The Wolfman (2010).

Review #2449: The Wolfman (2010).

Cast: 

Benicio del Toro (Lawrence Talbot / The Wolfman; Mario Marin-Borquez as Young Lawrence Talbot), Anthony Hopkins (Sir John Talbot / Wolfman), Emily Blunt (Gwen Conliffe), Hugo Weaving (Inspector Francis Aberline), Geraldine Chaplin (Maleva), Art Malik (Singh), Antony Sher (Dr. Hoenneger), David Schofield (Constable Nye), David Sterne (Kirk), and Simon Merrells (Ben Talbot; Asa Butterfield as Young Ben Talbot) Directed by Joe Johnston (#060 - Captain America: The First Avenger, #322 - Jumanji, #2023 - Jurassic Park III)

Review:

"We wanted to make it period but we didn’t want to go back to the period of the original, 1941. I wanted it to be very much a vision of Edward Gorey’s London, which is Victorian London. There’s nothing more gothic and shadowy and horrifying than that. They had already decided on that when I came on so it wasn’t my choice, but I thought it was the perfect period to go to. It’s all about the darkness. "

Well, the remake comes for every horror movie at some point. You might remember that George Waggner's The Wolf Man (1941) had been written by Curt Siodmak to a general success at the hands of Lon Chaney Jr as a star. Sure, the follow-ups with Chaney weren't so much direct sequels as basically shuffling chairs, but it did at least take a few decades to try and revamp the werewolf for a Universal horror movie, at least if one doesn't count stuff like The Monster Squad (1987) or Van Helsing (2004). Plans were first announced in 2006, and at least they got the star they wanted with Benicio del Toro from the jump. Mark Romanek was tapped to direct the movie by 2007 that saw him involved with pre-production (such as hiring Rick Heinrichs for production design to go along with location scouting)..he was out by 2008. Joe Johnston was hired to direct the film in February 2008, a couple of weeks before the film was to be shot in England, and he stated later that he took the job due to having a "cash flow problem"*. Rick Baker and makeup effects supervisor Dave Elsey won the film's only notch of mainstream praise for the makeup, although they were locked out of doing the transformation sequences, which was done in CG. While Andrew Kevin Walker wrote the initial screenplay, Johnston hired David Self to provide re-writes. The movie was delayed over and over again for release, going from late 2008 to early 2009 to, well February 2010. Made for a budget of over $100 million, the movie was not a success at the time, with the then-president of Universal Studios (Ronald Meyer) calling the movie "crappy" and among the worst movies they ever made (of course he thought Babe: Pig in the City (1998) belonged in the same category, so take those words with a grain of salt). For the DVD release, an "unrated director's cut" was included by Johnston, which added 17 minutes to the runtime that had been deleted so audiences "would get to the first Wolfman transformation sooner", which most notably had Max von Sydow and the origins of the silver cane-sword. 15 years later, Universal did a "reboot" with Wolf Man (2025). For the purposes of this review, I covered the uncut movie.

