Independence Day: Resurgence.

Review #2556: Independence Day: Resurgence.

Cast: 

Liam Hemsworth (Jake Morrison), Jeff Goldblum (David Levinson), Bill Pullman (President Thomas J. Whitmore), Maika Monroe (Patricia Whitmore), Jessie T. Usher (Dylan Hiller), Travis Tope (Charlie Miller), William Fichtner (General Joshua T. Adams), Charlotte Gainsbourg (Dr. Catherine Marceaux), Judd Hirsch (Julius Levinson), Brent Spiner (Dr. Brackish Okun), Sela Ward (President Elizabeth Lanford), Angelababy (Rain Lao), with Joey King (Sam Blackwell), Vivica A. Fox (Dr. Jasmine Dubrow-Hiller), Robert Loggia (General William Grey), Nicolas Wright (Floyd Rosenberg), DeObia Oparei (Dikembe Umbutu), and Chin Han (Jiang Lao)

Directed by Roland Emmerich (#193 - Independence Day, #413 - The Patriot, #2161 - Godzilla [1998])

Review: 

Hey, remember Independence Day? Apparently, the impetus for the original film was a question posed to Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin when they were promoting Stargate (1994) about believing in aliens building the pyramids that saw them ask, well, what if there were "14-mile-wide spaceships covering the sky?" Sure, Mars Attacks! (1996) loomed on the calendar, but Emmerich and Devlin aimed to make their movie anyway, which saw them basically write (in three weeks) a disaster movie akin to the 70s disaster flicks such as The Towering Inferno (1974) and Meteor (1979). When it came out in July 1996 to plenty of hype and fanfare, it actually was the highest-grossing film of that year (beating out poor Mars Attacks!. which sucks because that movie was probably better in actual quality). Cool, now do you remember Independence Day: Resurgence? As early as 2001, Emmerich and Devlin thought about doing a sequel, but they had curtailed those plans the first time in 2004 because they couldn't figure out the story. By 2011, there were rumblings again about doing not one, but two sequels. Through re-writes and various drafts (mainly because of the omission of one certain actor before filming), four people were credited with the story: Emmerich, Devlin, James A. Woods, and Nicolas Wright, while James Vanderbilt was credited along with the four for the screenplay. Made on a budget of $165 million and released in June 2016, the movie was not a major hit for anyone involved, with Emmerich and Devlin both stating that there was little chance of doing a third film.

Is it a quality defense when the director says he should've stopped making the movie? As early as 2019, three years after the release of Resurgence, Emmerich stated, yes, he "should have just said no" once Will Smith wasn't going to be in the film, which happened as a result of scheduling and salary demands. It is almost amazing to have five total writers and have little to nothing come out of the characters to actually root for beyond "the bare minimum". As I remember, the characters in the original were basically cardboard, but you could at least say there was a sense of interest in seeing what was under the curtain for a surprise (which in this case was, are you shocked, alien stuff in "Area 51" and a computer virus to start the process of telling the aliens to permanently go to sleep). Corny as the movie was, you at least felt there was some semblance of dignity in depicting folks all coming together (on the 4th of July you see) and being ready to kick ass (okay, maybe non-Americans didn't go ra-ra for it, but well, "Murica, baby!"). Twenty years later, with the presentation of "world peace" and a space defense program with alien technology....there is just a weird feeling that one is watching a film with nowhere to actually go. You see the designs of the (reverse-engineered) tech and a spiffier Washington and you wonder if they really thought people would be fine looking at something that reminded them of a video game cutscene. The aliens still look at forgettable as ever, and the Sphere (the "virtual intelligence") reminds me of someone trying to make a smaller version of Gort from The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951). 

