The Odyssey (2026).

Review #2561: The Odyssey (2026).

Cast: 
Matt Damon (Odysseus), Tom Holland (Telemachus), Anne Hathaway (Penelope), Robert Pattinson (Antinous), Lupita Nyong'o (Helen of Troy / Clytemnestra), Samantha Morton (Circe), John Leguizamo (Eumaeus), Zendaya (Athena), Charlize Theron (Calypso), Jon Bernthal (Menelaus), Himesh Patel (Eurylochus), Bill Irwin (Polyphemus), Elliot Page (Sinon), Benny Safdie (Agamemnon), with Corey Hawkins (Polybus), Niko Nicotera (Peisander), Elyes Gabel (Elatus), Iddo Goldberg (Amphimedon), Jamie Harris (Agelus), Mia Goth and Logan Marshall-Green (Melantho and Melanthius), Ryan Hurst (Mentor), and James Remar (Tiresias) 

Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk , #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises, #1618 - Tenet, #2050 - Oppenheimer, #2322 - Interstellar)

Review: 

"Tell me, O muse, of that ingenious hero who travelled far and wide after he had sacked the famous town of Troy. Many cities did he visit, and many were the nations with whose manners and customs he was acquainted; moreover he suffered much by sea while trying to save his own life and bring his men safely home; but do what he might he could not save his men, for they perished through their own sheer folly in eating the cattle of the Sun-god Hyperion; so the god prevented them from ever reaching home. Tell me, too, about all these things, O daughter of Jove, from whatsoever source you may know them."

Once upon a time, there were old tales that people decided to freewheel their own interpretation to communicate to the masses (such as say, Samuel Butler, who stated a theory, whether 100 percent seriously or not, that the Odyssey was written by a Sicilian woman). As the seasons changed and the technology grew larger, you could see and hear other freewheeling interpretations of tales on a screen perhaps unfathomable to a person dated in antiquity. Some folks probably read the Odyssey in their youth or maybe read it online (the link I noted above is a centuries old public domain translation, which used the Latinized name of Ulysses), or maybe heard about it from other certain oral traditions (hey, Arthur was an institution for some kids), or with James Joyce's Ulysses, or, well, you get the idea. Various productions had been done of the work, with most being in Italy, such as the film Ulysses [1954] (a Dino De Laurentiis production with Kirk Douglas and others), the 1968 miniseries (known in its native country as L'Odissea), looser adaptations such as O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000), and recent ones such as The Return (2024), which started with no mythic beings or Gods with Odysseus back in Ithaca. Christopher Nolan wanted to be the guy to direct a movie that had never really been done for a large-scale production with the Odyssey, and it should be noted that he had been once tapped to direct Troy (2004), which had been loosely based on the Iliad. He wanted to tell it "in a fresh and modern way", which to him read differently from his perspective of middle age that he felt he has been telling in his films for years, simultaneously calling it a "family story, a love story, a revenge story, a war story, a coming-of-age story... a very strong foundational text". There were various inspirations that Nolan listed prior to the release, ranging from the various translations of the Odyssey (such as the Emily Wilson 2017 translation), the visual style and atmospheric tone of Kurosawa's Ran (1985) and the mythology-inspired films worked on by Ray Harryhausen such as Jason and the Argonauts (1963). It was shot entirely with IMAX film cameras, the first of its kind in a movie that already sounds like a crowd favorite*.

In a time of "apparent magic", yes, you basically get a tale of original sin. It basically is a grounded take of the sword and sandal epic with an earthy feel that feels more psychological than mythological. In some ways, it might seem bloated at 173 minutes, but actually it often feels more like a breeze to sift through as it dwells through the divide of a lead that wavers between an everyman and a superhero. The veterans of his campaigns walk the shore in life and death because only one man will end up by divine will back home and yet he still thinks defiance is the way to go. Men from the sea attack and all around a kingdom, the law of Zeus (okay, xenia) is not being abided by while others go on about a face, a fleet, and tricks to break away and burn Troy screaming to the ground. Amidst the prophets, giants, and nymphs is a story of a man realizing what his actual place is among the crumbling of foundation and realizing that what you want most may very well be what you already had (okay that came from a bit about the Sirens, but in fairness, what is a man if not one with the hubris to listen to them knowing they will survive anyway). It jumps around in the narrative with a type of curious enthusiasm that has a few moments that really do spark me to go "cool", namely with the Laestrygonian sequence (the giants clad in armor), complete with camera tricks (hey, the cyclops [Polyphemus] is cool to see too, and the witch realization is also darkly amusing, but still). Of course, the underworld sequence might be the real showstopper in seeing the true price of years spent getting on and trying to leave one particular blood-stained beach (and one horse*).

