just a boring bad flick, not even measuring up to the lesser vampire movies you've probably seen before. It isn't completely incompetent as with some of Boll's previous line of work because it just is blah B-movie stuff that really should not have tried to be anything more. It is dull and goofy in ways that would probably be amusing with a couple of beers for the turkey night, I suppose.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Sneakers (1992).

Review #1886: Sneakers.

Cast: 

Robert Redford (Martin Bishop / Martin Brice), Ben Kingsley (Cosmo), Sidney Poitier (Donald Crease), David Strathairn (Irwin 'Whistler' Emery), Dan Aykroyd (Darren 'Mother' Roskow), River Phoenix (Carl Arbogast), Mary McDonnell (Liz Ogilvy), Stephen Tobolowsky (Werner Brandes), Timothy Busfield (Dick Gordon), Eddie Jones (Buddy Wallace), George Hearn (Gregor "Greg" Ivanovich), Donal Logue (Dr. Gunter Janek), Lee Garlington (Dr. Elena Rhyzkov), and James Earl Jones (NSA Agent Bernard Abbott) Directed by Phil Alden Robinson (#488 - Field of Dreams)

Review: 

Ensemble movies need their appreciation too, if you think about it. Do you remember WarGames (1983)? In the process of writing the script for that film, Lawrence Lasker and Walter F. Parkes discovered the existence of "sneakers", which refers to hackers that well, sneak into a computer system somewhere (in this case, the hackers here are hired by banks to break in and test the security system). A number of drafts eventually attracted the attention of Phil Alden Robinson, and he ended up spending nine years trying to get the film going. Getting the attention of Robert Redford (cast in a role originally intended with a star in their mid-40s as written by people in their 40s) helped the process and eventually led to a film with a cadre of actors that went from veteran stars to younger names such as River Phoenix (this was the penultimate movie released before his death the following year) while squeezing James Earl Jones in for one scene. Lasker and Parkes also produced the film, which was their fourth venture together (one of them was Awakenings (1990)). Clearly, the movie is really more of a take on the caper movies of yesteryear with its distinct characters in its ensemble, although the message about a world run by "little ones and zeroes" probably still seems quite true after three decades. You probably remember Robinson as the director of Field of Dreams (1989), his second effort; Sneakers is his third feature effort, and his next feature film ended up being Freedom Song eight years later.

Admittedly, it is a nice little movie when it comes to seeing familiar faces in an attempt at a techno-thriller/heist movie. Oh sure, it is a movie that does extoll a little bit about the quirks of a new age where having control of the information might be more important than having the fastest gun. Sneakers does so with a grasp of a number of cliches you have probably seen in countless heist movies with how you can describe the supporting characters in two-word phrases or how the climax is operated (besides the literal slow-motion sequence), right down to needing to acquire a box. In that sense, it can either prove as a comfort movie with plenty of enjoyment from an age like the 1990s or just an average ensemble, and I think it works out more often than not to make a quiet winner. Redford does well with what is needed in general charm, a uniter of misfits with what you've seen a few times from him (perhaps playing a bit of The Sting but without looking like a copy). Poitier, in his penultimate appearance in a feature film, still has the knack for steely timing to contrast the semi-whimsical others, mostly against Aykroyd (amusingly, when approached for the film, he actually was more interested in playing the Cosmo role before being told that Kingsley was signed for it). Kingsley doesn't have as much to really do as the adversary, but in a movie with just a fraction of action and more about the general chase, this works out okay in general familiarity (better him than a ham or a nonentity, perhaps). Strathairn lends a few chuckles to go along with a wiry Phoenix that make the most of those little moments to shuffle the plot. McDonnell makes a quality deadpan middleperson, one who does share a few interesting moments with Redford alongside some chuckles with Tobolowsky, who seems to be having a ball with his moments on screen. 126 minutes is admittedly a big ask for thrillers to enjoy, but I think it does pull enough out of the bag of enjoyment to work at the expectation required from its cast and crew. It's a movie about a couple of scraps who just want to untangle themselves from a weirdo conspiracy involving uncertainties that is dealt with in wry patience that makes a solid little three-decade gem. If fun-loving ensembles trying to play caper is up your alley, go right ahead with this one, where the game of concerns of privacy still holds true now.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Hugo.

Review #1559: Hugo.

