Child's Play 2.

Review #2287: Child's Play 2.

Cast: 

Alex Vincent (Andy Barclay), Brad Dourif (the voice of Chucky), Christine Elise (Kyle), Jenny Agutter (Joanne Simpson), Gerrit Graham (Phil Simpson), Grace Zabriskie (Grace Poole), Peter Haskell (Haskell Sullivan), Beth Grant (Elizabeth Kettlewell), and Greg Germann (Mattson) Directed by John Lafia.

Review: 

Honestly, I forgot about Chucky. If you remember, the original film came out in 1988 as inspired by the experiences of Don Mancini involving consumer demand for the Cabbage Patch Kids while he was studying film at UCLA. The resulting film had clear influence from stuff such as the TV film Trilogy of Terror, The Twilight Zone, A Nightmare on Elm Street, among others. Of course, it wasn't all Mancini, because there were key re-writes done that resulted in Tom Holland and John Lafia given credit for the screenplay alongside Mancini. Holland was the one who had it involve a doll possessed by a serial killer involving voodoo, as opposed to Mancini's doll manifesting "the id", while Lafia stated his biggest contribution was the backstory of the killer-turned-doll and the name Chucky (inquire further). The eventual result was a hit with audiences that obviously necessitated a sequel. Lafia, the previous director of exactly one film with The Blue Iguana (1988), was chosen to direct (as it turned out, it was the second of three theatrical films he did to go along with work in TV, music, and even the live-action aspects of the video game Corpse Killer prior to his suicide in 2020). The second film was successful enough with audiences to inspire, well, you already know. A third film was rushed out into theaters nine months after the release of the second film with Mancini returning to write (with Jack Bender being tapped to direct) and Dourif being the long returning actor (Justin Whalin replaced Alex Vincent to play an older Andy).

Admittedly, it doesn't have as much staying power that the original had when it comes to sheer audacity in its premise of a killer with the perfect timing to wreak havoc in a particular family atmosphere. But it is solid enough to at least work in some useful enough slasher thrills without straining too much in credibility to work out for those who know what they're getting into. For better or worse, the movie sidesteps the two key adults from the last film (Chris Sarandon and Catherine Hicks), instead focusing right on Vincent and a plot that mostly involves "Chucky did it" after one gets the setup to bringing back the once-burned, multiple-timed shot threat back with a somewhat amusing method: public relations and an electric power surge. I suppose someone must've dozed off watching a Frankenstein movie or two in their days, but there is one more caveat at least: Chucky either needs to get moving on doing his voodoo ritual (which if one remembers has to be done on Andy) or he'll be stuck in the doll forever. The acting is serviceable for what is needed in getting a solid body count setup without being too dull for words, complete with Dourif (whose dialogue was recorded in advance, unlike the first film) being just as effective as he was before when it comes to further craven desires of escape at any cost (Ed Gale does a few moments with in-suit stunt performing as before). Vincent is no slouch for his age of course, because he makes the plight of the once-and-future doll survivor work in worthwhile sympathy and curiosity for the rough surroundings that befall him, with only the offbeat Elise around for useful rapport. Agutter and Graham are fine, but let's face it, the most interesting moment is seeing what happens with skepticism going down the gutter to (film) reality. The slasher sequences carry the movie right through 84 minutes in swift dealing to go along with a climax in a bewitching enough warehouse and a fitting closing that just lets the film end on its own wayward path. Child's Play 2 is a decent enough sequel with a few interesting slasher moments to prove worthwhile in the attempt at making a killer doll return something worth being curious about.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

No Country for Old Men.

Review #1921: No Country for Old Men.

Cast: 

Tommy Lee Jones (Ed Tom Bell), Javier Bardem (Anton Chigurh), Josh Brolin (Llewelyn Moss), Woody Harrelson (Carson Wells), Kelly Macdonald (Carla Jean Moss), Garret Dillahunt (Wendell), Tess Harper (Loretta Bell), Barry Corbin (Ellis), Stephen Root (Man who hires Wells), Rodger Boyce (El Paso Sheriff), and Beth Grant (Carla Jean's mother) Written, Produced, and Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen (#659 - True Grit (2010), #765 - Fargo, #1063 - Blood Simple, #1517 - The Big Lebowski, #1552 - A Serious Man, and #1629 - Miller's Crossing) 

Review: 

The movie is adapted from 2005 novel of the same name by Cormac McCarthy. While the Coen brothers were trying to adapt the novel To the White Sea, producer Scott Rudin approached them with the rights to make a film adaptation of the book. This is the 12th feature film by the Coen brothers, who as usual edited the film, with this coming off the heels of their previous work such as Intolerable Cruelty (2003) and The Ladykillers (2004). Take it for what it is worth when it comes to how they went with Bardem: he told them "I don't drive, I speak bad English and I hate violence", and yet he was their ideal choice to star in the film (after Heath Ledger had been in talks before bowing out)...provided that his schedule would work with them, because it would have been Mark Strong if that didn't work out. At any rate, this proved to be one of their most successful films, with the Coens receiving three Academy Awards for their work in this film. 

