Showing posts with label Bill Nighy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Nighy. Show all posts

September 21, 2026

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans.

Review #2580: Underworld: Rise of the Lycans.

Cast: 
Michael Sheen (Lucian; Alexander Carroll as Young Lucian), Bill Nighy (Viktor), Rhona Mitra (Sonja; Olivia Taylforth as Young Sonja), Steven Mackintosh (Andreas Tanis), Kevin Grevioux (Raze), David Aston (Coloman), Elizabeth Hawthorne (Orsova), Craig Parker (Sabas), Larry Rew (Kosta), Jared Turner (Xristo), Timothy Raby (Janosh), and Tania Nolan (Luka) Directed by Patrick Tatopoulos.

Review: 
Sure, why not make the third Underworld movie serve as a prequel? You might remember that in Underworld (2003), there was this whole thing about everyday life having a group of folks around that don't like each other with vampires and "Lycans" (who among us shortens a word to make up a name), with one particular hunter getting into the funny business of finding out that vampire elders are, well, not much different from Lycans in what you might call a twist on Romeo & Juliet (okay, one person called it that at the time, but hey*). So, with the realization that Lycans were basically slaves to the vampires until they made their fight for freedom, who better to direct than a first-timer? In fairness to Patrick Tatopoulos, the Greek-Frenchman had directed a few music videos and a short before making this film as his directorial debut, having done, well, plenty of work in effects, such as the previous two Underworld films; as it stands, this is his only feature directorial effort. Here's five credited writers: Danny McBride, Dirk Blackman and Howard McCain for the screenplay and Len Wiseman, Robert Orr & McBride for the story. Things returned to normal with Awakening in 2012 (which had Wiseman return to serve as a co-writer).

Remember when the first movie had Michael Sheen and Bill Nighy? Remember when they ended up dead at the end of the movie because, well, they just had to go? It's kind of funny watching a movie with two semi-interesting people in it that can't die here but are trying to make a go of lines such as "You're a credit to your race"* and the ever-developing locale of blue, grey, blue, grey, and maybe a third distinguishable color. So, basically, it's a side-step of quality from Evolution that at least looks like they tried to make you care for the fight of independence (with just a smidge of sex on a cliff*). The cringing of knowing it stinks at least has a smile for what they tried to do in their blue-grey medieval aim. There is a certain type of charm that Sheen brings for a pedestrian type of character that I'm sure had to have been thought of as akin to Moses by at least one filmmaker (you just know someone wanted to say, "let my PEOPLE go!", be honest) that basically keeps the movie afloat with his energy that sells most of what you like to see in acts of defiance that gives some credibility to wanting to see where things are going to go. Sure, you wish there was more time with the dazzling Mitra*, because you want more magnetism to really clear a path for inevitable tragedy, but they are fairly likable to watch in the calamity of forced roles. Nighy makes for a quality adversary in the type of elder arrogance that has both cunning and one-sided vision for what is right within the land of vampires, people, and the ones beneath each (which namely involves money because what else is there to do with castles and horses). I honestly forgot that Mackintosh and Grevioux each appeared in one of the earlier movies and I feel like that indicates the quality of these goofy movies not really rising up to par with the bare minimum presented with the first movie in resembling something cool (vampires, wolves, dark outfits), but I digress. It gives you people getting hit with weapons that aren't just guns and even sees folks hurt by the sun or swords (some of them even live, go figure). You get some decent-looking effects within a fairly efficient runtime of 89 minutes that is sometimes entertaining and may likely give you what you expect in "fill-in things", which I guess is better than nothing. So it goes.
 
Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.


*Generally I don't care about gossip and personal lives, but it's kinda funny that Beckinsale met her future husband Len Wiseman when they were doing Underworld (2003)...while in a partnership with Michael Sheen. 

*Not to make a thing about it, but I can't remember if there's even a single black vampire in this film, but the Lycans sure have their guys that decided being one of them is better than being a slave.

*What, too cute of a phrase? Movie Night endorses sex and violence in horror and action movies, naturally.

*Double note: making a reference to The Ten Commandments may or may not sound a bit less cheesy than playing Tony Blair three times. And as for Mitra, hey, I still remember her time on Boston Legal because good golly.

October 25, 2024

The Phantom of the Opera (1989).

Review #2291: The Phantom of the Opera.