The attempt at mixing in people from the original (ranging from Goldblum/Pullman/Hirsch/Spiner to basically cameos from Fox and Loggia*) with a new generation (Hemsworth, Monroe, Usher, and to a lesser extent, Topo and Angelababy) that each have had their lives shaped by one horrific week all leads to the least compelling and least interesting drama imaginable. This film feels ten years too late to actually say anything of note (once you destroy the White House, what is there left to move around for the sequel), so it instead just aims to be paid half-attention to by people on their phones. I probably care less for Goldblum than I did in the last film, and that's saying something for what was basically a wannabee Dr. Ian Malcolm in the first place, even with the addition of Gainsbourg (who ...is given nothing to do). Hemsworth and Usher might actually be competing for who achieves less with less: what the hell was Smith going to do in this film that changed the script so much to basically focus on the youth (meanwhile, Monroe, cast to replace Mae Whitman from the original, is given, wait for it, nothing to do). I can't tell who has the more unceremonious exit: Fox, who can't get off a falling building in time (after getting, what, 4 lines?) or Ward (as Madame President) goes the way of the dodo in a murky-looking scene. Probably the only people who look like they like having some work is Pullman or Spiner, and that sure says something when the latter has a scene where they gallivant around a bit in a barely contained hospital gown*. You get a few chuckles beneath basically a boring movie. For a movie that is two hours long (25 minutes shorter than the original, in one of the stranger cases when a sequel is shorter), it always seems to be two steps behind in actually going anywhere: it dangles an idea that some African war lord spent ten years fighting aliens in hand-to-hand combat, but his son is given the job of being the straight man to a middling subplot about a nerd wanting to get into combat. Hive minds and "Harvesters" and drilling to the Earth's core (with a timer) while buildings get thrown around just seems like a movie that either was postmarked "2006" or simply didn't have enthusiasm to actually make it worth looking further.  It just reeks of trying to make a franchise without actually focusing on spectacle and believing they had enough in the tank to bait people into hearing more, complete with an ending that sequel baits with probably the least amount of conviction possible. If the original film was "dumb fun" that the viewer either enjoyed or disliked with the clear flaws (dialogue, design, general Emmerich weaknesses), the sequel film manages the honor of just being dumb with middling return value for all involved. 

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Happy 4th...

*Loggia died on December 4, 2015, six months before the film was released. At least he was cool in the first film.

*Okay, so Spiner's character is apparently gay and spends most of the action with his partner, who I guess loved giving out flowers in the hospital ward for years. Honestly, I forgot if they were partners before 1996 or if this guy just fell for a dude in a coma that had long hair.

Titan A.E.

Review #2386: Titan A.E.

Cast: 

Matt Damon (Cale Tucker; Alex D. Linz as Young Cale Tucker), Bill Pullman (Captain Joseph Korso), John Leguizamo (Gune), Nathan Lane (Preedex "Preed" Yoa), Janeane Garofalo (Stith), Drew Barrymore (Akima Kunimoto), Ron Perlman (Professor Sam Tucker), Tone Lōc (Tek), Jim Breuer (the Cook), Christopher Scarabosio (the Drej Queen), Jim Cummings (Chowquin), Charles Rocket (Firrikash/ Slave Trader Guard), and Ken Hudson Campbell (Po) Directed by Don Bluth (#1466 - The Secret of NIMH) and Gary Goldman.

Review: 

"A movie to me is about character, about how personalities come together, how they relate to each other and what the ramifications of that are." - Don Bluth

"I think it's the people. The crew has passion. They really want to make it work. They really want to learn more...that teaches me. My whole goal, besides trying to get more production value back into animation, was really to provide an environment like there was at Disney at one time, where you felt secure as an artist, filmmaker, contributor, animator." - Gary Goldman