For me, part of the thing that comes with looking at movies that fall into multiple categories is to look at how it manages to execute what you might see coming from the genre without becoming consumed by what you expect over all things. The film has been called a "neo-Western", "crime thriller", or even "noir". For me, the movie was at its most curious and enjoyable in its setup when it comes to showing the stories of the three lead characters, one that knows when to say something meaningful. I think I can acknowledge the faithfulness of the novel and book with its meditation on the futility of trying to make a clean getaway while also thinking it is just a really nice shaggy dog thriller. Inevitable or not, I just found more to like overall in their previous works such as Miller's Crossing (1990) and Fargo (1996) when it came from top to bottom execution. But don't take my words as a big criticism, because the movie is still pretty good, an old-fashioned period piece that deals with the pitfalls of chance and fate for 122 minutes. They weave a tale that is generally compelling with a generally involving cast and locale.

In a sense, the movie is almost a slasher film, if only because Bardem's sociopath character kills nearly every person he meets (which basically translates to about a dozen people). He is deniably the best part of the film in how he shows unwavering terror with no reservations about just who he is: an agent of death, one who looms over everything. Of course, Brolin is no slouch in comparison when it comes to the other side of fate: trying to evade what and where one is going to end up regardless of the layers of inevitability. Jones has the least amount of time among the three, but folks who are familiar with Jones and his ability to make any type of cut-and-dry role seem interesting to spend time with. He is caught in the middle of fate: being ill-equipped to deal with the ever-changing frontier. Harrelson is the odd man among the supporting cast, a bargaining man who unintentionally is the weak link among the supporting players because of how he comes and goes, particularly when Macdonald and Corbin make such interesting presences without as much time to spare (the latter has one scene with Jones total while the former is the only one to share a scene with each of the main three). The landscape of the film is quite nice, in that one never thinks about the setting of the film being 1980 beyond just figuring it is 1980, complete with the barest of music and cinematography by the dependable Roger Deakins. As a whole, it is a movie that takes its time to build the layers of bleakly amusing fate that works most of its wonders through the usual Coen building blocks of genre blending and distinct characters that ends up making a solid (if not perfect) experience.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Wander Darkly.

Review #1662: Wander Darkly.

Cast: 

Sienna Miller (Adrienne), Diego Luna (Matteo), Beth Grant (Patty Healy), Aimee Carrero (Shea), Tory Kittles (Liam), and Vanessa Bayer (Maggie) Written and Directed by Tara Miele.

Review: 

“I think as humans, story is our deepest faith, right? Story is how we make sense of the world. And I do think at the end of the day, they have to meet in the middle in this place, right?"

You are probably wondering the same question that I had when I looked at it the first time: What? Who? I have to admit that this film figuratively came out of left field, as it is the latest beneficiary of timing and attracting interest on the shelf circuit (I said shelf circuit, not streaming circuit), and March seemed exactly right for this kind of movie. This also happens to be the first work of Tara Miele to reach a certain kind of attention, since it premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in early 2020 (remember that year?); it serves as the fourth feature film for the Long Island native, as she had started her feature career with the indie film The Lake Effect (2010) after entering films with a couple of shorts (beginning with Miss Gentilbelle in 2000); she has also done some work in television. The impetus for this film came out of a car accident that Miele and her husband suffered several years ago (occurring during an argument with their kids in the car that left her with a concussion). She wanted to explore the parallels that come from one's perception after suffering an injury and the cycle of grief that all experience at some point in time. So basically, one is experiencing the fragility of life through narrative therapy that will involve flashbacks and dreams while one faces the truth about what it means to be alive.