Cast: 
Robert Englund (Erik Destler, The Phantom of the Opera/Mr. Foster), Jill Schoelen (Christine Day; Nancy Fontana as the singing voice), Alex Hyde-White (Richard Dutton), Bill Nighy (Martin Barton), Stephanie Lawrence (La Carlotta), Molly Shannon (Meg [New York]), Emma Rawson (Meg [London]), Terence Harvey (Inspector Hawkins), Nathan Lewis (Davies), Peter Clapham (Harrison), Yehuda Efroni (The Rat Catcher), and Terence Beesley (Joseph Buquet) Directed by Dwight H. Little (#471 - Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers)

Review: 
The original Phantom of the Opera, if you remember, was originally serialized from 1909 to 1910 by French author Gaston Leroux. The 1925 Universal film is still the most famous adaptation of the novel in film form, even with further renditions in 1943 and 1962 to go along with ones with elements cobbled together (such as say, Phantom of the Paradise [1974]); people have made multiple renditions of turning the novel into a musical, most notably the 1986 attempt by Andrew Lloyd Webber. Really, this popped onto my radar only just this month, much to my amusement. How could I resist the urge to not cover a strange pairing: a rendition of Phantom of the Opera with a few elements of the slasher as played by Robert Englund. You might remember that he became a horror icon with the success of A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) and its subsequent sequels. The movie was a production of 21st Century Film Corporation, which at that time had just seen Menahem Golan (from Cannon Films) become its CEO; the credits do indeed call it a Golan production, one made for roughly $4 million. Gerry O'Hara was behind the script of the film in practice, as his original intent was to have it set all in 1881 England. However, Duke Sandefur was brought in to write segments that would be set in the current day that start and end the film. Amusingly, this wasn't even the only film loosely based on the novel released in 1989, as Richard Friedman's slasher Phantom of the Mall: Eric's Revenge came out in the fall of 1989. The Phantom of the Opera was not a big hit with audiences (who barely had less than a month to even see it!). 21st Century had planned to do a follow-up film called "Terror of Manhattan" (hence the Sandefur-penned elements, and somehow the sequel would've set itself in subterrain New York). While that did not come to pass, they apparently re-worked it for Englund to just star in the direct-to-video slasher Dance Macabre (1992).

So, you get a little bit of singing and a killer among the underground of 19th century England. Little and Englund really wanted to make a "saturated color homage" to the Hammer Phantom of the Opera film and ended up with a muddled mess of a movie that really needed polish. It may be cheap, it may be garish, it may honor something from the Hammer films, but it sure isn't enough to be a winner all the way around the corner. That framing device involving the lines of present-day and 1882 London is clunky in pretty much every way you would expect, particularly since the movie somehow this was going to be one of times where people would clamor for sequels. Either go for the present-day or go for 1882, it just doesn't work to try a bit of both. Schoelen just can't carry the film too particularly well (especially since she doesn't even sing anyway). Sure, you probably couldn't remember who starred opposite Lon Chaney in the 1925 film (Mary Philbin), but there just isn't much to really say about her when it comes to distinct mannerisms beyond puppet and "oh, I guess they don't get the guy". To say nothing of Hyde-White and others is not exactly a compliment. Englund is the one highlight because he does manage to evoke considerable curiosity over what his character is meant to be, since it goes for the "sold his soul to the Devil" angle when it comes to disfigurement (i.e. more slasher and less "Romantic"), complete with having to destroy his music. The phantom has a mask made out of flesh that he likes to adjust from time to time, which is probably the one defining feature besides music for this film, aside from attempts at quips and a bit of slasher stuff. But it never really rises above average for 93 minutes because it never seems to actually commit to something worthy enough for us to latch onto. Englund doesn't have much of a cast to really latch onto, and the opera elements don't really latch onto the viewer as a whole. In total, it is thoroughly mediocre in ways that can't quite win with its aims but you might find something worth looking into if one can look beyond the cheap but endearing aspects of it all.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

September 29, 2024

The Wild Robot.

Review #2258: The Wild Robot.

Cast: 
Lupita Nyong'o (ROZZUM unit 7134), Pedro Pascal (Fink), Kit Connor (Brightbill), Catherine O'Hara (Pinktail), Bill Nighy (Longneck), Stephanie Hsu (Vontra), Mark Hamill (Thorn), Matt Berry (Paddler), and Ving Rhames (Thunderbolt) Written and Directed by Chris Sanders (#294 - How to Train Your Dragon and #387 - Lilo & Stitch)

Review: 
"I only engage with projects that take risks, and go to audacious places. But with The Wild Robot, there was also an unusual purity to the world which I never expected to encounter in my career. The animal characters have no cars, jobs, neckties or cell phones. The animals move like … animals!  I knew immediately we had to elevate our visuals so they would allow the emotional wavelengths to fully resonate. Put simply, the style of this film needed to be worthy of the story we were telling."