On June 16, 2000, Titan A.E. basically was released into theaters and died a quick death. But time does heal some wounds, even if it remains the last current effort for its directors in Don Bluth and Gary Goldman. The two had met in 1972 when working at Walt Disney Productions with each at distinct stages of their animation careers: Bluth (seven years older) actually had been hired to work as an assistant animator at the Disney studio in Burbank and even did work for Sleeping Beauty (1959) but found the work "kind of boring" and jumped around to do various things that ranged from a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to local theater to studying English Literature to eventually returning to animation and, well, that led back to Disney. On the other hand, Goldman was a recent art school graduate that had been accepted to Disney's animation training program and encountered Bluth. Alongside John Pomeroy, the group shared similar ideas about animation and strived to make their own animated film (as an exercise, according to Bluth), with their first effort being Banjo the Woodpile Cat. I think you get it from there: NIMH was a big thing for the "it's not Disney" crowd and the first of a string of movies with varying levels of quality. Goldman moved from producing to co-directing with Bluth with All Dogs Go to Heaven (1989). Sure, there were misfires in their intertwined efforts (The Pebble and the Penguin [1995] was so miserable that the two wanted their names taken off it), but their efforts with Anastasia (1997), the first film for Fox Animation Studios, worked out. Coincidentally, during the time of the release of that film, the starting points for what became Titan A.E. started. "Planet Ice" was slated to be directed by Art Vitello, with November 1997 seeing concrete plans to make it animated rather than live action, complete with a voice cast all picked out (such as Bill Pullman, for example). They had a screenplay drafted up by Ben Edlund before John August came in months later to polish the dialogue and other select re-writes. The result of years of pre-production was $30 million sunk into a whole bunch of recording...and basically little to actually show for it. Where Bluth and Goldman came in is that 20th Century Fox, in need of getting a project going for the animated studio, asked the two to get involved, showing them the script. Despite their lack of expertise of sci-fi, they went with the move; incidentally, Joss Whedon was soon hired to finalize the script. It should be noted that Bluth and Goldman had $55 million and 19 months to get the stuff animated, one that saw them move the apparent focus of the film away from hardware to, well, character, which saw re-recording of certain dialogue (basically they wanted to aim for the family, right down to the teenagers rather than be a "Disney wannabee"). The result was five writers were given credit: the story was credited to Hans Bauer and Randall McCormick while Edlund, August, and Whedon were given credit for the screenplay.*

Goldman stated prior to release that "about 87% of the film is some form of CGI", and perhaps ironically, the visual effects and one certain animated sequence was done by Blue Sky Studios, who would begin production of their first animated film Ice Age the same month that this film was released. Apparently, midway though production is when Fox basically was ready to give up on 2D animation and just focus on 3D ventures, and by June of 2000, over 250 animated staff members at Fox were laid off. Just to twist the knife a bit further, the same week that this movie came out, Fantasia 2000 (1999) by Disney was finally being shown in regular theaters**. Sure, a race against time in fetching one big thing that might as well be a shaggy way to do an ark story is a bit shaky. But it is a neat ride for those who want to buy what it is selling for a movie that has an astounding look within a cobbled-together story. The 94-minute runtime somehow manages the weird effect of breezing by certain aspects (read: familiar tropes) but taking its sweet time to really make sense on other parts. In an age now where certain people seem to believe that any damn animated movie seems up to "re-made" for live action, Titan A.E. is good proof that some stuff really should stay in animation without the risk of being turned into potential slop, one that inspires awe with unwieldy adventure. Forget being generic, it seems like fresh air with its enthusiasm. The rag-tag group of voices are fairly decent, mainly because it isn't merely just picking big names for the hell of it, with Pullman in particular being pretty suitable as a rogue to go along with Damon's wavering sense of humanity (or whatever you want to call it, but burrowing hope seemed silly). The rest of the cast is fairly decent in parts, mainly with adding some levity (Lane comes to mind), which works out when having the bare minimum in characterization for Barrymore to work with. I like its general action and general mood of making sure one wants to take a look at what they are seeing beyond having mild attention (the rock soundtrack might help in that regard). The ice rings sequence is probably the key standout sequence for showing both the potential of understanding why some films just are destined for animation along with having interesting tension to really keep things drawing along. The movie may not always go along smoothly beyond some of the usual expected stuff, namely with a villain that is more interesting to look at than their actual motives, but if you are vibing with what the movie is showing in its atmosphere of trying to scrape along beyond refugees on the food chain, it will be a pretty good time anyway. Underrated and under-looked in its time, Titan A.E. deserves a cult audience willing to stick up for spry adventures in animation.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Hell of a writer's room. Edlund is best known for creating The Tick, Bauer wrote Anaconda, August wrote for a handful of Tim Burton movies, and Whedon, well, he went from co-writing Toy Story to something called Firefly... 