There are varying story beats in each film, as in both movies the Talbots are reunited to bury a newly deceased brother and both movies involve a climax of father and son confronting one another. Of course the older film used fortune tellers and even a spell to get to where it is, but there you go. Honestly, I get why some wouldn't be particularly big on the movie, but...I kind of liked it. Sure, you get the Gothic sensibilities of murky colors and period stuff (set in the final years of the 19th century in jolly ol' Victorian England) to go with CG effects, but it is a neat little romp that gave me what I was hoping for: a charmer. You can't exactly top John Landis' An American Werewolf in London (1981) or even Joe Dante's The Howling (1981), but you can still have a bit of fun anyway. It is a bit cut and dry with what to expect from a werewolf movie, what with the big thing about full moons, having one's clothes still wearable even after being a wolf (okay that was in the 1940s movie too), and naturally: not really going too hard about a woman falling for a man with big fur (okay I don't care about the last part, but maybe there are werewolf movies where people care about romance). But, really, how much "tension" do you need in a movie where you know there's going to be R-rated wolf-tearing? Johnson may have done the movie strictly for the money, but I think he did fine with the situation presented in making a useful thrill ride. Del Toro does a reasonable job with the material provided, managing to balance the tightrope of man and monster for decent tragedy that isn't making one just think back to Chaney. Hopkins chews the scenery up in hearty conviction to make the family drama of the food chain (and who merits being on top) a fashionable one to watch. Sure, they might overshadow Blunt, who tries her best to sell why anyone would in fact cling around to the situation presented that is sometimes believable (I suppose anyone can fall for those stuck in a situation they can't control). Weaving plays a character with a name inspired by the actual chief inspector Frederick Abberline, a prominent figure in the investigation of Jack the Ripper in 1888. He doesn't get much to really do but is at least fashionable for the eventual climax. In general, the movie rests on building to hairy mayhem and a few fashionable Gothic sensibilities that I was generally on board with. It never really kicks into high gear, but it satisfies most of the boxes one would hope to see in wolves and action, complete with finding a way to have two wolves face each other in good ol' fashioned hokum. Quality wise, it probably is a smidge about The Curse of the Werewolf (1961) for wolf movies and in general is about on par in the "amp up old monsters" category with The Mummy (1999). As a whole, The Wolfman is a fine remake, doing most of what you would hope to accomplish with taking a familiar focus and giving it some fresh air that may be worth looking into beyond calling it a missed opportunity.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Apparently it was four/three weeks of prep time. Cinematographer Shelly Johnson stated that he had two weeks of prep time here: The American Society of Cinematographers | Bad Moon Rising: The…

One Battle After Another.

Review #2426: One Battle After Another.

Cast: 

Leonardo DiCaprio (Bob Ferguson / "Ghetto" Pat Calhoun), Sean Penn (Col. Steven J. Lockjaw), Benicio del Toro (Sergio St. Carlos), Regina Hall (Deandra), Teyana Taylor (Perfidia Beverly Hills), Chase Infiniti (Willa Ferguson / Charlene Calhoun), Alana Haim (Mae West), Wood Harris (Laredo), Shayna McHayle (Junglepussy), Paul Grimstad (Howard Sommerville), Dijon Duenas (Talleyrand), Tony Goldwyn (Virgil Throckmorton), Starletta DuPois (Grandma Jennie), John Hoogenakker (Tim Smith), and Eric Schweig (Avanti) Written and Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson (#1546 - There Will Be Blood)

Review: 

"I think even before I had kids, I kind of felt a connection to how this father felt about his daughter. And it only grew deeper and stronger as I have had kids to understand what he was writing about in that way. And I’m trying to take from the book what I needed and pursue my own path and let it move in directions that it seemed that it wanted to go.”

I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised to encounter this in the proper place for a new film: a movie theater*. Apparently, Paul Thomas Anderson had wanted to do a movie based on Thomas Pynchon's 1990 novel Vineland for many years. He loved the book so much that he struggled with how to adapt it and set it aside. He found later that when he wrote a series of separate stories, he found it worked to combine those with certain elements of Vineland (a book set in 1984 dealing with a burnt-out hippie, a traitorous revolutionary and a DEA agent dealing with a secret that also features "like death, but different" Thanatoids, to provide an example of what the book sounds like) for what became this film; previously, he made an adaptation of Pynchon's Inherent Vice in 2014 and had taken slight inspiration from Pynchon's V. for The Master in 2012. You may or may not know that the title of the movie is shared with a statement put out by Weather Underground, the far-left militant organization (and described as "domestic terrorist" by the FBI) that had run for a good deal of the 1970s (with targeted bombing of government buildings and banks, with a good chunk having warnings set out beforehand) before it splintered off into other organizations.