It probably shouldn't be a surprise that this is based on a children's book (with illustrations that were actually black and white) by Peter Brown. He had been struck with an image in his head of a robot next to a tree when working on a book that stood with him and eventually it came to him as basically an extreme example of a "fish out of water" story that gelled with his love of science fiction and nature. The Wild Robot was published in 2016 and became its own series, complete with a third book that was released last year. Chris Sanders had a daughter that had read the book but hadn't really thought about it until Dreamworks Animation had the rights to the book for possible filming since before the book had been published. He read the book and described it as "at once deceptively simple, and emotionally complex" while believing he was the guy that could bring the book to the screen. A handful of films have been cited by Sanders as inspiration such as Bambi and My Neighbor Totoro, as he had the imagery of each film in his head when reading The Wild Robot and it came to him that a film adaptation had to be visually sophisticated. This is apparently the last Dreamworks Animation film to be produced fully in-house at their studio, as they are cutting costs by using third-party studios for further features (which are distributed by Universal Studios). It happens to be the first animated film directed by Sanders since The Croods (2013).

I'm sure there is no surprise to be found here in saying this is a pretty good feature. It is the execution that matters most when it comes to making a story about kindness and a select group of talking animals stand on its own in crisp entertainment. It is the kind of movie that looks and feels like it would make a neat doubleheader with The Iron Giant (1999), if that makes sense. The hand-painted aesthetic is lovely in establishing the atmosphere that arises when trying to make a film look and feel organic that really should be seen on a screen as big as possible. The 102-minute runtime shows plenty of warmth without being a vessel for cheap songs or bits just for the sake of it. If the books aimed for a sense of being a fable, the film surely has achieved that same effect by making one remember what a connection means to the world around it to go with appreciating a landscape as breathtaking as nature can be. It rests on the shoulders of Nyong'o to make the lead work as well as it does in making the journey of a robot (and accompanying expressions from the salespitcher-turned-naturebot) worth seeing play out, which she does quite well. The pursuit of a task leading to adoptive motherhood is tenderly handled by her to go with Pascal and his trading of snide remarks and advice that is just as effective in showing the importance in following the circle of life. One takes flight when the moment requires one to feel flight and one has the same wonder when spending a few moments away from the island setting in the sheer difference that is apparent in a less-natural world. In other words, it isn't merely just a mother hen story with a cute duck, it really is a neat little coming-of-age story, for which Connor handles that part pretty well. The training sequences of trying to be one with a species (such as flying) is pretty fascinating. There are a few bits of levity provided by O'Hara and Berry while Hsu comes in late for an interesting (if not exactly covered too much) look in trying to do friendly forced compliance for robots. The ending for the film is interesting, mostly because it really does click this as a fable worth looking to and back again that doesn't play a cheap trick on the audience and leaves them satisfied, regardless of if there was a craving for a sequel or not. In general, it is a dazzling movie that has plenty to offer in crisp filmmaking from committed people and voices to match that should play well for just about anybody, which is a worthwhile thing to say when it comes to a film about kindness.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

May 3, 2024

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest.

Review #2205: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest.

Cast: 
Johnny Depp (Captain Jack Sparrow), Orlando Bloom (Will Turner), Keira Knightley (Elizabeth Swann), Stellan Skarsgård (William "Bootstrap Bill" Turner), Bill Nighy (Davy Jones: Captain of the Flying Dutchman), Jack Davenport (James Norrington), Kevin McNally (Joshamee Gibbs), Jonathan Pryce (Governor Weatherby Swann), Lee Arenberg (Pintel), Mackenzie Crook (Ragetti), Tom Hollander (Lord Cutler Beckett), Naomie Harris (Tia Dalma), Alex Norton (Captain Bellamy), David Bailie (Cotton), Martin Klebba (Marty), David Schofield (Mercer), and John Boswall (Wyvern) Directed by Gore Verbinski (#140 - The Ring, #1557 - Rango, and #1724 - Pirates of  the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl)

Review: 
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) was a hit so obvious that a plan to make back-to-back sequels was, well, a match made in pirate heaven, compete with retaining the services of its director Gore Verbinski to go with a screenplay done by Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, who had been two of the credited writers behind the original (as one remembers, there had been re-writes on that film, but Elliott and Rossio would write all except the last one together). The first sequel would feature working ships (as opposed to shooting on just one location) that would lead to various action set pieces, such, as, well, a bone cage. Of course, it was Verbinski who wanted the members of the ship to be composed of physical (sea) creatures rather than ghosts that Rossio and Elliott had in mind, complete with most of said things being played through CG, with the exception of makeup (such as extensive prosthetics and motion capture that sees one actor wear dots that then has CG added) for two of them. Shot for over $200 million, the second part of the back-to-back production came out with Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (which shot its ending just a few days into shooting the second film because of the nature of filming in certain islands) the following year.