**For whatever reason, Fantasia 2000 had *months* of IMAX showings and concert hall screenings before you could just see the damn thing in a normal theater. Go figure, that movie didn't make too much money. The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle was released on June 30, 2000 and had live action and animation to the tune of barely any money. You know what animated movie did make money that June? Chicken Run, which was released on June 23, 2000 by Aardman Features. Funny.

Ruthless People.

Review #1938: Ruthless People.

Cast: 

Danny DeVito (Sam Stone), Bette Midler (Barbara Stone), Judge Reinhold (Ken Kessler), Helen Slater (Sandy Kessler), Anita Morris (Carol Dodsworth), Bill Pullman (Earl Mott), William G. Schilling (Police Chief Henry Benton), Art Evans (Lt. Bender), Clarence Felder (Lt. Walters), and J. E. Freeman (Bedroom Killer) Directed by David Zucker (#585 - Top Secret!, #664 - Airplane!, #699 - The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!, #821: The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear), Jim Abrahams (#028 - Hot Shots!, #375 - Hot Shots! Part Deux, #585, #664), Jerry Zucker (#585, #664, #1274 - First Knight, #1626 - Ghost, #1714 - Rat Race)

Review: 

This is an interesting film to cover. Oh sure, the filmmaking trio of Jim Abrahams and the Zucker brothers (Jerry and David) did plenty of comedy material back to their days with their own small theater in their native Wisconsin, but this one was certainly interesting to consider among the rest. For one, it is the only time that the trio directed a film together that they did not write themselves. The film was written by Dale Launer, who took inspiration from the kidnapping of Patricia Hearst; when asked about the similarities between the film and "The Ransom of Red Chief" (a story about a kid so annoying his kidnappers to where they pay the father to take him back), he said it was just a coincidence. He later wrote for films such as Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988) and My Cousin Vinny (1992). This was the third of three films that the trio directed together (after Airplane! and Top Secret), as from that point on, they would direct their own solo projects. The reason for their split was because they simply were ready to move in different directions alongside the fact that they did not see as much financial success as they believed they would from this (due to studio accounting, since the directing salary was split three ways with them). So yes, David Zucker would direct the first two Naked Gun films while also writing it with his brother and Abrahams, and each respective director went their own way in comedy.

So yes, here is a comedy with a premise built on a kidnapping that spirals into silliness when the hostage situation is really a one-way street, complete with mistaken identities, an unrelated serial killer, and a climax on a pier. It may be the odd film in their features, but it is a still a pretty good experience, one with plenty of amusement as a farce with fun misanthropes, complete with a look and style perfectly decadent for the era of the 1980s. With such a cheery dark premise, the key to making it all work is to have folks with enough energy to carry the material with the edge required. What we have is a key quartet ready to handle it together: DeVito, Midler, Reinhold, and Slater. DeVito shows great passion within a role designed with slime in mind: who else but him could play such an earnest villain? He has such confidence in the role, one that can sell the opening monologue with gusto, whereas a lesser actor would make it sound like an exposition-dump. Comeuppance or not, it is satisfying to see him engage as the master of the shit-eating grin in ways that other actors could only dream to get down the way he does. Midler (an actor when not singing on a regular basis) is the perfect type of abrasive: confident in her abilities and roaringly amusing, one who gets on the nerves with righteous timing and no sense of inordinate irritation. Reinhold and Slater play the kidnapping duo with resourceful timing as the nicest folks of the whole film (playing to the irony of them being the only folks we see commit a crime) as beleaguered and shy folks that we like just as much as the folks designed as being ones loved in hating. Morris and Pullman (in his first film role) are the other key group to the puzzle, with the former being good in the conniving side-person to the over-the-top hilarity and the latter being quite amusing as the dimwit. Probably the best representation of the film in its dark glee is an exchange between DeVito and Reinhold in which the latter is trying to lower the price down in the hostage giveaway only to find that the former is practically daring them to send the hostage to the morgue (they would know, because they just came from there!). As a comedy of misunderstandings filled with odd little people, it works out pretty well for 94 minutes, presenting its ever-growing odd situations with useful execution by pros in a useful curiosity: a dynamite script without their intervention that they handle just as well as their other films. Crude but unapologetic, Ruthless People is a neat little gem worth looking into.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