Cast: 

Asa Butterfield (Hugo Cabret), Chloë Grace Moretz (Isabelle), Ben Kingsley (Georges Méliès / Papa Georges), Sacha Baron Cohen (Inspector Gustave Dasté), Ray Winstone (Claude Cabret), Emily Mortimer (Lisette), Jude Law (Mr. Cabret), Helen McCrory (Jehanne D'Alcy / Mama Jeanne), Michael Stuhlbarg (René Tabard), Christopher Lee (Monsieur Labisse), Frances de la Tour (Madame Emile), and Richard Griffiths (Monsieur Frick) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver, #992 - The King of Comedy, #1276 - Mean Streets, #1463 - Raging Bull, #1496 - Goodfellas, #1544 - The Departed)

Review: 

"And in my film, the cinema itself is the connection--the automaton, the machine itself becomes the emotional connection between the boy, his father, Méliès, and his family. It's about how it all comes together, how people express themselves using the technology emotionally and psychologically. It's the connection between the people, and the thing that's missing--how it supplies what's missing." - Martin Scorsese

"Every second the actor playing different scenes ten times has to remember, while the film is rolling, exactly what he did at the same point in the preceding scenes and the exact place where he was on the stage." - Georges Méliès

Yes, this is a film by Martin Scorsese, but as is the case with his films, there is certainly more than meets the eye with that statement. In this case, one can start with a legendary director that lived over a century before this film existed with Georges Méliès. He has been long overdue for a spotlight with his films (or at the very least more than one sentence), as he did a large amount of films (most of them falling under the category of "short", but this was late 19th/early 20th century filmmaking). He was inspired to create from a young age, whether that meant drawing all over his books or with puppet-making. As one might see from the film, he developed an interest in stage magic, which led to him having his own theatre to do said performances; he did indeed find inspiration with a showing of the Lumière brothers' cinematograph in 1895 (attempts to buy it were unsuccessful, but by 1896 he had found a projector to use and modify as a camera for his films). He made over 500 films in his lifetime (although less than half survive), with the most obvious highlight being A Trip to the Moon (1902), displaying the first iconic shot ever put to film that is shown a century later with this feature. Melies declined by the end of the 1910s due to a variety of factors ranging from World War I to finances, though he did find a living working a candy/toy stand in the Gare Montparnasse, while having a rediscovery from journalists prior to his death in 1938, which included the Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur alongside a variety of future influences.

The film is adapted from 2007 novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick, with John Logan serving as screenplay writer. One can hope that they do not grow tired of seeing a director's vision come out on screen with such interest and efficient, regardless if it is a great director or not. It is interesting in that sense to see a film from Scorsese aimed differently from his usual audience - basically, one can watch the film with their children or by themselves and have a good time. It is a film with a deep respect for its audience alongside cinema that makes for a fairly fabulous achievement (one filmed in 3D, although obviously I can't recreate the experience of said 3D). The film runs at a generally enjoyable pace at 126 minutes that unfolds itself and its surroundings with careful planning that makes a worthy adventure with plenty of visual appeal while also drawing upon the past with a well-touched stroke of the pen. The film is tasked with needing two worthwhile child actors to bridge key gaps in the film, and Butterfield and Moretz do fairly well with generating the presence needed to capture the wonder and curiosity needed from each that should be expected from films like this. Kingsley is capably up to task with inviting mystery and interest in those moments he is around, particularly when explaining who he was as compared to now. Cohen is up to task in some bumbling amusement without preening distraction, proving a useful foil and occasional focus. Others have smaller focus but do just fine with those little moments, whether that means a dutiful Stuhlbarg or Lee (who can make a few lines seem fun even after over 200 appearances, the most appropriate person for a love letter to cinema). It drives an interesting mystery well enough to useful conclusions that run the expected gamut of emotion with a nice atmosphere and understanding from Scorsese and his crew that lands for those who desire something with a mostly consistent balance of first and second half to go with a game cast for a worthwhile feature for its crowd of cinema and beyond.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence.

Review #1528: A.I. Artificial Intelligence.

Cast: 
Haley Joel Osment (David), Jude Law (Gigolo Joe), Frances O'Connor (Monica Swinton), Sam Robards (Henry Swinton), Jake Thomas (Martin Swinton), William Hurt (Professor Allen Hobby), Brendan Gleeson (Lord Johnson-Johnson), with Jack Angel (Teddy), Robin Williams (Dr. Know), Ben Kingsley (Specialist), Meryl Streep (Blue Fairy), and Chris Rock (Comedian Robot) 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, #1068 - Ready Player One, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, #1478 - The Color Purple, and #1520 - Saving Private Ryan)

Review: 
"While there was divisiveness when A.I. came out, I felt that I had achieved Stanley’s wishes, or goals."