I suppose 150 minutes is not a surprise length for a film that is the middle film of a trilogy that basically arose from the deep (read: money). Obviously, it can't have as much magic as the original did when it comes to being a CG spectacle, but I think you can imagine the appeal that lies within a committed crew in the art of wanting to execute entertainment in the useful sweet spot of the mid 2000s. It is an oiled machine that believes itself to be well-oiled enough to throw around several threads that it can dangle for a later setup, whether that involves the importance of sand, British people being weird, or the finer points of sea dwelling that makes for a reasonably fine experience. Granted, it isn't as "pretty good" as the previous film, but it provides enough spark to latch a hook for at least one more go-around the wheel because of the various desires that you would see coming from a film title meaning to get the eye(s). It never wanders away from trying to deliver something interesting to hear or see on screen, which is semi-effective. Verbinski once described the challenges of balancing Depp with the others as him being the spice in a "garlic milkshake". That probably works best when describing the aura of Depp in a role of the scoundrel among a litany of straights and other various creatures that he plays with the right blend of conniving charm. He walks the fine line of adventure with a swagger that seems to enjoy the idea of yanking the chain of others around him, regardless of if they are friend or foe, if only to avoid the end of all the mythmaking. He plays it with no sense of tiredness to it, jumbling through chases with a certain gaze that seems to be looking past the sword. Bloom and Knightley are in their own different interactions with Depp (as shaped by making sure to not have them all together for a good while), which is generally worth viewing, as evidenced by the amusing fight that breaks out in the sands where Knightley is watching a fight with the temper that arises from the clash of egos in sand. Skarsgård and Nighy make for useful newcomers to the series that aren't completely lost in the (interesting) effects around them, with the former making a useful player in the shaky bond of father and son (with Bloom) and the latter being a compelling adversary (Nighy has stated that rather than an accent of Dutch, he favored a Scottish one) of cruel fun. There are no weak spots among the rest of the gang of rogues and other such things, whether that involves the consistent pro in McNally or seasoned ones such as a ravished Davenport or those providing levity such as Arenberg and Crook. The staging of the action works fairly well for what is necessary in swashbuckling in the fashion of interest that takes a giant wheel and has fun with that. As a whole, it is a solidly fine sequel that plays the middle ground for pirate action with just a bit leftover to bubble over for looking at the next installment with curious interest.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

April 13, 2024

The First Omen.

Review #2198: The First Omen.

Cast: 
Nell Tiger Free (Margaret Daino), Sônia Braga (Sister Silvia), Ralph Ineson (Father Brennan), Bill Nighy (Cardinal Lawrence), Tawfeek Barhom (Father Gabriel), Maria Caballero (Luz Valez), Nicole Sorace (Carlita Scianna), Ishtar Currie-Wilson (Sister Anjelica), Andrea Arcangeli (Paolo), and Charles Dance (Father Harris) Directed by Arkasha Stevenson.

Review: 
You may recall that the idea for The Omen (1976) came about because producer Harvey Bernhard had a conversation with a friend involving the Bible and religion, which is where writer David Seltzer came in to eventually craft it into a screenplay (amusingly, Seltzer was first reluctant to do the screenplay because he did not have a belief in the devil). Richard Donner was picked to direct and, well, you know the rest. If you've seen a film with a possibly evil child and a worried mother such as, say, Rosemary’s Baby (1968) or The Exorcist (1973), well, of course it is the kind of thing to inspire a few follow-ups. This "First Omen" was first planned back in 2016, which followed long after the wake of sequel (Damien - Omen II [1978]) after sequel (Omen III: The Final Conflict [1981]) after attempted TV thing (an "Omen IV") after, well, a 2006 remake (which apparently barely changed anything). But here we are with a film set in 1971 that is the debut feature debut by Arkasha Stevenson, a former photojournalist-turned-director in her feature film debut. The screenplay was done by Tim Smith, Arkasha Stevenson, and Keith Thomas while the story was done by Ben Jacoby. There was an idea to have this be one of those films you encounter on streaming with Hulu, since this is a 20th Century (Fox) Studios distributed film, but these plans changed. Apparently, the movie almost had a rating of NC-17 because of one certain scene that had to have a few cuts made. Such is life.

Stevenson has professed herself as an Omen fan, which is a pretty good sign. Admittedly, trying to make fear enough to drive people back to church sounds about on par for a film that wants to go beat on beat to set up the original film (of course, if one remembers the original film, think back to what is found in a certain cemetery). The end result is a decent experience that isn't nearly as much of a cheap imitation as it could have turned out to be, which basically means that it is an average rendition of the original 1976 movie that was already pretty average to begin with. If wrapped with enough patience to go with the idea of something really, really spooky beyond a few weird nuns, well, you will be totally fine here because the performances generally help the film retain the believability of not making one desire to go for overt theatricality. Free in particular does well with the great vulnerability that arises in someone who is probably way over their head with handling not only the turmoil that comes in a cloudy age of doubt but the very idea that something may very well lurk within the blood. Pawn or no pawn, she is not merely there to be used as just as an object to go into the screaming night, which helps to sell the climax when it finally gets to a certain point of anticipation for dread. Sorace makes for a worthwhile pairing for that arrangement of vulnerability and shaken self that practically mirrors Free, which is an interesting task when the first scene of them involves, uh, licking. There is a certain type of confidence to admire in Ineson that does not waver or seem to be playing off as merely just someone who happens to be playing a role once inhabited by Patrick Troughton (if you recall the priest in the original, naturally). The threat presented is in the people that act as if all that is wrong is just, well, another thing among things in "Years of Lead" (okay, the film doesn't mention that term, but you get to hear historical terms pop up for films sometimes), which work in that stone-cold conviction of those who really see their way as the one and only for spirit and all, regardless of who happens to be lurking behind. Folks ready for something on the unsettling side (as opposed to gore) will be mostly on point with what the film sells. Honestly, it is the ending that probably makes the film shake a bit too much near the deep end. Regardless of the quality of the film before it, do I need anything to lay the hint further films when one is already bearing the cross of being "The First Omen". At any rate, this is a solidly decent time if one is interested in carefully placed blocks of dread that manages to utilize its 119-minute runtime to useful execution to make a solid pick.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

November 3, 2022

Underworld (2003).

Review #1916: Underworld.

Cast: 
Kate Beckinsale (Selene), Scott Speedman (Michael Corvin), Bill Nighy (Viktor), Michael Sheen (Lucian), Shane Brolly (Kraven), Erwin Leder (Singe), Sophia Myles (Erika), Robbie Gee (Kahn), Kevin Grevioux (Raze), Zita Görög (Amelia), Scott McElroy (Soren), and Wentworth Miller (Adam Lockwood) Directed by Len Wiseman (#320 - Live Free or Die Hard)

Review: 
Admittedly, making a movie that looks like it had a tryst with Blade (1998) and The Matrix (1999) (and perhaps The Mummy (1999)) sounds like quite the attraction for people that are curious about horror blend movies or perhaps folks that want to see what the hell can come out of a 21st century movie meant to deliver entertainment. The movie is directed by Len Wiseman in his feature debut. The Fremont native did film work on a number of Roland Emmerich films such as Stargate (1994) in property assistance before he became a music video director. The film began as a script by Kevin Grevioux (who also acts in this film), who was inspired by Romeo and Juliet alongside his study of microbiology at Howard University (which he graduated with a degree in that field before becoming an actor). Danny McBride, formerly a stuntman before being introduced to Wiseman by their mutual agent, was brought in to help with the script by the director, who also co-wrote the story that had each received screen credit, although McBride alone would write the screenplay, with he and Wiseman setting out to make a trilogy of films. Screen Gems. Distributed by Screen Gems on a budget of $22 million, it was a surprise hit that made four times its budget back, which would inspire a cadre of sequels and one prequel: Underworld: Evolution (2006), Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (2009), Underworld: Awakening (2012), and Underworld: Blood Wars (2016), with Beckinsale remaining the constant presence while Wiseman and McBride contributed to two of the follow-up films (with Wiseman serving as producer for the three others). It should be noted that the film was subject to a lawsuit by White Wolf, Inc and Nancy A. Collins, who each claimed that the film's setting was too similar to their respective works (Vampire: The Masquerade and Sonja Blue, respectively), which resulted in a confidential settlement.

You know, I actually kind of dug the film in a weird way. Maybe the idea of combining vampires and werewolves (called Lycans) is a bit on the outrageous side, but I actually find it to my liking. Sure, one is quite aware of what they are getting themselves into with an action/horror hodgepodge like this, which kept my interest through its 121-minute runtime. It may be goofy, and it may not work for everyone, but I found it worth my time, although one would obviously have their hesitation about further films, regardless of how much they enjoy a bit of gun fighting and folks wearing black (leather or coat). The mythology is handled in a manner that invites interest without delving into parody or overt self-awareness, and it at least looks like you can understand this "war" without needing to strain your brain too much (one side was a servant, the other liked swords). Beckinsale is a solid lead to hold it together, steely in composure (perhaps from not getting to enjoy the sun) that can handle the action elements and the ounces of dramatic depth with the patience it all requires from her. A weaker actor would look foolish in that getup and then not make the lines stick beyond what they are written, but she seems to be having a blast with it that results in a worthwhile time. Speedman isn't as fortunate, but then again, he plays the part about exactly what you would think it involves in reserved patience when dealing with effects and some sort of story to get him along with a bit of chemistry shared between him and Beckinsale. Nighy may have a bunch of makeup on him, but when he does show up, he makes an engaging presence with an aura of arrogance. Sheen chews up the material handily when on screen for voracious effect that makes a useful adversary worth smiling about, while Brolly makes a quality cad for the proceedings, confidently pathetic in all the right ways along with Leder. As silly as it might sound to present werewolves as "Lycans", I did find that the story presented of them and their beastly defiance semi-compelling enough to go against the usual presentation of the wolf, and it also makes a useful contrast to the aristocratic vampire presented here (it has its own touch of cliche, but it is expected cliche). The conflict of trying to create extinction within endless warfare (in modern society, hidden to others or not) does execute itself with the right balance of cliches and flourish, with effects and action sequences that are handled to adequate effect. As a whole, it does all the little things to useful effect in terms of entertainment value without flubbing up in pale depth or pale mood to make the general target: something to watch if it suits your fancy, silly or not.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

October 6, 2020

Rango.


Review #1557: Rango.

Cast: 
Johnny Depp (Rango), Isla Fisher (Beans), Abigail Breslin (Priscilla), Ned Beatty (Tortoise John), Alfred Molina (Roadkill), Bill Nighy (Rattlesnake Jake), Harry Dean Stanton (Balthazar), Ray Winstone (Bad Bill), Timothy Olyphant (The Spirit of the West), Stephen Root (Doc / Mr. Merrimack), Maile Flanagan (Lucky), Alanna Ubach (Boo Cletus / Fresca / Miss Daisy), Ian Abercrombie (Ambrose), Gil Birmingham (Wounded Bird), and James Ward Byrkit (Waffles) Directed by Gore Verbinski (#140 - The Ring)

Review: 
“I always wanted to do an animated movie. I find it to be incredibly liberating as a way of telling a story. It lends itself to more surreal concepts because you’re limited by expectations of total reality and I just think you can have a conversation with a peanut butter sandwich or Miyazaki turns the parents into pigs. You’re limited from the conventions of live action.”

There can be quite a dual nature to the art of finding a way into filmmaking, which is equally appropriate for Gore Verbinski. His first profession was in music, participating in a variety of rock band in Los Angeles as a guitarist. He sold his guitar for a film camera and found himself taking direction for music videos and eventually commercials (you may or may not recognize one of his ads involving frogs for Budweiser). He made his directorial debut with Mouse Hunt (1997) and has continued on with a variety of genres and general use of visual effects, whether that involves horror with The Ring (2002) and A Cure for Wellness (2016) or adventure epic with the first three Pirates of the Caribbean films (2003, 2006, 2007). There are a variety of films that this film took some inspiration from, ranging from films from Chinatown (1974) to El Topo (1970) to The Shakiest Gun in the West (1968). This was the first animation effort from Industrial Light & Magic, who you will have recognized from several films over the years (such as the Pirates of the Caribbean films), with Hal Hickel as animation director. The interesting thing is that Verbinski wanted to capture something "kinetic" with the performances, which involved having the actors perform with costumes and sets to have them feel like they are part of the Wild West, with the audio being lifted for the film, which he aspired to do as a "small" film when compared to his previous features.

A group of Westerns in the era after its golden age of the past try in some way to borrow some of the characteristics from before with their own spin on what the frontier of the Old West means. In this sense, we have a film of identity that draws upon quite a few Westerns in some sensibility that generally works itself out handily in entertainment with some finely-tuned animation and a cast worth following along with in this tale of critters in the desert. It has a strange touch that will appeal fairly equally for adults and children (more so older than younger) without becoming tacked and tacky in execution and charm. Depp is precisely the voice one could want for such an intriguing title character - amusing, wonderful and quite adept at following along in growing confidence as the unlikely sly lizard of the moment that gives a good push without seeming like an eccentric bit for the sake of it. Fisher follows along with capable drive and a zippy rapport with Depp for some moments, while Breslin adds some familiar curiosity in parts. Beatty proves quite enjoyable with a familiar kind of schemer with a folksy voice suited for what is needed to hear on screen. Others prove just as useful, such as Molina or Nighy, while Stanton and Olyphant bring a worthwhile chuckle. On the whole, it generally works out with its humor without seeming too much for whatever particular audience it aims for, finding its stride in a search for identity with interesting animation and a game cast to make a 107 minute adventure that I can recommend without hesitation for some fun.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

September 16, 2020

Shaun of the Dead.


Review #1537: Shaun of the Dead.

Cast: 
Simon Pegg (Shaun), Nick Frost (Ed), Kate Ashfield (Liz), Lucy Davis (Dianne), Dylan Moran (David), Penelope Wilton (Barbara), Bill Nighy (Philip), Jessica Hynes (Yvonne), Peter Serafinowicz (Pete), Rafe Spall (Noel), and Martin Freeman (Declan) Directed by Edgar Wright (#971 - Baby Driver)

Review: 
"Maybe directors who are more interested in realism and naturalism come from cities, where they see things on their doorstep every day. But growing up as a kid in a very pretty but ever-so-slightly boring town, where not a great deal happened, encouraged me to be more escapist, more imaginative, and more of a daydreamer."

One needs new directors in every century, or at the very least ones that can be bold in what they want to do about the traditions of the past and be fun about it. Edgar Wright grew up with interest in comics like 2000 AD alongside interest in films that helped influence him such as An American Werewolf in London (1981), Raising Arizona (1987), and several others. He started his venture into film with shorts that began at the age of 14 with Super-8 and S-VHS cameras (Dead Right, for example, was done on his own money as an attempted pastiche of British and American cop films). He graduated with a diploma in Audio-Visual Design from Arts University Bournemouth in 1994 and thereafter got to work behind the camera, with his first feature being the low-budget A Fistful of Fingers (1995) and his first television projects being Mash and Peas and Asylum (both premiering in 1996), with the latter being his first collaboration with Simon Pegg and Jessica Hynes as Wright co-wrote and directed all six episodes further comedic work that eventually led to his most notable television production with Spaced (1999-2001), which he directed all 14 episodes starring Pegg, Hynes, and Nick Frost. It was during the process of the show that Wright and Pegg came up with the idea to do a zombie film (since they both shared an obsession of Dawn of the Dead) that didn't so much want to parody zombie films as much as they did romcom films, with Wright and Pegg serving as co-writers.

What better way to try and do a zombie comedy but to basically do one that seems like a sitcom/satire that just happens to have zombies interrupting from time to time that make a romcomzombie movie where one doesn't notice the apocalypse starting until it's right in front of your face, where lumbering lazy living and zombie could almost be confused. One could brush aside a sudden change of living if they simply are too drunk to notice (which seems awfully familiar then and now, somehow). It takes inspiration from Night of the Living Dead (1968) and Dawn of the Dead (1978) and rolls with being basically near that same amount of quality when it comes to a well-constructed pace for its chase of zombie without being lost in lame gags or excess gore for 99 minutes. There have been quite a few British low-budget horror classics, and this one definitely deserves its own place in that discussion. It all starts with Pegg, our deadpan man for the day who does a pretty good job in terms of timing that rises from sofa-life to direction in zombie-life that we care about fairly well for what needs to be done to draw a chuckle or some zombie dealing. Frost (in his film debut) is capable in complimenting Pegg with entertaining coarseness that gamely helps the first half do quite well in their exchanges with themselves that can be as simple as record-throwing or a scene at the pub about speculation (which I can definitely find pretty relevant when lost enough somewhere to do so). Ashfield does fairly well in carrying along the film with smooth chemistry with the others while Moran does stuffiness just fine along with counterpart Davis, although it is Wilton and Nighy who contribute the most warmth at carefully planned times with Pegg. It is the control from Wright and Pegg to make a film about regular joes and zombies and not have them turn into caricatures that make it a welcome surprise, complete with in-camera transitions and other little distinct things (such as a beating timed to the beat on a particular song of prime favorite band in Queen) well-enough to let us absorb things without being relentless. Honestly, my one little gripe is just the way it ends the proceedings. Maybe it just seems a little too convenient to really seal things up when it comes to its whole siege second half, particularly since it also has to seal up its romantic comedic trappings, which prove a bit better (its last exchange is fairly poignant). On the whole, it is easy to see why this has been regarded a cult classic in some circles, doing quite well for itself in marks of laughter and blood to work on the strength of Wright, Pegg, and Frost in doing something worth enjoyment on any given day.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

May 15, 2019

Pokémon Detective Pikachu.


Review #1219: Pokémon Detective Pikachu.

Cast: 
Ryan Reynolds (Detective Pikachu), Justice Smith (Tim Goodman), Kathryn Newton (Lucy Stevens), Bill Nighy (Howard Clifford), Ken Watanabe (Detective Hideo Yoshida), Chris Geere (Roger Clifford), Suki Waterhouse (Ms. Norman), Omar Chaparro (Sebastian), Rita Ora (Dr. Ann Laurent), and Karan Soni (Jack) Directed by Rob Letterman (#164 - Shark Tale)

Review:
I suppose it had to happen sometime. This is based off the Pokémon franchise created by Satoshi Tajiri and Ken Sugimori alongside the spin-off game Detective Pikachu developed by Creatures Inc. This isn't the first film based on the video game property, with Pokémon: The First Movie being released in 1998; since then, there has been 21 animated films released (all released in Japan with release in America later - with only the first five given theatrical release for the latter). In any case, it is easy to say that this is a very average movie, racked with plenty of visual enjoyment and a few laughs headlined by a solid lead voice and facial motion capture performance from Reynolds. It proves to be a light charmer that doesn't waste its 104 minutes on being anything other than just fine for the kids and ones big on seeing certain Pokémon (a property I'm not overly familiar with). In a sense, it does feel a bit like Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988), albeit instead of animation it is big furry creatures. The look of the film (from cinematographer John Mathieson) is fairly nice, helping to make the main city setting look bright enough where the neon and other things don't become too flashy for the sake of it. They certainly nailed the look of these Pokémon creatures when it comes to finding that right type of balance where the photo-realistic nature doesn't look too weird, seeming fairly natural for where the film wants to go, where the distraction involves wondering what you may see in the background instead of being weirded out by the designs made. It probably isn't a surprise that there were four writers involved with the screenplay (Dan Hernandez, Benji Samit, Letterman, and Derek Connolly) and three with the story (Hernandez, Samit, and Nicole Perlman), since the film seems to try to aim to make a detective story with tinges of comedy and action, making a fairly decent effort to hold itself together with decent intrigue and climax, even if its human characters seem a bit lacking. It seems more of a weird film than one with some depth to it, I guess. Reynolds is the star of the show, being the best of the bunch of the cast, sarcastic and yet still endearing to be around with. Smith is okay, playing off with Reynolds decently when needed. Newton is quirky but amusing that plays off fine on occasion. Nighy and Watanabe prove okay in their respective times on screen. On the whole, while I wish the film was a bit more ambitious with where it wanted to go, this proves to be a light silly charmer that will play well with those who seek out cuddly creatures with powers and some detective work. I wouldn't be against making another one of these, if only to see where it could go from there, I suppose.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

June 16, 2012

Movie Night: Flushed Away.

Review #166: Flushed Away.

Cast
Hugh Jackman (Roddy St. James), Kate Winslet (Rita Malone), Ian McKellen (The Toad), Jean Reno (Le Frog), Bill Nighy (Whitey), Andy Serkis (Spike), and Shane Richie (Sid) Directed by David Bowers and Sam Fell.

Review
I began this week with stop motion animation and we end with...computer generated animation. However the animation is meant to look like the traditional clay like figures, which it does. Jackman, Winslet, and McKellen are excellent in their roles (Jackman proving he can do more then just be Wolverine or...Van Helsing). The story is decent, with some good gags that are entertaining enough. This ends Dreamworks Animation Week. Overall, it was a decent week, but how does Dreamworks compare to Pixar, or...Disney? Dreamworks can do good films as I've heard from others, and it can do average to meh as well. But the point is that Dreamworks has good and the meh inside them, and that's all that matters. Thank you for reading this week. This ends Part VII.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.