For all of the stuff I say about the movie, it really is one to look upon familiar faces and find a few fun moments in Damon leading the way in the unraveling of civilization, at least if you go with someone having enough hubris to believe that they really are the, shall we say, Oppenheimer of their times. Basically, you have a complicated hero that you know is going to reach some type of home (his kingdom, wife with the stature of Hathaway, however you want to interpret it) but not necessarily will be a better man for it, and in that sense, Damon makes for a curious cipher that either grows with you or just withers away in elusiveness, and I found it was a case of the former most of the time, which I suppose is helpful when talking about the wavering road of hero or fool. Some could contend that Holland might be easy to gloss over amidst the seasoned presences around him. Well, that's a bit silly to me, mainly because that's the whole point: this is a foolish young prince that is between a rock and a hard place: old enough to maybe take on actual responsibilities but not in the position to actually rise from "son of Odysseus" (to a certain point, anyway). In that sense, Holland does pretty well with showing the vulnerability of being out of one's depth, of literally being a face in a long crowd, especially when contending with the likes of Leguizamo, who really does sink into his role with weary curiosity.  Pattinson and Morton each sell the moments that they take part in more so than the mostly okay times encountering Theron or Nyong', with Pattinson in particular seemingly having plenty of fun in towering overconfidence (as one does when citing a James Woods character* as inspiration). I just wish the film stuck the ending better, because amidst a flourish of inevitable "hey, the man of the house is among us" realization is a finish of trying to sell the closing of the loop of a man who can't really go "home" (as one does when fiddling with the ending of the original tale in, what, divine intervention?) that just...sits there as an ending more than anything. As a whole, making The Odyssey was a task that required a director willing to stamp their own interpretation on what is so special about a long trek back home in a time of myths and monsters, and I think Nolan made a pretty good rendition worth viewing on the best screen possible. It's not a great movie, but being a pretty good time is just as useful for me anyway.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Any thoughts about the casting of say, Nyong'o or Page? Yeah, conservative grifters whining about it can either watch the movie for themselves or piss off. The movie is full of Greek characters, do we care if most of them are played by Americans or Brits? No? 

*Or the dog reunion, because, hey.

*Not to be confused with the current James Woods

*It's a hard 8/10 in that I would rather go 8/10 for a movie that teeters at 8.5 rather than having subsequent regret in giving a 9/10.

Interstellar.

Review #2322: Interstellar.

Cast: 

Matthew McConaughey (Joseph "Coop" Cooper), Anne Hathaway (Dr. Amelia Brand), Jessica Chastain (Murphy "Murph" Cooper; Mackenzie Foy as 10-year-old Murph; Ellen Burstyn as elderly Murph), John Lithgow (Donald), Michael Caine (Professor John Brand), Casey Affleck (Tom Cooper; Timothée Chalamet as 15-year-old Tom), Wes Bentley (Doyle), Bill Irwin (TARS - voice and puppetry and CASE puppetry), Topher Grace (Getty), David Gyasi (Professor Romilly), and Matt Damon (Dr. Mann) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk , #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises, #1618 - Tenet, #2050 - Oppenheimer)

Review: 

“It’s been a really interesting challenge. When you say you’re making a family film, it has all these pejorative connotations that it’ll be somehow soft. But when I was a kid, these were family films in the best sense, and they were as edgy and incisive and challenging as anything else on the blockbuster spectrum. I wanted to bring that back in some way.”