I imagine there are two extremes one can fall into when thinking about the experience they had with the film: one will either find it to be an interesting look upon the fragility of life and memories that make for a surreal and soothing experience...or they simply will not care for its maneuvers into therapy that seems like a clunky gimmick for those who don't have the kind of patience for what it wants to say about things that might seem obvious. It really depends on just how much one goes with its existential question of what makes life worth living and all the wanderings that come from. For me, I thought it was an okay movie, because its main duo is the one sticking point that keeps things afloat when it comes to charisma in a film that practically wears "indie" on its sleeve. It aims for some sort of hope in the face of grief and manages to get a marginally useful experience out of it, in that it kept the attention going for 97 minutes without falling prey to all the clunky clichés of the surreal...in that it only gets to pick from the bag of tricks a few times, right down to trying to play with just who is exactly leading the other from the realm of the dead in a love story that I'm sure you've seen before and will see coming yet again. It is strange, because there are small moments that work much more handily in keeping one on the toes rather than the handful (i.e., hands and hands) of exchanges between Miller & Luna saying what is/what is not real in memory - consider a sequence involving our lead checking the baby in its cot, one that is not breathing or moving that alarms her before one realizes what exactly is up. At any rate, Miller and Luna are tasked with matching the other in naturalism that have distinct qualities that draw/repel each other. Miller sells it a bit better, one that expresses the doubts and fear that come from new-found purgatory nightmares that is quite captivating, wandering into terror with fair enough timing that drive the film, whether that means stuck by oneself or stuck wondering how she and Luna were ever a thing to begin with. As for Luna, he does well with what is given on the other side of the coin in terms of striking doubts and tense tenderness, and one could see the film from his perspective just as well as one could do with Miller without thinking either is overplaying their hand in drama or the inevitable argument of who seems more right (to which I shrug my shoulders). Grant and the others in the small cast play the moments with our main folks just fine with no puppetry required. The climax might prove the most interesting or the most "okay, sure" in terms of what it ends up doing in maneuvering the logical end-point for this procession of memories and grief and moving forward, which for me is mostly in the latter category - at least it isn't a complete cheat or something silly, because at the end of the day the movie wants one to end on a poignant moment and that I suppose is enough. At the end of the day, it is an okay movie, curious in its little moments spent with memory and grief that will stick with you if it connects with you after it ends or it will just pass on by with the curiosity of two decent actors to help lead it by - in that sense, being okay with a writer/director having their perspective told for a passion project is not a bad place to be.

And so we close Women's History Month. It was an interesting time trying to do fifteen reviews that would (in my mind) celebrate the month within female directors and stars, particularly in the differences that came out from era to era in perspective. As always, I hope you folks enjoyed this little series of reviews and I will see what will be done in the months ahead to keep up interest in what makes film so fun to write about.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Little Miss Sunshine.

Review #1541: Little Miss Sunshine.

Cast: 
Greg Kinnear (Richard Hoover), Steve Carell (Frank Ginsberg), Toni Collette (Sheryl Hoover), Paul Dano (Dwayne Hoover), Abigail Breslin (Olive Hoover), Alan Arkin (Edwin Hoover), Bryan Cranston (Stan Grossman), Beth Grant (Pageant Official Jenkins), Wallace Langham (Kirby), Matt Winston (Pageant MC), Julio Oscar Mechoso (Mechanic), and Dean Norris (State Trooper McCleary) Directed by Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris.

Review: 
"We felt it was important not to put window dressing between the audience and the characters. We love style but there's a place for that, and sometimes you want the picture to be transparent, for the characters to come through and feel connected and not removed"
"Or distant. What interested us was making a film that was all about the performances. Just the people on that screen."

There have been quite a few film debuts featured before, but how many have their directors and writer debut in the same film? California-born Dayton and Faris both attended the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) with differing interest (film school for Dayton, dance with Faris). Both met in 1978 when he filed a few of her performances. Dayton and Faris soon found opportunities to direct music videos together (alongside other things like commercials) with bands such as R.E.M. and The Smashing Pumpkins starting in 1982, with their work receiving notice such as two Grammy Award wins. They were offered opportunities to direct films with The Mod Squad (1999) and Bad Boys II (2003) that were presented as "style-driven" but they declined (while stating that this film has a "restrained" style, with mood driving the visuals). To put it in perspective the challenge that results from first-time directors/writers trying to get their vision done, this film took nearly six years to go from an initial script by Arndt (who had worked as a script reader and assistant to Matthew Broderick before deciding to take up writing) written in May 2000 to years of shopping around production companies like Focus Features before Marc Turtletaub decided to fund the film himself (at $8 million) to be done in the span of 30 days in 2005, which would include a re-written ending weeks before release the following year.

What we have is a film made about on the fringe of a winning-obsessed culture with a couple of misfits. Not losers mind you (because loser people would just abandon others, whether family or friend), but people who undergo change in ways they couldn't imagine for themselves on a worthwhile and bitingly amusing journey, which makes for a worthy road movie that ultimately is a meaningful winner that lands a majority of its punches in misery over time. It packs itself with a cast that seems to have spent their time before filming in getting a feel for their characters as a family that lesser actors would've just made seem like clichés but are instead malleable enough for turning well-done comedy and drama. Kinnear is particularly adept at heading the film with a tremendous performance, wrapped in Type-A desperation that exemplifies a devastatingly amusing look upon the drive to be thought of as a winner at all costs in all of its pathetic turns (such as point blank talking about eating ice cream will gradually make you fat to your kid). Carell proves just as well in providing a well-wrapped sense of depression and sharp sense of irony that makes a terrific little act when paired with Dano, who has the interesting task of spending half the film in a vow of silence (which naturally makes for one great scene in the second half). Collette holds the film together as the wavering center in pragmatic conviction that shares just the right sense of calm weariness to make a dynamic performance with her own moments to contribute. Arkin does well with what he is given in the habits of a spontaneous old man with a few amusing moments in choice words that generally hit the mark (Academy Award worthy is up to your perception, however). Breslin delivers a well-spun performance filled with sunny charm and brave temperament that makes for the favorite to watch hold her own amongst the older actors in this misfit group. Cranston and others do fine in small moments, such as his turn in elevated arrogance to selling motivational speaking. The film moves at 102 minutes with level-headed patience towards pathos and its road along to a pageant that might as well be a representation of life being like a pageant in who falls in and out of the margins of what we call success and what matters most with family. Naturally it results in a biting and fairly outrageous way to close its setup that makes the hallmarks of a worthy satire that will make one wince just as much as chuckle with good reason and clarity that make a worthy film for those in the mindset for a film like this.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Rain Man.

Review #1488: Rain Man.

Cast:
Dustin Hoffman (Raymond "Ray" Babbitt), Tom Cruise (Charles "Charlie" Babbitt), Valeria Golino (Susanna), Jerry Molen (Dr. Bruner), Ralph Seymour (Lenny), Michael D. Roberts (Vern), Bonnie Hunt (Sally Dibbs), Beth Grant (Mother at Farm House), and Lucinda Jenney (Iris) Directed by Barry Levinson (#383 - The Natural and #561 - Diner)

Review:
"On a day-to-day basis, he's like an actor who's making his first movie, with the enthusiasm and energy to want to make things happen and try things and experiment."

Winners can come out of nowhere when it comes to film, and it takes several individuals and some luck to really make something meaningful. Rain Man is no exception. Its director was Barry Levinson. He started his way in show business through writing for comedy and variety shows, most notably for The Carol Burnett Show. He soon moved to writing for films, collaborating with others on a few films such as Street Girls (1975), Silent Movie (1976), and ...And Justice for All (1979). He made his directorial debut in features with Diner (1982), which he drew from experiences living in Baltimore, Maryland. The film found first life with the script of Barry Morrow, who had met Kim Peek, a megasavant that had exceptional memory on a considerable scale but also social difficulties. He had previously known Bill Sackter, a mentally disabled man that had spent 44 years in a mental institution for those thought a "burden on society" before working his way through a variety of jobs that led to the two meeting and eventually becoming Sackter's guardian. Both of these individuals played inspiration in Morrow's writing, which later had screenplay contributions by Ronald Bass (who finished just before a writer's strike). Three directors came and went before Levinson signed on, which included Martin Brest, Steven Spielberg, and Sydney Pollack. Hoffman would study Peek along with spending time with autistic individuals (coincidentally, he had worked at the New York Psychiatric Institute as a young adult) and compiling notes. Oddly enough, he actually wanted to quit early into filming, believing the early rushes to be his worst work.

Sometimes a film really does just find the proper road to one's heart. It was a good film in a year with other good movies that found an audience (whether it's your favorite film of that particular year or not is up to you). What we have here is a road movie, but it is one with two enterprising stars spending time with each other with a meaningful and fairly-guided foundation that achieves a majority of what it aims as a story of bonding. I think we all know at one least one person like Raymond or Charlie in our lives (I used to have an autistic friend myself), and it is watching their journey of discovery that makes something more than what could have been exploited for elaboration or over-sentiment- in other words, it's a movie about people that would've either been an interesting consideration in a previous decade or overanalyzed in a later one (now we might just yammer on about how not all autistic people are savants, which misses the whole point of daring to make a film about someone like Raymond in the first place). We first start with Cruise, enterprising and alluringly arrogant in dealing with others that make an interesting performance for the yuppie crowd that grows with you. Hoffman, with a quieter voice and a bit of a shuffled walk that makes a worthwhile performance of someone in the spectrum of life different from what we know that we care to appreciate over the course of the film, being in his own world that we can understand about. The film is really just for these two, but Golino makes a fair impression regardless. What matters most to the film in holding up is how we feel about this particular duo and their journey together as human beings. For the most part, the film works in that regard, going from place to place with little moments of appreciation we feel about these folks. They go through different but similar pathways on the long winding road without becoming a lightning rod for stereotypes and ableist bleating. Probably the most effective sequence is the dance sequence, where they just share a moment as brothers shuffling their feet. By the time they finish their quiet but meaningful last words with each other, we might reflect ourselves on what it really means to know someone and maybe smile a bit.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.