A League of their Own.

Review #1500: A League of their Own.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Jimmy Dugan), Geena Davis (Dorothy "Dottie" Hinson), Lori Petty (Kit Keller), Madonna (Mae Mordabito), Rosie O'Donnell (Doris Murphy), Jon Lovitz (Ernie Capadino), David Strathairn (Ira Lowenstein), Garry Marshall (Walter Harvey), Bill Pullman (Bob Hinson), Anne Ramsay (Helen Haley), Megan Cavanagh (Marla Hooch), Freddie Simpson (Ellen Sue Gotlander), Tracy Reiner (Betty "Spaghetti" Horn), Bitty Schram (Evelyn Gardner), Renée Coleman (Alice "Skeeter" Gaspers), and Ann Cusack (Shirley Baker) Directed by Penny Marshall.

Review:
"I hadn't worked with so many women before. I thought it was something I should do. But I wasn't doing it just to do a women's picture. The problems as they're presented in the movie apply to both men and women. It's about, "Don't be ashamed of your talents." It's a universal thing."

It should figure that at least one good comedy is featured here involving the Marshall family. Older brother Garry rose from joke writer to television that morphed into developing television programs, with such shows as The Odd Couple, Happy Days, and Laverne & Shirley before going into film direction. As for Penny, she had grown from a childhood of tap dancing to small parts on film and television before being given substantial work with Garry's teleivision series, with the most prominent being her starring role on Laverne & Shirley that ran from 1976 to 1983. Encouragement from her brother led to an interest in directing (starting with an episode of Working Stiffs along with a few episodes of her own show). Her first feature Jumpin' Jack Flash (1986) was a mixed hit, but Big (1988) proved a major critical and audience hit. Marshall was inspired by a 1987 documentary she had seen about the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, which she had not heard of before. She sought out the creators of the work - Kim Wilson and Kelly Candaele (whose mother Helen Callaghan played for five years in the league) in developing the story while Babaloo Mandel and Lowell Ganz (responsible for scripts such as Splash and City Slickers) developed the screenplay.