This was most definitely a film I anticipated and feared ever watching. On the one hand, it has sensibilities of two great directors mixed into one prolonged experience both in length and the time it took to actually develop it to the screen. For starters, the film is an adaptation of the short story "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss, written originally in 1969. The original work included just four characters (David, his parents, and Teddy), which talked about the doubts of a boy's existence and what is real while his "parents" wait for the chance to have their own child. Stanley Kubrick had acquired the rights to the story by the 1970s. An array of writers would come and go in writing/consulting a script for Kubrick, which included Aldiss, Bob Shaw, Ian Watson and Sara Maitland, with Kubrick treating the soon-enormous script as resembling The Adventures of Pinocchio. One key thing that stopped progression of getting pre-production going was a perception by Kubrick that effects-work had to evolve enough to suit what he wanted (the release of Jurassic Park helped spur the idea of potentially doing the film again, but Kubrick ultimately retained focus on what ended up being his last project, Eyes Wide Shut in 1999). In the middle of all that searching for the right tone, Steven Spielberg had been approached by Kubrick to direct it, and it was after Kubrick's death in 1999 that led Christiane Kubrick to approach Spielberg to take on the project; Spielberg would develop a screenplay based on the story done by Watson, with the most notable aspect being the "Flesh Fair" sequence.

The ambition shown here in bringing such a project like this to life is admirable, regardless of how the final result turns out. It is a decent film, for better or worse. It has some of the edge needed when it comes to a visual level that makes an interesting curiosity that may perhaps inspire some thought about its deeper implications involving machines, that much is for sure. And yet there is just something about it that seems hollow when it comes to being consistently interesting in actually springing a story that really makes care all the way forward, which combines with a quiet ending that really seems to try to cover too many bases without truly deserving it. In other words, it is a fine movie, but I can't say I really, really liked it enough to justify 146 minutes of runtime, where it seems more clinical verging on silly than properly bleak and innovative, which basically means you get the decent but not perfect writings of two visionaries. Osment does just fine when it comes to a really tough task: a robot boy built to love, complete with an enduring spirit and robotic actions that carry this film as much as he can in unblinking fashion that will either lead to great heights or meandering. Law does fine, amusing in the manner of trickery to go along with the other side of what makes Mecha made to love. O'Connor and Robards don't really do as well, strangely enough, since they really don't help the first half seem that involving. Evidently the 22nd century has led to parents and children made out of wooden acting, where a voice of a teddy bear has more charm in comparison. Hurt does do a fine job, but he is gravelly underused, having basically just two scenes in the whole (meaningful in terms of hammering in the whole aspects of a robot child yes, but still). Williams is funny in his one scene to shine in exposition.

I really just wish I enjoyed this more, because there certainly are bits and pieces that seem suited for greatness that get slogged out of enjoyment. At least the original author Aldiss thought it was "inventive, intriguing, involving film", so to have a film that at least doesn't make the author mad is okay by me. For a story originally just about the plight of parents who struggle with loving a robot child, it sure is strange to have a film go from that to a "Flesh Fair" involving beating down old robots and a quest to become a real boy as Pinocchio with mommy issues. In a future that has cultivated the flooding of New York and had to rebuild itself with exploiting robots, why should it be surprising that at some point in time someone wanted to make a robot that loves you - basically this is the story of an advanced robotic pet looking for a way for their master to come back. The "Flesh Fair" sequence is in some way the make-it-or-break-it sequence - either it will help the film gather depth in the underbelly of robot use, or it will seem a bit too much for its own good. I'm fine with it, but it just seems so jarring when compared to the first half. I appreciate the look of the film, which does fine with featuring the future with some decent robotic effects, although its last trick for the end is a bit unwieldy. And then of course there is that ending, one that tries to resolve the pursuit for the "Blue Fairy" with a half-measure for a fable, as his plight for chasing down this delusion is thought of as like a human's ability to chase down their dreams (I...suppose). Keep in mind, this was the ending devised by Kubrick (not Spielberg), so it only goes to show that sometimes you just can't please everyone when it comes to resolutions. The setup to its little ending was ridiculous enough (because the odds of making a robot into a boy are pretty much nil, so either I expected him to wither away or give up), and the payoff is just an eye-roller more than a tear-jerker when it comes to meaningful science fiction. It is quite possible a re-viewing would help in seeing the layers beneath a vaguely provocative film, but honestly that really seems like a tall order - why not just spend time watching a better movie again instead? If one wants to compare and match, if I want a better Kubrick sci-fi time, I'll pick 2001: A Space Odyssey, and if I want a better Spielberg sci-fi time, I'll pick E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. What we have here is a film that is too cloying and too much for its own good to really become something other than a parable gone awry. I am glad that I saw the film in curiosity for measurement as a film of the 21st century, even if it is ultimately just a decent experience in the long run.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Dave.

Review #1503: Dave.

Cast:
Kevin Kline (Dave Kovic/President Bill Mitchell), Sigourney Weaver (Ellen Mitchell), Frank Langella (Bob Alexander), Kevin Dunn (Alan Reed), Ving Rhames (Duane Stevensen), Ben Kingsley (Vice President Gary Nance), Charles Grodin (Murray Blum), Faith Prince (Alice), and Laura Linney (Randi) Directed by Ivan Reitman (#026 - Ghostbusters, #031 - Ghostbusters II, #243 - Stripes, #487 - Twins, and #1278 - Legal Eagles)

Review: 

"Your job is not to make things funny. Your job is to tell the truth on a daily basis."

When the right director and stars are at hand, one could do something really interesting. Ivan Reitman had already cultivated a career for himself in directing/producing since the 1970s (after attending McMaster University for music while making short films and being hired and fired from CITY-TV in Toronto). He started directing features with Foxy Lady (1971) while also serving as producer for film such as Shivers (1975), but his first true successes came through the hands of soon-to-be comedian stars: Animal House (1978), featuring a variety of stars (which Reitman co-produced with Matty Simmons) was a major hit, while Meatballs (1979), featuring Bill Murray in the first of four collaborations with Reitman, proved to be one of the most successful films ever done in Canada. Reitman has directed seventeen films while continuing to serve as producer for a variety of films (such as serving as co-producer for this film with Lauren Shuler Donner who liked the concept provided by campaign worker-turned-screenwriter Gary Ross), and he became interested in doing this film through Warren Beatty, who was first thought for the lead role before eventually bowing out. The choice for stage and film star Kevin Kline as the star nearly fell through as well because Kline thought that Reitman wanted a performance similar to his acclaimed performance from A Fish Called Wanda (1988), although he soon grew to like the idea of the film as a "very delicate sort of romantic comedy."

The film certainly has a feeling of familiarity, such as Frank Capra's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) in its tone, or perhaps The Magnificent Fraud (1939) and Moon over Parador (1988), which both dealt with a look-alike becoming president of a country. It certainly helps in a film that is fairly light on its feet in trying to make a charming little film work piece by piece in clever amusement for a serious subject, a guy pretending to be President of the United States, the most prominent person in this great country. With different hands or a different set of actors not as talented as these prove to be, one could have had just a silly film and nothing else, but with Retiman, Kline, Weaver, and Langella at their places on and behind the camera, one can't go wrong here. Kline proves a wise leading man in balance, capable of stepping into any moment required of him without any kind of hesitation in timing or composition, sifting through scenes as an impersonator-in-chief with honesty that resonates in all the right ways needed, and his brief double act is fairly amusing to view. Weaver follows along with respective timing and grace that makes for a fine pairing with Kline (such as an improvised song on the street, for example). Langella proves a worthy foil to Kline, one that nibbles on the scenery with careful amusement in polished arrogance that fits within the confines needed in cynicism. Dunn and Rhames prove efficient support, while Kingsley and Grodin are neat in small moments (the sequence with the latter involving looking over the budget is a good indicator of that), and the cameos involving a mix of television and politicians lend a small hand to helping the film breeze through 110 minutes well. On the whole, there is a good sense of everyman warmth through its direction and script that hits most of its marks in a careful subtle way that make it a reliable comedy for its time that still works out now more than ever.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

You Kill Me.

Review #1269: You Kill Me.

Cast: 
Ben Kingsley (Frank Falenczyk), Téa Leoni (Laurel Pearson), Luke Wilson (Tom), Dennis Farina (Edward O'Leary), Philip Baker Hall (Roman Krzeminski), Bill Pullman (Dave), Marcus Thomas (Stef Krzeminski), and Jayne Eastwood (Kathleen Fitzgerald) Directed by John Dahl.

Review: 
One wonders what makes someone look up a film like this. This is an indie film, made on a budget of $4 million. It happens to be the writing work of Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, , who are likely more known for their work on The Chronicles of Narnia film series along with certain Marvel films such as Avengers: Endgame (2019) while having a cast-list that seems ripe for a few laughs. So what's the holdup in actually delivering laughs? The resulting film is one that is dry in most of the places that matter most, a movie too mild to actually work as either a crime or comedy film for its 93 minute run-time, especially one about a hit-man who undergoes Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and works at a mortuary. One really can't say its the fault of the actors, who sit there and say these milquetoast lines that don't impact as much as they should, as if eccentricity was nowhere to be found. It even finds time to be bland when it tries its hand at romantic moments (with a 23 year age difference, no less) between Kingsley and Leoni that falls down the stairs and never gets up. I feel like I really should care about an alcoholic hitman trying to adjust to AA meetings, and Kingsley seems game to make for deadpan fun, but it seems more like deadpan sleepwalking, which could also ring reluctantly true for Leoni as well. Less can be given for the rest of its cast, an utterly disappointing thing to say that starts with Wilson and ends with a lack of any true mob presence, where Farina and Hall can't even chew scenery properly. At least Pullman is fun to stick around with for a few minutes around and around. The film certainly has its own kind look it wants to go with, even if it sometimes seem a bit fake (such as its snow or its lone gun battle) to really make me think I'm watching a movie. It never sells its motivation (if it has one) to drive things along, slowing down in the middle and sticking in neutral for its climax, which ends about as convincingly as it began - with a great big meh. An imaginary point could also be subtracted for spending far more time in San Francisco than Buffalo than needed (sorry, let me fix that, a film set there but filmed mostly in Canada with occasional shots elsewhere). Is this a joke? Am I being pranked by a film that sticks itself in mud after taking too much of its own medicine, or does one need to pick more obvious comedy? In this case, it is preferable to pick something else. A walk in the park at night might give you more danger, but you surely will have more to talk about than if you sat through this average one.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Iron Man 3.

Review #396: Iron Man 3.

Cast
Robert Downey, Jr. (Tony Stark/Iron Man), Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes/Iron Patriot), Guy Pearce (Aldrich Killian), Rebecca Hall (Maya Hansen), Ben Kingsley (Trevor Slattery), Stephanie Szostak (Ellen Brandt), James Badge Dale (Eric Savin), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Ty Simpkins (Harley), Paul Bettany (J.A.R.V.I.S.), William Sadler (President Ellis) and Miguel Ferrer (Rodriguez) Directed by Shane Black.

Review
In Review #372, I reviewed 42, but this was never the original purpose. I went to the movie theater (big shock, I actually got out of the house), and because Iron Man 3 was sold out, so I picked 42 on the spot. 42 was a fine film, but it always bugged me that I missed Iron Man 3 on that day. 37 days later, I went to the movie theater to go see Iron Man 3, to complete the cycle of the Iron Man films I've reviewed (#135 - Iron Man, #334 - Iron Man 2) and to see if Shane Black could do a good job directing as he does writing (He screenwrote #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, and #357 - The Last Boy Scout) for a film like this. So was it worth the wait? Yeah, pretty much. Robert Downey, Jr does a great job once again, evolving the character more, but still keeping just like we like Stark. Paltrow works well with Downey, given the amount of screen time, which is alright. Cheadle does well, consistant as always. Guy Pearce (Who I never had heard of until this film) does a fine job, not too bad a villain. As these films evolve, the villains get harder to beat, a bit more detailed after a while, which works well. I liked Ty Simpkins, not a bad child actor overall. Kingsley is allright, even if I think he's a bit underused for the film. The action works well, and the level of spectacle is at an all time high. The story flows allright, not doing too bad. This film is slightly better than Iron Man 2, not better than the first film, but still a good way to continue this film series. I do wonder if there will be a fourth one though. But at least now my..movie journey is complete. Countdown to 400 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Schindler's List.

Review #351: Schindler's List.

Cast
Liam Neeson (Oskar Schindler), Ben Kingsley (Itzhak Stern), Ralph Fiennes (Amon Göth), Caroline Goodall (Emilie Schindler), Jonathan Sagall (Poldek Pfefferberg), Embeth Davidtz (Helen Hirsch), Małgorzata Gebel (Wiktoria Klonowska), Mark Ivanir (Marcel Goldberg), Beatrice Macola (Ingrid), Andrzej Seweryn (Julian Scherner), Friedrich von Thun (Rolf Czurda), and Jerzy Nowak (Investor) 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, and #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull)

Review
This is a polarizing film. This is a film that blends into any time period, managing to have shock and horror, but not disgusting you to the point of leaving. It keeps you in, managing to work for all with Spielberg obviously wanting to do this project, and to do it right, and for good reason. Films usually don't always touch us, some are for entertainment, some are for art, some are for others, but this is for many, many people, as a tribute, which works to the film and to the people. It is a reminder, it is a sad tale, with the black and white working especially well. The acting is good, especially from Neeson, who manages to leave an impact on you. It's been twenty years since this film, and even so it still works very well. It is what most call a masterpiece.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.