It is an interesting movie, that's for sure. It probably goes without saying that it rises above just being termed an "action thriller", mostly in the strange places that it mines for screwy moments of humor without straining into parody or sanctimonious hokum. It manages to cycle through 162 minutes with such energy and charm that reminds one of the enthusiasm that can be found with letting movies flow on their own terms. The ensemble does work out for captivating interest in seeing where the wind blows in would-be revolutionaries in the eternal battle that comes not just from trying to challenge the system but also the battle of seeing what the world will look like for the next generation. It works out well for DiCaprio, who gets to play the role in all of its burned-out flaws that come with people that may or may not be ready for what lies ahead in real danger, whether that involves a gun or, well, being a person in someone's life. It is bleakly amusing to see how one sees him from the first thirty minutes (where he, alongside Taylor in her own path of self-serving nature, is depicted as in and later out of the French 75 lifestyle) to him for most of the film as the hazy chaser in a strange world around him. Consider how he looks when paired with del Toro (who just glides through the movie like a pro) in certain sequences of what you might as well call revolution with ideas of, well, responsibility. It befuddles me to note I had seen exactly one movie with Sean Penn in it before this one. At any rate, this is a movie with a real standout performance by Penn, who makes for a compelling adversary that actually does inspire the tiniest bit of humor from an aspiring fascist club member. There is plenty of menace to be found even within the growing absurdities that come with a character that really, really wants approval in all of the strange ways possible (as one does when starting out by being forced to get an erection before ending with, well, a pitch-black moment very fitting for him). He isn't too different from Taylor when it comes to self-serving people that love the sound of their own voice when it comes to force - really, he could be anybody who ever managed to make it to a certain position of privilege and still crave affection (notice how we never see if Lockjaw has a spouse or other kids) in such seething contempt because they can't just admit it. Likely the best representation of how Taylor (who does pretty well with a role that is only in the aforementioned first part but basically haunts the entire narrative) is similar is the robbery sequence where you might think the group is going to assert their identity of being able to move along freely (one does that by being on the counter without a mask, for example), loud and proud right up until Taylor's character just shoots a guard because he dared to move.

People come and go with one hell of a tempo behind it, and Infiniti (in her film debut) does a worthy job keeping up with the proceedings with patience and a presence to match the growing insanity. The sequence with her and Penn meeting for the first time to basically size each other up is especially enthralling in the display of two people displaying just how much hatred (and, dark humor) can be found in a test of DNA. As a whole, the movie finds one thing above all in its chase of the frontier (namely with one hell of a car sequence): there are many battles to be had in life, but the ideal one to really, madly, deeply want to win is to raise a good person to walk in your footsteps. You are not your parents, you are the choices that come from what you learn from the people around you, for better or worse. The dueling groups of people that seek to fight for a different future (whether by bomb or incinerating false hopes) will come and go, but the plight of people around us will be clear as day to those who actually take the time to look and listen with their own eyes and ears. Basically, it is a movie that moves with enough of a jolt to remind you what love can be about in the face of bubbling dread for what the world might look like for the next people. In that sense, it is a timely movie to check out and see for yourself what the fuss is about.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

*Is it a bias against Netflix? Meh, who knows I just hate the idea of streaming anything new.

*I do kind of wonder for the record about one little plot thing, so scroll at your risk: how exactly do Bob and Willa get back home with the safety of having a cell phone now? Did the government just say "fuck it, these guys aren't worth the trouble". Does him having a phone mean that he is less paranoid, and how does one get to that point when you basically went through hell? Also I totally wonder if it was picked at random that the person presented to be gender neutral is the one that ends up ratting to the troops that Willa does in fact have a phone to track.

Traffic (2000).

Review #1526: Traffic.

Cast: 
Michael Douglas (Robert Wakefield), Benicio del Toro (Javier Rodriguez), Don Cheadle (Montel Gordon), Catherine Zeta-Jones (Helena Ayala), Dennis Quaid (Arnie Metzger), Erika Christensen (Caroline Wakefield), Luis Guzmán (Ray Castro), Jacob Vargas (Manolo Sanchez), Tomas Milian (General Arturo Salazar), Topher Grace (Seth Abrahams), Miguel Ferrer (Eduardo Ruiz), Amy Irving (Barbara Wakefield), Steven Bauer (Carlos Ayala), D. W. Moffett (Jeff Sheridan), James Brolin (General Ralph Landry), and Albert Finney (White House Chief of Staff) Directed by Steven Soderbergh (#984 - Logan Lucky)

Review: 
"Well, I think a part of you has to be scared, it keeps you alert; otherwise you become complacent. So absolutely, I'm purposefully going after things and doing things that I'm not sure if it's going to come off or not."

There's a difference between one doing films for a living and one making cinema, particularly when it comes to a process-driven director like Steven Soderbergh. He had an interest in film as a teenager that led to him doing his own shorts with a Super 8 and 16 mm camera. He moved to Hollywood by the 1980s and moved his way gradually through roles such as game show composing to concert video directing. His first directing responsibility was the 1985 concert film 9012Live, which featured the band Yes. An idea for a film combined with a cross-country trip led to the development of his first feature in Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989), a film regarded as an independent classic. Soderbergh (who once described himself as a synthesist) has done a mix of independent and mainstream films over the years, with noted works including Out of Sight (1998), Erin Brockovich (2000), and Ocean's Eleven (2001) that represent a versatile director of heist and psychological movies.

The basis for this film was Soderbergh wanted to make a film about the drug trade without having it be about addicts. With the rights to a property that seemed like what he wanted, producer Laura Bickford presented him with the rights to Traffik, a six-part 1989 miniseries written by Simon Moore that dealt with the illegal trade that wove a story between suppliers, growers, and customers from Pakistan to Germany to England, respectively). Looking for scripts led to one by Steve Gaghan that was about high school students and their problem with drugs and gangs that had Edward Zwick involved as producer, but the writer got him to try and do a film together with both Soderbergh and Zwick. After spending time consulting on the outline and doing films on the side, a script was finished that would have over a hundred speaking parts and split storylines to be shot in two months. The film was released by USA Films after 20th Century Fox went through wanting Harrison Ford for the lead, getting him to sign on, and dropping out even after script changes (which Douglas liked enough to take on the role after declining it initially). Soderbergh (who also shot the film himself) wanted a distinct vision for each of the three stories in order, such as having that involved different filters and contrast, such as no filter for a blue tinted Wakefield story or overexposed film with diffusion filter for Ayala's story or tobacco filter in Rodriguez's story.

It is interesting to view the film through its numerous perspectives that says what it wants about the approach to various cultures and the way that vices inhibit their little worlds in big and small ways of cruciality that shows shades of gray in every place with no real clear answer, with a war that isn't what it looks like on television. It has a cohesive edge in most areas that will inspire curiosity alongside certain emotions that make it stick with a viewer now as it did back in 2000. It doesn't compromise itself with trying to make a definitive statement or judgement on any of the three linked stories but instead lets the viewer make their own impressions on how vices (whatever kind of substance they are) can affect us or others around us without having easy solutions whatever border you live in. Obviously there isn't just one key star in the film, but the one that seems the most prominent to focus as first is Douglas, then followed by del Toro, Cheadle, and Zeta-Jones, although this isn't to diminish the effect others have in support. Douglas proves fairly captivating, one who runs with a hard-lined naivety that makes for a high-strung and capable performance that we can at least see some of which in others or ourselves in what we believe seems right. The speech at the end for example makes a point in what it doesn't say just as much as what actually is said about a fight against substances and ourselves, which Douglas handles neatly. When it comes to del Toro (a Puerto Rico native that shifted his focus from studying business to drama at the age of 20), he sticks out just as well in his distinct storyline (told to us primarily in Spanish with subtitles, which is what Soderbergh desired) in jaded honesty that we follow with great interest because of his well-timed instincts for what seems to be necessary to eke out a living within authority and corruption. This works out best in a little scene involving tourists looking for their car and del Toro telling them about calling a man to help them find the car (after stating the police won't find their car) - it is a fascinating moment that would've probably just been a one-shot blip with a less intuitive actor (incidentally he would later star in another drug war related film with Sicario, which also rules). Cheadle does just as well in reliable nature with a sort of cat-and-mouse game involving procedure and coercion, which he does with careful tension. This reflects just as well on Zeta-Jones in her evolution of principles and moments shared with a sneaky (and fairly effective) Quaid.

There are other aspects that do well, such as Christensen in driving the angle of shocking addiction without seeming like an after-school special act, but it ultimately is the balance of its three storylines in look and tension that makes it a mostly well-done film for its era. It will hold the attention for most of its intentions in 147 minutes that rewards patience through a mostly intact plot and fair camerawork and editing. It accomplishes most of what it wants to speak to us by knocking us over in its statements said and unsaid that excels in uncompromising uncomfortability that speaks truth to hypocrisy now more than ever.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Usual Suspects.

Review #1508: The Usual Suspects.

Cast: 
Stephen Baldwin (Michael McManus), Gabriel Byrne (Dean Keaton), Benicio del Toro (Fred Fenster), Kevin Pollak (Todd Hockney), Kevin Spacey (Roger "Verbal" Kint), Chazz Palminteri (Dave Kujan), Pete Postlethwaite (Kobayashi), Suzy Amis (Edie Finneran), Giancarlo Esposito (Jack Baer), and Dan Hedaya (Sergeant Jeff Rabin) Produced and Directed by Bryan Singer (#008 - X-Men, #010 - X2, #584 - X-Men: Days of Future Past, and #1077 - Superman Returns)

Review: 
"I believe that as a writer and a director, you're only providing the skeleton of a character, and you're hiring actors to fill it out."

It's easy to make a film people remember when you have assembled a script worth thinking about. Christopher McQuarrie spent his first few years out of high school (spent with classmate Singer) doing some traveling and work in a boarding school and a detective agency. His first foray into film came with Public Access (which he co-wrote with Singer) in 1993, which he co-wrote with Singer and Michael Feit Dougan. The film did win some attention from critics (such as with the Sundance Film Festival), but it ultimately did not find much of an audience to play to. The thing that sparked interest in writing the film came about from seeing a title of a Spy magazine column that was "The Usual Suspects" (which also happens to be a classic line from Casablanca), and a casual conversation about doing a film with that title led later on to Singer asking if he could write a film for him with that in mind (since there was interest by investors interested in their last work for a $3 million project). McQuarrie, working at a law firm at the time, found inspiration in a small white room that looked like one used for interrogation, with this springing to mind a character who talks too much; names for some of the characters would come from stuff revolving around McQuarrie in his workplace, such as the interrogator (named for a office manager at the firm) and even Keyser Söze (although the last name was changed from real life).

The most interesting parts of the film involve those little moments of interaction between the core cast that we follow along with in its story, more so in the first half than the second. It is Byrne who we gravitate to in terms of interest, one who just grabs at you with a flickering intensity that certain inspires a certain kind of imagination as to what he really is, since he is the figure we see in the midst of events that had started the film anyway. Baldwin follows along with useful pacing that is quick on the trigger in high-temperedness. Del Toro does fine with a share of eccentricity that lends curiosity for what really seems to be a plain character on paper. Pollak proves worthy of a few cheeky smiles in short fused-temperament, while Palminteri proves a worthy one to contrast against the core group of seediness with coarse charm. Spacey is the key to plenty in the film, since he is the one we are listening to and viewing within the background of the perspective, and he does a fairly decent job in unassuming nature, useful to the film is what it shows without seeming like an extra presence, verbalizing himself with effective weaving.