Technically speaking, this is not a straight historical film about the AAGPBL, which went by various names that started with referring to it as softball (since the league was trying to draw on the popularity of women's softball, since both used underhand pitching) before adding and then removing professional from the title for a league that ultimately lasted from 1943 to 1954, which really did have the players play in short outfits along with tight restrictions on what they could do socially (imagine giving an athlete ettiquite classes today), with the famed Wrigley Field indeed serving as the initial tryout location in real life. True, there would be a sale by its head to an entrepenur who felt he could do just as well in operating the league as he did with advertising Philip K. Wrigley's products along with the league - Arthur Meyerhoff. Obviously the winner of the championship did not result from something as silly as a plate collision  - in fact, Racine won the title the first year over Kenosha in a sweep. The "induction" scene at the end involving the Baseball Hall of Fame is tricky - it wasn't so much an induction but just a permanent exhibit featuring players. Of course we aren't here to talk about history, the reason I had interest in the film is simple - my love of baseball, the definitive American sport for everyone, featuring actors that had to have at least some talent in baseball to participate in the film (injuries still happened from mishaps on the field, as one could expect). Where the film clicks best is in getting some laughs within its baseball trappings, which shine gradually over a film that while admittedly lengthy at just a bit over two hours is still a crowdpleaser. Hanks grabs the attention once the baseball action slides into the first quarter, and he does a pretty good job in lending tempered amusement with his natural treating of the dialogue (the crying in baseball one is the easiest to cite becuase of how catchy it is). Anyone who can lend a decent hand in acting and playing a decent game of baseball gets a nod in my book, so it figures Davis does the best job in that regard, confident and entertaining whether on the diamond or away from it that makes for spiriting/sparring moments with others like Petty or Hanks. As for Petty, she does well with the material, resoundant and interesting to see among others with brimming rivalry that she handles fine. Others in the cast prove fine with their moments, like a quirky Madonna and her pal O'Donnell or a solid bit from Lovitzl or resourcefulness from Strathairn and Marshall. It generally works best when dealing with building its baseball action with quirky lines about trying to play and live with these folks along with the rules that go with it, with the interpersonal stuff proving fine - we are talking about a fictionalized story with a real league, after all. As long as it generates interest in the true AAGPBL, it can do what it pleases. On the whole, it isn't a surprise that this proved a hit nearly three decades ago, as it proves diverting with humor and heart to generate a fine mix of fact and fiction that serves any audience well in good entertainment.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

You Kill Me.

Review #1269: You Kill Me.

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

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

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

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: Sleepless in Seattle.

Review #554: Sleepless in Seattle.

Cast
Tom Hanks (Sam Baldwin), Meg Ryan (Annie Reed), Bill Pullman (Walter), Ross Malinger (Jonah Baldwin), Rosie O'Donnell (Becky), Gaby Hoffmann (Jessica), Victor Garber (Greg), Rita Wilson (Suzy), Barbara Garrick (Victoria), and Carey Lowell (Maggie Baldwin) Directed by Nora Ephron.

Review
This is a hard movie to grade because I really don't know if this a movie that's heartwarming and also slightly funny, or a movie that's a tad overrated. Hanks is a good actor, he seems bring a certain level of charm to this movie. Heck, every actor (even Rosie O'Donnell) are certainly warming enough for this movie, and they are entertaining to watch, and it is funny when Hanks and Victor Garber's characters talk about crying at the end of The Dirty Dozen. But does this movie have a flaw? Probably. It's not the acting, not the comedy, it's just...Walter. Pullman does a great job playing this mostly perfect character (, and...he's dumped by Ryan for someone she barely knows after being lured to the Empire State Building while on a date with Walter. So basically, if you listen to a radio show and hear some lonely guy/girl talk, go out and try and find them, nothing can go wrong, it's all supposed to happen due to "magic" and such. That makes sense, doesn't it? I'd like to add that both genders can be characterized as either insensitive jerks (the men) and "weepy romantics who cry at the end of An Affair to Remember (seriously, every woman in this movie cry to it, even a little girl. Is this normal to cry at An Affair to Remember? You might as well cry at the end of Old Yeller), and let's not forget that Ryan's character hired a private investigator to take pics of Hanks, follows him to Seattle and only says "hi" to him. I'd like to point out the kid doesn't like the girl Hanks asked beforehand out (Barbara Garrick's character, who doesn't do anything as insane as Ryan's, yet still gets dumped anyway) because the kid selected someone else for Hanks to meet. The whole movie seems sweet and fun, but if you look into the movie more, it seems to have a secret layer of unintentional lunacy. Whether that breaks the movie or not, watch this at your own risk.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Casper.

Review #267: Casper.

Cast
Bill Pullman (Dr. James Harvey), Christina Ricci (Kathleen "Kat" Harvey), Malachi Pearson (Casper), Cathy Moriarty (Carrigan Crittenden), Eric Idle (Dibs), Joe Nipote (Stretch), Joe Alaskey (Stinkie), Brad Garrett (Fatso) and Ben Stein. Directed by Brad Silberling.