Honestly, the best way to talk about a movie like this is to just go with it. In 2006, Kip Thorne (a theoretical physicist, writer, and future Nobel Prize winner) and Lynda Obst had come up with trying to work with each other again, having previously collaborated on Contact (1997), in which Thorne's study of wormhole space travel had been incorporated into the screenplay (as written by Carl Sagan, a close friend of Obst). Thorne had theories involving “warped space-time" that eventually found Jonathan Nolan assigned to write that outline into a narrative. When the original director in mind (Steven Spielberg) had other ideas in mind to work on, Christopher Nolan expressed interest to direct and to incorporate his own ideas for the screenplay (evidently, the first hour of the film, set in the not-too distant future with inspiration taken from the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s, is pretty true to the original screenplay while one particular shape for the climax came from C.Nolan). Thorne had set out two guidelines for the Nolans in having a film that wouldn't "violate established physical laws" while having wild speculations spring in some sort of science. He later wrote a book on his experiences as a consultant on the film (The Science of Interstellar). The effects by Double Negative had the use of digital projectors to go along with miniature effects from other collaborators for spacecraft (incidentally, that one famous image of an actual black hole came out in 2019). Released in November of 2014, Interstellar was a pretty fair success in its time, with probably the visual effects receiving the most praise (for its 10th anniversary, select theaters showed the film again in 70mm IMAX).

I do wonder if I would like this film better on a re-watch a few years down the line. In fact, the reputation of the film suggests that, well, for all the engineer and craftmanship, the mysteries really can have love as one of the ways forward. It is worthy spectacle and also a mash of human interest for 169 minutes. Time is the important factor in the great vacant reaches of spaces that ultimately lend one to the immeasurable pull of hope in the strange margins. The best way to go with the movie is to watch with as little to really know about it as possible, one in which you don't look for tricks but just try to absorb the film piece by piece. It does not leave one impatient to get to space because of the general commitment shown by Nolan and company to let things breathe in a place filled with blighted surroundings (consider this is a film where textbooks talk about the Apollo missions as one of waste and elaborate conspiracy). In a film with plenty of worthwhile effects, it also happens to be a movie with a worthwhile cast to support it all, since it basically is a fable of people who have to learn to look up again, ones who cannot just be caretakers or "stay" where they are. McConaughey has the calm sense to make it all work in maneuvering charm that is worth playing out for a journey beyond the stars. That first third (rough estimate) in the fields of a blighted world with him and the on-screen youth in Foy and Chalamet to go along with Lithgow make for an earthy quartet to balance out the inevitable when one is brought into the mix of Caine (reciting one particular poem) and the reasoned grace from Hathaway. Of course, the other key is in the latecomer in Damon to round out a look on human nature in all of its facets when confronted with danger, loneliness, love, or the space between (of course, Irwin is there too to convey the robot voice and puppetry to really round out the highlights, I didn't forget that). The enjoyment of the film is in layers, really, managing to walk the frontier tightrope (as one might say) in drawing a sci-fi epic in the eyes of a family and where that leads for meaningful stakes in what really matters most when it comes to the immeasurable qualities of survival. There are plenty of moments that one will find astounding, such as say, the tidal wave sequence or the manual docking sequence to go along with the eventual "clicking together" moment that rewards the curious with threading the needle in not just being a cop out for the sake of sweeping it all up. In totality, it is a pretty neat movie when viewed all the way through in execution in ways that can only be understood for those with the patience to six through such a worthwhile journey. I can't call it my favorite Nolan movie, but it is worthwhile enough to recommend on the best screen possible to absorb for all that it brings beyond the stars. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Welcome again to December 20, the anniversary day for Movie Night, which is now 14 years old. I apologize for the lengthy delay between reviews, I simply wanted to take some time off to refresh myself so that I close out 2024 by not "phoning it in". Surprise: today is a doubleheader day.

Rachel Getting Married.

Review #1548: Rachel Getting Married.

Cast: 
Anne Hathaway (Kym Buchman), Rosemarie DeWitt (Rachel Buchman), Bill Irwin (Paul Buchman), Debra Winger (Abby Buchman), Tunde Adebimpe (Sidney Williams), Mather Zickel (Kieran), Anna Deavere Smith (Carol), Anisa George (Emma), and Beau Sia (Wedding Czar) Directed by Jonathan Demme (#1254 - The Manchurian Candidate (2004) and #1498 - The Silence of the Lambs)

Review: 
"Well, the big challenge and in a way the only challenge that I really felt was the same old challenge, you know, to try to make a good movie, to wind up the movie that worked and kind of delivered on the potential that I perceived in the script to be emotionally strong and also be funny and shed light on different stuff maybe if we got really lucky."

Jonathan Demme liked to take his time with doing films his way. He had a bona fide classic with The Silence of the Lambs (1991) and followed it with the groundbreaking legal drama involving AIDS with Philadelphia (1993)  while also maintaining work in documentary filmmaking and producing films while noting his attempts to shift away from "big moviemaking" that gave him joy and stress equally in size. However, he was approached by his friend Sidney Lumet to read a script his daughter Jenny had written, and he liked the idea of doing an "independent-spirited, low-budget film." Taking the task at hand as star is Anne Hathaway, who rose to breakthrough status with films such as The Princess Diaries (2001), Brokeback Mountain (2005), and The Devil Wears Prada (2006), who is accompanied by DeWitt (star of the short-lived Standoff show and small other roles), Irwin (known for his work as a clown alongside stage and screen work), and Winger (previously featured in another family drama with Terms of Endearment (1983), which also dealt with thorny characters and tragedy).

We are talking about a film that is deliberately shot in a style described by Demme and his cinematographer as "the most beautiful home movie ever made" while including a mix of improvised dialogue and live music, after all. Technically speaking, you could say this is a wedding film for the books, because there is a sense of familiarity and interest in how much surroundings one gets to feel with something like this. On the other hand, it also could prove quite tedious as perhaps the most elaborate attempt at trying to elevate home movies and snipe fights beyond staying right where they belonged: at home or with someone who cares. It probably reflects the nature of the characters we are watching, which is meant to be portrayed as real and complicated folks - which basically comes across as trying to pedal away from being thought of as drawing from the melodrama cliché book. Or maybe it really does pull favor for those who seek its drama with thorns-on-the-side people without clear solutions. If that works into something you favor, all power to you. Besides, I doubt a film where the characters have problems and then get some of them solved is exactly a new thing either. But for me, I find it to be a case of acting over substance, where painful expression is just elusive attempts at leading the audience on by another name, a bitter expression of people fortunate enough in privilege that could very well have come out of a soap opera that happens to look different than the others because it just happens to be in your face in terms of edge and in its camera. One might as well watch group therapy play out instead.

It is the performances that keep it on some sort of path, mostly with Hathaway. She captures a vital figure of vulnerability mixed with spiked edge with a portrait of addiction as one marked with guilt and attempts at moving through the steps to build something away from vices. She cultivates interest with a role meant to be a fair challenge for an actress without succumbing to cloying antics to make it count well. DeWitt does fine in a portrait of lingering nerves and resentment that makes an interesting back-and-forth with Hathaway that makes palpable interest more so than the actual wedding taking place. Irwin and Winger are fine, although neither really are given more than brief moments to really grab drama upon for something that desperately needs more to really drive its alienation - the confrontation between Hathaway and Winger is a nice dramatic scene to chew interest upon, but the film around that needs more cohesion in actual point beyond casual venom that just reminds me of Faces (1968). I like the basic idea of confronting one's demons and also being confronted about one's own antics, with Hathaway generally keeping the film on its toes in scrappiness that could have either been its own film more so than the wedding aspects that make a 114 minute film decent rather than complete. On the whole, it is a competent film with some useful moments in frankness that almost is swept away in the margins by a fragmented story but is rescued by a dynamic Hathaway carrying along an ensemble towards being just fine to sit through, winces and all.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Igby Goes Down.

Review #1253: Igby Goes Down.

Cast: 
Kieran Culkin (Jason "Igby" Slocumb, Jr.), Claire Danes (Sookie Sapperstein), Jeff Goldblum (D.H. Banes), Amanda Peet (Rachel), Ryan Phillippe (Oliver "Ollie" Slocumb), Bill Pullman (Jason Slocumb, Sr.), Susan Sarandon (Mimi Slocumb), Bill Irwin (Lt. Ernest Smith), Jared Harris (Russel), and Celia Weston (Bunny) Written and Directed by Burr Steers.

Review: 
Call it writer's block, call it a logjam - this review took over a week to actually come to fruition, with two reviews sandwiched between UHF and this.

What is there to say about a film like this? It is an independent comedy drama that likely fits best to languish on a film shelf for years before you eventually get around to actually seeing if its worth it. The most annoying films to write about are the mediocre ones, where it isn't a terrible experience to sit through but it also isn't anything to really write home about either. In the long run, this mixed bag middles too much with its misanthrope main character for its first half while faced with more interesting supporting actors before its second half lands with a soft thud. There isn't a terrible performance in the bunch, nor is the film really that awful to sit through in the long run, but it sure takes its time in making itself seem worth a look, as if making a coming-of-age movie needed acidic foundations (in this case, a nutty rich family) to really make for entertainment. It feels like an interesting film when not faced with its silly misanthrope lead (or when he isn't being romanced / being assaulted by someone, like a therapist), but it really does seem at times more fitting for a novel than a film, albeit with a few chapters being tossed around. The best response one can have for the question of why should I care about what is going on is that it is meant to be sharply witty and observant, the kind of film that can picked and poked at the same way one could poke at The Catcher in the Rye, I suppose. This for a film that features a scene of someone who when told of how dirty he looks comes back to the family dinner table without clothes. When I really care about the movie is the parts around the main character - it needed more weird moments with people like Goldblum, Pullman, and Sarandon, who are each adept at garnering some humor along with showing the flip-side of life as an adult with some money - whether that involves hypocrisy or succumbing to pressures. I do at least appreciate Culkin for taking a role as ridiculous acidic as this one is and making an attempt to garner some humor. The same can be said for Danes and Peet, who clearly need more time on screen besides just being around the main character from time to time. Phillippe and Irwin provide small but useful moments. Sometimes a film can make you think about how you were growing up with all the changes that occur around you, whether through friends, family, or all of the above. Igby just happens to be on the fringes of adulthood - what better way to respond to it by skipping school, romantic moments, and plenty of loathing to go around. It sure wants to play cynical with its coming-of-age story - heck, why not go further? Fully drag its soap opera level of weird events to its natural conclusion - blather on for longer than 98 minutes and give these characters enough depth (and perhaps rope) to trap themselves within hypocrisy and what it means to be a human being - whatever that means. Go nuts and make this an attempt at garnering some real humor instead of trying to have it both ways with jokes and pathos. Of course one can't really take much of this that seriously, minus the parts involving Igby and his father (to a point); the time spent with him and his mother only really seems to come out in the second half rather than really drive the film home all the way. On the whole, this proves to be a frustrating film to sit through, where one can see the intentions from its director/writer Steers try to come out through a film that can't quite live up to making a clear resonating path. It becomes more depressing to see where the cast is and isn't used than the material itself, really. It may prove well for those who seek it out and have the right mindset for its tactics, but I just couldn't find this a clear enough winner to recommend it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Hot Shots!

Review #028: Hot Shots!

Cast
Charlie Sheen (LT Sean "Topper" Harley), Cary Elwes (LT Kent Gregory), Valeria Golino (Ramada Thompson), Lloyd Bridges (RADM Thomas "Tug" Benson), Kevin Dunn (LCDR James Block), Jon Cryer (LT Jim "Wash Out" Pfaffenbach), William O'Leary (LT Pete "Dead Meat" Thompson), Kristy Swanson (Kowalski), Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. (Wilson), Bill Irwin (Leland "Buzz" Harley), and Ryan Stiles (Dominic "Mailman" Farnum) Directed by Jim Abrahams.

Review
This spoof of Top Gun might actually be better then Top Gun, with some good gags that might remind you of another spoof, Airplane! (That also had Lloyd Bridges) Anyway, the film is decent with performances, especially Sheen and Elwes. The film is decent enough to become good, making this a film to watch. While it may not be great-great, it at least is useful.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.