You know those movies that people say they would like for you to see in how it plays out? There are some films that people can really, really get into, ones that can lend plenty of discussion for how something "just works", something far more than what one could assume from a noir mystery and so on and so on. Honestly, the one sticking point for me when it comes to this film is that I wish it was better than I expected. What was there to expect? The climax at the end isn't exactly spoiler-free from pop culture, but it generally does help to not read too much into an ending for a film before you watch it anyway (look, either Keyser Söze will be revealed to us in the end as either someone already established or he won't be at all, it isn't exactly more than a binary choice). The film relies on this twist because of its perspective that it wants to tell within its confines of a story that perhaps works for numerous viewings, one might say (it has been described as Double Indemnity meets Rashomon). Well, that doesn't really work if you don't find its shaggy dog kind of storytelling that particularly highly to begin with, a big trick to play on the audiences. The cast ultimately plays into part of how this film falls into what I like to call the "five stages of movie classic disappointment" (in which one does when they are faced with a movie people like but you don't, which obviously differs from the inverse of normal movie disappointment, namely in paragraphs). In this never-tested method, they would represent denial, in that I am believing that because they do pretty well, I cling to the idea that this really will be a great film. Anger (or in this case, frustration, because who really gets mad at being tricked by a film?) presumably kicks in right around when the story starts to teeter a bit too long in making me keep caring to the inevitable stop. Bargaining comes around in the whiny voice of consciousness that argues that wants me to compromise (in other words, not just immediately say this film isn't quite right without a little bit of digging) and think of it as "good, but not quite perfect" because maybe the climax really will prove itself. This leads to that fourth stage of depression (disappointment), where I just sit through the motions of how it really chooses to go the way it goes and sighing all the way, with that fifth stage standing right there practically mocking me when I finish that last train of thought.

This isn't to say I hated the film, because I actually did find it okay in making a fair piece of curiosity with a few highlights within conventional folks made fair through the actors (such as the scene where they all have to say a line in a police lineup), but in my view its magic trick leaves me feeling indifferent rather than astonishment. Pull that tablecloth from under the table all you want, but that doesn't make it a cool trick if I can see the way you "did it" coming.  Conventional can seem old hat and tired, but you know what was better in its portrayal of details and chase in the same year that this came out? Coincidence or not, that film is Seven (1995), which also happened to feature Spacey in a key role. Why stop there? Why not just chuck along a better film in dealing with stringed-together storytelling in Reservoir Dogs (1992)? Look, sometimes a film just doesn't have the reaching power it thinks it does, and that just falls to the perspective of the person who just saw it, and I just thought it was okay. I can understand the accolades and praise it received from certain audiences (which included an Academy Award for its screenplay, beating films of that year such as Braveheart and Toy Story) while also reaching the final stage of movie-classic-disappointment-grief: Acceptance that it just isn't completely what I think of when I think of a classic, and I move on to the next one.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Sicario: Day of the Soldado.

Review #1105: Sicario: Day of the Soldado.

Cast: 
Benicio del Toro (Alejandro Gillick), Josh Brolin (Matt Graver), Isabela Moner (Isabela Reyes), Jeffrey Donovan (Steve Forsing), Manuel Garcia-Rulfo (Gallo), Catherine Keener (Cynthia Foards), Matthew Modine (Secretary of Defense James Riley), Shea Whigham (Andy Wheeldon), Elijah Rodriguez (Miguel Hernandez), Howard Ferguson Jr. (Troy), and David Castaneda (Hector) Directed by Stefano Sollima.

Review: 
Apologies for the delay, I had some things I needed to get done in the past few days, so this review was delayed from its intended day of Wednesday. Hope you enjoy regardless.

Sicario was a movie that I described as a "tense and brutally effective thriller", with the main three leads of Emily Blunt, del Toro and Brolin proving to be dynamic to watch in how striking each are in dealing with what transpires on screen, and it was a film that had a sense of purpose and intent to what it showed on screen. This time around, the filmmakers decided to not have Blunt back, stating that the "moral guidance for the audience" that she provided in the first movie did not fit with the tone of the sequel. Perhaps the fact that she is not featured alongside del Toro and Brolin that makes this feel a bit unnecessary for some, and your mileage may vary on how this film succeeds at churning up points to exist. However, one important that is retained from the first one is Taylor Sheridan as writer, and he does a fine job once again in giving these characters a fair bit of depth and interest to them. It is in the depiction of the action and in the main three of del Toro-Brolin-Moner that the film works best, with parts in the story being the biggest detriment. The two movies stand out in their levels of moral complexity, with the first one being the one with more of it. It doesn't click as well with showing the pursuit of some sort of greater good crashing into the nature of what it takes to make for said "greater good" that occurred with the earlier film, but its the sequences with del Toro and Moner that make it seem fairly worth it. Brolin also does a fine job with making his (fairly) amoral character work in not having his plotline come off as stale. The other members (including a returning Donovan, who I had forgotten about) do decent in the time they get on screen. The action this time around is pretty rough, with occasional moments of shock but manages to not come off as repetitive or dull. If you compare the two Sicario movies, it is evident which is better pretty quickly, but it shouldn't get in the way too much of how the sequel manages to succeed on its own terms just enough to make a winner. Although it is a bit eager to set itself up for a sequel moreso than the original, I am curious to see where the story will lead itself from here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Sicario.

Review #753: Sicario.

Cast
Emily Blunt (Kate Macer), Benicio del Toro (Alejandro Gillick), Josh Brolin (Matt Graver), Daniel Kaluuya (Reggie Wayne), Maximiliano Hernández (Silvio), Victor Garber (Dave Jennings), Jon Bernthal (Ted), Jeffrey Donovan (Steve Forsing), and Raoul Trujillo (Rafael) Directed by Denis Villeneuve.

Review
Sicario (a term for hit man) is a tough movie to write words about. It's a good movie, I can say that much. But I can also say that it is not for everyone. The movie certainly had a mystique on me, given that it was the first R-rated film I saw in theaters. The movie had gone into full release in October, yet I was watching it in November, with not much of a crowd (six, including myself) but perhaps that made the movie a little more isolated and intriguing. The movie certainly deserves its R-rating, but it also deserves accolades as well. What we have here is a tense and brutally effective thriller that is both unrelenting and interesting to watch. The main three are brilliant in their own ways. Blunt is certainly a lead character we can identify with as an audience to follow with. As for del Toro, he always seems to lurk around but still manage to be interesting and entertaining to watch, especially as his story comes full circle. Brolin has a grimy charm to him that makes him enduring to watch as well. The movie isn't really about hunting down a villain as much it is about seeing the progression of our lead as she sees the methods Brolin and his team uses, especially with regards to del Toro. The movie works because the drama and action balance each other out really well, especially at the end with del Toro. It's a great movie to look at, especially the night vision scenes. Ultimately, this isn't a movie for the faint-hearted, but it is a good movie to watch for some entertainment that may make you think hours after you watch.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Guardians of the Galaxy.

Review #626: Guardians of the Galaxy.

Cast
Chris Pratt (Peter Quill/Star-Lord), Zoe Saldana (Gamora), Dave Bautista (Drax the Destroyer), Vin Diesel (Groot), Bradley Cooper (Rocket), Lee Pace (Ronan the Accuser), Michael Rooker (Yondu Udonta), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Djimon Hounsou (Korath), John C. Reilly (Corpsman Rhomann Dey), Glenn Close (Nova Prime), and Benicio del Toro (The Collector) Directed by James Gunn.

Review
When it comes to having a good time at the movie theater, picking a Marvel movie is usually a safe bet. And that rings true once again with this film, which is a real treat. Does it feel like a pastiche of other films? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't care, this...is just a fun movie to watch. The main heroes all work so well because they're not just a team of heroes, they're a team of rouges who are all different, weird, and yet so fun to watch. It surprised that of all the heroes in this film, it's Groot that is just so delightful to watch. Even if he's in the background he still manages to leave an impression. And Vin Diesel has just a few lines to convey his character in voice...and it works. Diesel manages to convey emotion with those lines, though the effects on Groot also help that, and Groot smiling is just fun to watch. The villain is alright, Pace at least does manage to do a good job under all that makeup, and I liked seeing Karen Gillian, she did a pretty good job in a minor role. The effects are really impressive, for both the characters and the action, it's a movie that is amusing but also thrilling as well. The ending credit scene is pretty amusing, movies don't usually end on Howard the Duck, but it sums how zany this movie is, and how enjoyable it is, from it's retro music (that has a purpose) to its characters to its willingness to just have fun. Go see it, you'll most definitely have a good time.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.