Review
What could go wrong with a film based on an animated cartoon series is my first question. How is the film is the next question. The answers will all be revealed (Hate when they say that) It has been a while since I've seen something of Pullman and Ricci (#193 -Independence Day. #77 - The Addams Family and #78 - Addams Family Values, respectivly.), and they do a fine job, given the material. It's a bit odd and off at times, some of the jokes don't stick as well (Though I kinda liked one line: "Who are you gonna call? Someone else.", by Dan Aykroyd of all people) The scenery and effects look pretty decent, unless you realize the actors sometimes talk to nothing (a common thing with CGI) It's slightly hokey at odd times, its acting from the other actors (Moriarty in particular) isn't exactly great or isn't used well enough (Idle), but the film still has a good charm to it and Pearson is actually good (My odd belief of child actors not being great is trading waters) It has a good Halloween feel to it, ghosts and all.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Spaceballs.

Review #198: Spaceballs.

Cast
Bill Pullman (Lone Starr), John Candy (Barf), Rick Moranis (Dark Helmet), Mel Brooks (President Skroob/Yogurt), Daphne Zuniga (Princess Vespa), Dick Van Patten (King Roland), and Joan Rivers (Dot Matrix) Directed by Mel Brooks.

Review
It's been a while since I last reviewed something with Mel Brooks (Blazing Saddles - #061 and Robots - #087), but's it been even longer for Moranis (Ghostbusters II - #031). Anyway, the film is an obvious parody of Star Wars, right down to the name, but it does parody other things (such as Alien) There are some good gags with decent acting to go with it in a typical run time. It might've been a little too late to parody it (four years after Return of the Jedi), but it is still a favorite nonetheless. May the Schwartz be with you. Countdown to 200: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Independence Day.

Review #193: Independence Day.

Cast
Will Smith (Steven Hiller), Jeff Goldblum (David Levinson), Bill Pullman (Thomas J. Whitmore), Margaret Colin (Constance Spano), Vivica A. Fox (Jasmine Dubrow), Judd Hirsch (Julius Levinson), Robert Loggia (William Grey), and Randy Quaid (Russell Casse) Directed by Roland Emmerich.

Review
Fixed for your consideration, everyone. This review was originally published two years ago and later transferred here; I've fixed some errors to help make it look a little better. Enjoy, and welcome to Earth.

First of all, happy Independence Day. The movie is almost a hack of Star Wars, but at least Star Wars had control and some sort of plot. It has one scene I find really good though, and that would be the destruction of the White House, it's such a memorable scene and also because it doesn't use much dialogue.  The aliens are decent, if you like beige monsters, but the ships are so dull looking. One thing I notice is in the beginning when the ships start to enter in the Earth, I thought they look like movie tin cans being dropped through a background. Maybe it's just me though. The acting is alright, with Will Smith being the main standout. Look, whatever he's in, he makes the film more enjoyable, it's just his charm that carries the movie.  

There are three things that happen near the end that I find a bit...mentionable. One, why don't the other nations have a plan instead of waiting for the U.S to do one? I'm sure the other nations of the world have scientists and such to figure it too, ya know. Secondly, the president's speech. I won't repeat it here but just search for it and you'll know what I mean. It's either the most over the top speech ever spoken, or...the most over the top speech ever spoken. Third, why did Emmerich delete scenes that help explain the film's end? Apparently, there were scenes to help explain this a bit better, that were deleted in the final cut, like how aliens get hacked by a virus that Google would laugh at, though I guess if you let a ship that previously crash landed 50 years ago in Roswell (just go with it) into your fortress, you deserve what you get. Overall, it's been 16 years, and there hasn't been a sequel. Yet. 

Countdown to 200: 10, 9, 8, 7...

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars