Babylon.

Review #1948: Babylon.

Cast: 

Brad Pitt (Jack Conrad), Margot Robbie (Nellie LaRoy), Diego Calva (Manny Torres), Jean Smart (Elinor St. John), Jovan Adepo (Sidney Palmer), Li Jun Li (Lady Fay Zhu), P. J. Byrne (Max), Lukas Haas (George Munn), Olivia Hamilton (Ruth Adler), Max Minghella (Irving Thalberg), Rory Scovel (The Count), Katherine Waterston (Estelle Conrad), Tobey Maguire (James McKay), Flea (Bob Levine), Jeff Garlin (Don Wallach), Eric Roberts (Robert Roy), Ethan Suplee (Wilson), Samara Weaving (Constance Moore), Olivia Wilde (Ina Conrad), Spike Jonze (Otto), and Telvin Griffin (Reggie) Written and Directed by Damien Chazelle (#1146 - First Man and #1577 - La La Land)

Review: 

I am sure you remember this film, one released at the last month of the year that is already considered a massive flop with audiences as a "polarizing" movie. There have been quite a few films that are basically "moviemaking love letters", such as Singin' in the Rain, The Player, Boogie Nights, The Artist, or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Perhaps there is inspiration taken from Kenneth Anger's infamous 1959 book Hollywood Babylon, a book about alleged scandals of Hollywood stars from the silent era that is full of flat-out fallacies, myths, and exaggerations (most notably claiming that Clara Bow once had a night of relations with the entire USC football team). So yes, there are mostly fictional characters present in the film (that take inspiration from real-life folks such as Clara Bow) with a few real names such as William Randolph Hearst or James Wong Howe. One thing I can respect is the fact that Chazelle and company had the balls to actually release the film in theaters. Yes, it seems a bit silly for any studio to need $250 million to apparently break even with a film about a tale of over-ambition and excess in the early Hollywood era, but it is always worth it to see films like this in a theater, packed or not. Decadence and depravity never looked so good in a theater, and I was happy to see this tale of ridiculousness, albeit in an empty theater that meant I could loudly watch the movie on my own terms.

Obviously, any scholars of the silent era can attest to the accuracy of a film depicting a certain time and age. But since we are watching a film that is trying to have its cake and eating it too, how much does it matter? Is it really important that the rage of the time might have been more about morphine rather than cocaine? (Wallace Reid died from trying to kick the habit of it, incidentally). To me, the movie may be presented as a "comedy-drama", but to me it really serves as a twisted "Hollywood Horror" story. I don't think I have ever seen a film that has such a love and hatred of everything it wants to be about, one that practically is screaming for its own head to be cut off so they can eat themselves whole. What other movie shows has a litany of images such as elephant defecating on people, urination on people, projectile vomiting, and the uncomfortable truth that, well, anyone is disposable in the moviemaking world. It is as self-indulgent as you would expect for a film that is 189 minutes long that is clearly not for everyone. I respect Chazelle for daring to make movies that try to be distinct from each other, whether that involves overrated LA love-letters such as La La Land or calm biopics such as First Man. It is the craft of obsession that matters most for Chazelle - now, whether that means Babylon is anything more than a glorified campground for debauchery is another matter. I enjoyed the movie, but it is understandable that someone else won't be as big on it as a gonzo weirdo film to experience in all of its senses that it draws out for three hours. Watching a movie that takes inspiration from the stories of people such as John Gilbert, Clara Bow, and Dorothy Arzner isn't a terrible thing to waste. 

Robbie has manic energy and physical bravado that swallows the film whole in dazzling charm that is meant to emulate "it girls" such as Clara Bow (it is Bow who once stated that she just had to think about "home" when it came to crying on cue). Of course, her self-destruction isn't quite like Bow, but Robbie makes the role her own in ferocious edge that makes it an absorbing performance beyond just being a brash fighter from the ground up, which makes the resulting tragedy all the more interesting. The same goes for Pitt in all of his bravado and melancholy, representing the falling star with tremendous confidence in where he believes the role must go to make it that more poetic in how it ends up. These two may be weird and wild in their gusto, but they are still people that you can still find worth your attention. Calva is fine to act around them, with a semi-effective story of soul-stirring passion that isn't too far removed from the action or the bigger names that come and go. Smart provides worthy support in acid-tongued charm that would make Hedda Hopper blush. Adepo and Jun Li are neat in their own ways when it comes to filling an ensemble of a certain time and place with roles that aren't merely there for the sake of being there, whether that involves a cabaret act or a particularly somber scene of a man being convinced to darken his skin for the sake of "film". The best all-around sequence is one involving the depiction of a filming day that sees a variety of amusing mishaps on the way to movie magic. Of course, the sequence involving Robbie and company trying to get one successful take on a sound set is exquisite in all of the painful ways that make it both tragic and amusing. Pitt and his inevitable fall from the stars is a close second, but that scene with Smart involving how one could be immortal in a sense by what they did on celluloid is right on the spot.

Personally, the supporting cast members are far more interesting to see. Calva, Smart, Adepo, Jun Li, yeah sure. Forget Garlin and all of those other names, this is a movie where you can see actors like Eric Roberts and Ethan Suplee have little scenes to make their mark (the former drunkenly stumbles onto a snake fight and the latter spits a bunch, but still). Hell, Tobey Maguire and his makeup that reminds one of a ghoul going around trying to show a producer a subterranean gathering space for debauched party of the underground is splendid to view in a perverse sense. You haven't lived in the world of weird film-land until you see what the hell one does for "fun" with a pale druggie that could top a man eating a rat. The bottom line that comes from the film is that a movie takes plenty of hard-nosed circumstance and crap to work its way into something for the rest of the world to see, and that it sure was a party for those who got to be a part of it. Any good movie worth their salt will have splendid cinematography, which is the case here by Linus Sandgren, as this really is a movie that pops in all the right ways, while Justin Hurwitz provides worthwhile music. The only thing that may rankle anyone daring enough to see the film all the way through in the row of debauchery is the ending, since it is a film that wants to have the whole cake of running through the gamut in a montage of films that dawned after the silent era came and went (such as Singin' in the Rain or 2001: A Space Odyssey, for example). It just seems quite unnecessary to have the montage for what really could've just ended a bit shorter when it comes to the image of a man looking back at a long-gone era interpreted by the status quo of Hollywood and weeping. I guess it depends on how one feels about a movie all about the debauchery of people in Hollywood going from weird and wild in the 1920s to, well, sound and less wild in the sound era...ending with a "gee, look at what film became!". Maybe that shameless rug pull is supposed to be the point. So, is the film and the response it received from audience some sort of representation of the movie-making landscape in 2022 when it comes to the divide between streaming and theater-aimed features or between the divide of "blockbusters" versus "movies for adults"? Having seen the film for myself, I can only state this: who gives a shit? Either you will like this movie for its sheer audacity or not care for it, it does not get any simpler than that. I personally think it is a secret film in human horror that screams at the viewer as much as it screams at itself. I doubt I will return to seeing this film in the near future, but screw it, the film is pretty weird, pretty loud, and all around...pretty bold to do what it does in wild child style. The fate of the film and its plot may be inevitable, but that is where the fun is.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Another year, another time. This closes out Movie Night's twelfth year of operation (hence the end of using a particular twelve-sided shape in every title card, hint hint), which has seen a review ten times on New Years' Eve, and this is the third straight Eve to close out with a movie from the year that was. 2022 ended with 1,781 total reviews, which means I did 167 reviews for Season 12. This is the fifth busiest year in Movie Night history, but the best is yet to come. Review #2000 looms, but the big thing is the advent of theme months to start the first quarter of the year to spotlight plenty of new and familiar faces in cinema. With that in mind, Have a Happy New Year in 2023.

Ocean's Eleven.

Review #1889: Ocean's Eleven.

Cast: 

George Clooney (Danny Ocean), Matt Damon (Linus Caldwell), Andy Garcia (Terry Benedict), Brad Pitt (Rusty Ryan), Julia Roberts (Tess Ocean), Bernie Mac (Frank Catton), Elliott Gould (Reuben Tishkoff), Casey Affleck (Virgil Malloy), Scott Caan (Turk Malloy), Eddie Jemison (Livingston Dell), Don Cheadle (Basher Tarr), Shaobo Qin (The Amazing Yen), and Carl Reiner (Saul Bloom) Directed by Steven Soderbergh (#984 - Logan Lucky and #1526 - Traffic)

Review: 

"I wanted to see if I could combine two types of films, one that had this elegant, elaborate, technical side but also this casual off-hand quality to the performances – a film that wasn't aggressive."

The thing to remember about Ocean's 11 (1960) is that it sucked. It was a mediocre, bland movie that begged for a more involving script when it came to making a star vehicle heist movie that did only one thing right: making the idea of stealing money from Vegas with an intricate plan sounded cool. So yes, I would understand why someone would think they could do a remake of a 40-year old movie with a new array of talented name actors. Ted Griffin serves as the screenwriter for this film, which takes the loosest of inspiration from the original film and its screenplay by Harry Brown, Charles Lederer, George Clayton Johnson & Jack Golden Russell. Soderbergh, who went from indie classics such as Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989) to mainstream success with Erin Brockovich and Traffic (both 2001), was recruited to direct, and he directed both of the subsequent sequels (released in 2004 and 2007), which were all commercial successes.

The easiest thing to say is that the remake is better than the original. In fact, it runs laps around the original, doing so despite perhaps being just a good feature rather than the possible great caper it could have been. It is not particularly outstanding in any one area, but it manages to do just enough in being good in most of the core aspects to make it a solid piece of entertainment. It is a movie that wants you have a good time and that's about it, doing so with casual energy and expertise that would make anyone favorable to a machine-type of film (i.e. a movie that is mechanical but solid for a rental) where the heist is a heist you might see coming but enjoy anyway, complete with assembling its key eleven pretty quickly in the 116-minute run-time. Clooney glides through the adventure with casual charm, maneuvering through the machinations of what comes with heists and people, which mainly consists of a few amusing moments when it comes to the setup and his key part of the climax. Pitt maneuvers as the second man with casual coolness that also lends for a few little neat moments, such as pretending to be a doctor to move his way forward. Damon has the self-effacing qualities one might see from other films with him, which more or less means that he makes the best of playing a quiet pickpocket. Granted, some of the supporting cast sticks out better than others. Cheadle tries his best to play the charade of having a Cockney accent in a manner that would make Dick van Dyke proud. Oh right, I hadn't actually seen Julia Roberts in a movie before. Eh, she's okay, but watching the chemistry between her and Clooney is merely passable in bittersweet zippiness, which either means I should watch more films with Roberts or just go on my merry way. Besides, Garcia is the real presence among the others, odious and calculating in all the right ways as the targeted heavy. Mac and Reiner make quality relief in the "comedians turned con men" roles, as is the case with Gould and his loose charisma. Disappointing that Jemison and Qin kind of fall by the wayside, since Jemison's panicky characterization is at least semi-interesting as opposed to Caan and Affleck trying to play siblings for what you'd expect in very loose amusement. Each half could be seen coming in terms of general "know where it's going" quality, but they work out in not dragging the obvious points down, and the eventual endpoint is a nice way to go out. As a whole, the movie is a glossy and familiar work, but it is a well-executed familiar work that does everything you would expect from it with plenty to like that fulfills its reasonable expectations just fine. Whether one has seen the original or the subsequent sequels to the remake, you can't really go wrong here.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

True Romance.

Review #1632: True Romance.

Cast:

Christian Slater (Clarence Worley), Patricia Arquette (Alabama Whitman), Dennis Hopper (Clifford Worley), Val Kilmer (Mentor), Gary Oldman (Drexl Spivey), Brad Pitt (Floyd), Christopher Walken (Vincenzo Coccotti), Bronson Pinchot (Elliot Blitzer), Samuel L. Jackson (Big Don), Michael Rapaport (Dick Ritchie), Saul Rubinek (Lee Donowitz), Conchata Ferrell (Mary Louise Ravencroft), James Gandolfini (Virgil), Anna Thomson (Lucy), Victor Argo (Lenny), Chris Penn (Nicky Dimes), and Tom Sizemore (Cody Nicholson) Directed by Tony Scott (#029 - Top Gun, #253 - Unstoppable, and #357 - The Last Boy Scout)

Review:

"The biggest edge I live on is directing. That's the most scary, dangerous thing you can do in your life."

Curiosity can reign free when it comes to looking upon two merging visions make a film together in the writer and director. The writer of the film was Quentin Tarantino, who based his script of a script Roger Avary had done called "The Open Road", and Avary helped organize the structure of that script. He had met director Tony Scott while lurking around the set of Scott's film The Last Boy Scout, and he gave Scott two scripts (True Romance and Reservoir Dogs), for which Scott wanted to make films of (when faced with having to pick just one, he picked the former (the latter script was turned into a film first, although it had been written later than the former). The script was written by Tarantino with the lead character as a stand-in for himself. Scott was obviously no stranger to making enterprising efforts in action. A graduate of the Royal College of Art in London like his older brother Ridley, with each becoming inspired to move from an interest in art to advertisements to eventually films, with the younger Scott specializing in action and thriller over the course of sixteen films. This was the seventh feature effort from Scott, which he made on a budget of $12 million that led to fair notice but a limited appeal in terms of box office. Its stature has risen in recent years as a cult favorite, for obvious reasons to those who look at the film at the nexus of two directors. There is of course one key difference from script to film - the final fate of one of the characters, in which Tarantino had them die (as a sign of comeuppance for all the cynical folks), but Scott liked one of the characters so much that he wanted them to stay together, acting it as a fairy tale love story. Of course, the acting choices would certainly be interesting if looked upon by Tarantino, since he wrote the film with Robert Carradine and Joan Cusack in mind for the leads (for his part, Scott desired Drew Barrymore at first), so wrap your head how that would have looked.

When one is tired of relationships, they should pick a romance, obviously. If Natural Born Killers (1994, the second script he sold) represents a compromised vision between Tarantino's scripting and the director, True Romance is certainly a case of writer-director cohesion, one where the details all come together to make what might seem like a fantasy come alive with energy and intrigue (although there is some satire included by Scott, who molded Rubinek's character after producer Joel Silver). It never seems like a compromise, balancing eloquence of amusement with violence that only got more interesting upon the progression of Tarantino over the next few years, and Scott makes his effort count in riveting interest with what is needed, whether that means scenes shot at the Ambassador Hotel, or with scenes that can jump from amusement to violent at a turn that go with the aspects of Elvis Presley adoration to a collection of cast that could make up two separate big-time movies (Oldman, Jackson, and Pitt basically make up about 20 minutes of time on screen, and this is 1992 we are talking about). Is it perfect? No, but it certainly is bold enough to linger with anyone curious enough to seek it out for those who like to see an interesting time that runs the gamut from pulp to black comedy without running itself ragged. Slater thought of the role as a comedy before Scott and him saw Taxi Driver (1976) in order to hone in a darker, cooler approach. Obviously it worked out well, since he plays it off with a refined sense of daredevil charisma, where one can see him roll with everything that goes in action and romance without any trouble, playing this quasi-Tarantino character with no false note (even when dealing an imaginary friend that looks like Elvis) Arquette fits on the other side of the coin, matching well in making this romance easy to believe in from the very first few moments, because one sees plenty of magnetism between these folks in their pursuit of living free within the domain of enjoying kung fu among other hobbies and vices. She makes for a mix of worldly innocence that makes this dark fairy tale come around with dutiful interest that holds her own (just as Slater does) when not together - the best scene might be her paired with another actor though, as the scene in the motel room with Gandolfini (in a key early role marked with brutal effectiveness) makes for a tense tête-à-tête in rising action and a natural bludgeoning edge to close it out. Others do their part with less time on screen, such as Hopper, who naturally gets one interesting scene to spend making it all count - his last, spent with one-scene wonder Walken, which involves a few choice words involving Sicily that makes for a riveting standoff. Kilmer spends his time with a good voice needed to play off scenes spent in quasi-hiding, which go well when playing an imagined presence. Oldman may not be in it much, but he sure makes a worthy rough presence count that never betrays the makeup and voice set for such an unsavory curiosity. Pitt (no stranger to making supporting turns count in the first part of the 1990s) makes his buzzed time count, an observer with improvised dialogue to make for bemused amusement (one might recognize the influence this role had on another film released years later with Pineapple Express). Pinchot (mostly known for his star role in Perfect Strangers for seven years) makes well with panic-laced pacing, which plays right into the climax fine, particularly with the bravado played by Rubinek, while Rapaport, Penn, and Sizemore contribute in their own little ways (mostly with the standoff). By the time the film closes down its 118 minute run-time, one will find a pretty good experience in balancing dark humor and violence that has plenty of energy where it needs to go without seeming too much like a brazen fantasy running around in references. It makes for a fun time, accomplishing what it needs to do with its pursuit of story beat to drive it over the finish line to its standoff that will hit with the viewers that enjoy what comes from either Tarantino or Scott without too much worry about every detail or just who did what. Sometimes one just has to sit and enjoy the tale for itself.

Well, you are probably wondering just why there were a few reviews this week that happened to tie to the years of 1990-1993. Sure, these films have been in consideration for several months (for obvious reason), but there is also another reason: They happen to be the years involving a team dear to me when it comes to rooting interest in the Buffalo Bills, who went to the Super Bowl in four straight years. I don't usually take to the sports pulpit when it comes to these writings, but let's bend the rule for this one because of the fact that they are playing for the right to be in the Super Bowl again: Let's go Buffalo, let us see you pull of a great big upset today and move on to February, so say it with me now: No one circles the wagons like the Buffalo Bills!

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Big Short.

Review #1574: The Big Short.

Cast: 

Christian Bale (Michael Burry), Steve Carell (Mark Baum), Ryan Gosling (Jared Vennett), Brad Pitt (Ben Rickert), John Magaro (Charlie Geller), Finn Wittrock (Jamie Shipley), Hamish Linklater (Porter Collins), Rafe Spall (Danny Moses), Jeremy Strong (Vinny Daniel), Marisa Tomei (Cynthia Baum), and Tracy Letts (Lawrence Fields) Directed by Adam McKay (#526 - Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy and #693 - Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues)

Review: 

"I think it’s no accident that most people get bored when they hear about it. I think it’s, like, designed to be boring. I think they don’t want anyone participating in the conversation, they want you to use this jargon, they want you to basically go away, they want you to feel stupid, and the second you crack it, it’s just endlessly fascinating.”

Going from a reputation of comedy to verge into comedy can be a tough task, particularly if you have done so well with the former. And yet, if one has enough conviction in what they want to tell in their story (no matter how complicated), anything can happen. Adam McKay has proven a worthy example of achieving notice within both comedy and drama. The Pennsylvania native majored in English with studies at Pennsylvania State University and Temple University, but his real interest was in standup comedy. He did various work in improv comedy (most notably in Chicago with The Second City), which included being one of the founders of the group the Upright Citizens Brigade. He moved on to Saturday Night Live as a writer for six years (including two as head writer) before moving into directing. His first four films were each written by him and Will Ferrell (who starred on the show), which resulted in movies such as Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004) and The Other Guys (2010). Undeniably, it was not an easy task to adapt real-life events involving bankers and an economical collapse to film. Naturally, this is adapted from the novel of the same name, written by Michael Lewis that talked about the housing bubble of the 2000s and the people that bet against the bubble (the film kept Dr. Burry while basing the others on real-life money managers and traders such as Steve Eisman and Greg Lippmann). McKay expressed an interest in doing a film based on the book because of his interest (and outrage) in the crisis with people depicted in the book that did not fit what a studio might desire for leads to follow - explaining financial terms to go alongside all of this is another story entirely. McKay and Charles Randolph would adapt the book to film as screenwriters - Randolph wrote his screenplay over a period of six months while McKay made his contributions two years after that, most notably with the moments involving breaking the fourth wall and celebrities brought in to explain certain terms.

What we have here is a film that can equally be viewed as both a bio-drama and a comedy on the nature of unchecked greed versus incompetence within finance, a film that will have one buzzing with information to digest that will leave them rippling with curiosity over just how one could get away with so much with a system that really didn't know what it was doing. We are talking about people who bet against the odds for a market that looked like it would never stop based on what had happened before with the foundation when it comes to mortgages, subprime mortgages and collateralized debt obligations. In other words, it's the story of people who found themselves with a system that was not in fact too big to fail, and one can either look upon them however they like, whether that means with anger or another way. Sometimes one needs a bit of informative depression when it comes to films wanting to tell a film about finance. In that sense, it is inevitable to look upon another film related to greed with finance in The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), or maybe even something like Margin Call (2011). The more complicated it gets with its foundation and tension, the better the film goes, and that proves to be the case with an excellent and complicated film like this, a useful one fresh for some interesting acting alongside its movement around economics that make a worthwhile film that appeals to biting satire rather than condescending biopic. The film is told through three separate but parallel stories that are linked through the eventual crisis, in which two of the main four actors doesn't ever interact with the others. Bale is our first focus, one who certainly molds right in with an eccentric role filled with concentration and awkward charm that never seems like a bit played out to impatience, whether that means listening to loud music in his office or fiddling with his clients about being right. Carell (no stranger to dramatic turns after being known for comedy) is just as well-done, capturing a certain cynicism-filled edge that reaches with useful honesty for what one can feel about others around them in terms of temper (although if you hear it from Eisman, the man that Carell is loosely playing, he captured the anger without his sense of humor - but biopics can only be so fleeting). Gosling does well here with a role that practically seems made out of snakeskin, one filled with transparency for what he does, which works out pretty well for a performance that we follow along at times for certain moments of explanation. Pitt is fairly reserved here for a role that fits that requirement, independent without becoming entrenched in the background for too long. Magaro and Wittrock both do well with contributing idealism within wanting to make a bunch of money within a withering system that lend a few wry moments while closing the film out with a poignant moment inside a collapsed building of finance. Linklater, Spall, and Strong also do fine with contributing their end in support to follow along Carell without being lost in all the financial hullaballoo. As a whole, its moments in trying to balance drama with details about finance with a variation on the usual exposition that keeps the film on its heels for 130 minutes with farce and furor that makes a provocative film on history that still lingers in its consequences years later that is useful to keep alive in our mind to understand the rights and wrongs of what might seem mundane but are in fact much more than that.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Inglourious Basterds.

Review #1551: Inglourious Basterds.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (Lt. Aldo "The Apache" Rain), Mélanie Laurent (Shosanna Dreyfus/Emmanuelle Mimieux), Christoph Waltz (Hans Landa), Eli Roth (Sgt. Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz), Michael Fassbender (Lt. Archie Hicox), Diane Kruger (Bridget von Hammersmark), Daniel Brühl (Pfc. Fredrick Zoller), Til Schweiger (Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz), Gedeon Burkhard (Corporal Wilhelm Wicki), Jacky Ido (Marcel), B. J. Novak (Pfc. Smithson "The Little Man" Utivich), Omar Doom (Pfc. Omar Ulmer), Samm Levine (Pfc. Gerold Hirschberg), and August Diehl (Dieter Hellstrom) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, #1218 - Pulp Fiction, #1251 - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and #1307 - Jackie Brown)

Review: 
"Some people will like Inglourious Basterds. Some people won't. But it was made with all the passion I've made everything with - except maybe my first film, which was probably made with more passion than I'll ever have again."

Doing a Quentin Tarantino film can be quite an experience, depending on one's moods for his particular style towards filmmaking that have made him an interesting auteur with ten released features in the span of over two decades, which are generally known for their handling of violence, ensemble casting and drawing upon films and other media. Tarantino spent ten years writing the film, but he apparently could not come up with an ending at first. He has stated his desire to make a spaghetti western but as a World War II film, one that could forward the war-mission subgenre with more artistic movement. Of course he also believes that the opening chapter of the film was the best thing he had written since True Romance (1993), so cut it however you like it.

It's rather amazing with all the spectacle and time built into making a 153 minute film that goes where it wants with dual stories (alongside a significant amount of dialogue spoken in Italian, French, and German) and many actors making an appearance (such as a brief nod for Rod Taylor and Mike Myers, believe it or not) that it all comes down to being remarkably average. I don't really know what I was expecting, but while I found some of it fairly enjoyable when it comes to exploitation material, other parts seem to go on for quite a bit longer than they really should and it really seems like a case of too much boldness where it needs to be less. His films are definitely ones that could desire multiple viewings, but I really didn't latch onto this one that much to really think I'll go back and just look on it again anytime soon (which is strange, since I re-watched his subsequent film Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) and actually liked it better than I already did, and that also is a sprawling film involving alternate history). For something that aspires for sprawling story, it really feels like two hollow ends of the same instrument. Pitt leads the film with reasoned edge, confident in exactly what is needed for someone needing to deal in blunt vengeance. Somehow, Laurent didn't really seemed to connect well here, as if somehow one desires more interest in the other structure of revenge than passiveness that really didn't make as much an impression as I might've liked, which is probably important with the whole "let's burn it all down" time spent - she might be shown as bigger-than-life, but it sure doesn't translate to a big factor of focus. Of course this could also apply to Fassbender or Kruger as well, since they both feature in a whole sequence involving accents, a guessing game, and exactly what you might expect in tedium. Waltz is the best part of the whole film, honestly. It seems strange that of a diverse grab-bag of international actors that it is the one involved in television and film since the late 1970s (in either German or English language) as a native of Austria that outranks the rest, capturing a great adversary of courteous and sardonic skill. Roth (occasional actor and director of films such as Cabin Fever) makes the most impression of the title characters, mostly because of a bravado to go with a big swing.

I have given a bit of slack to films that resonate in entertainment despite perhaps lacking in depth. For this, I just can't really give this that much to grab on because I feel that it is just okay at actually executing itself in boldness beyond a few tricks of war films past and an attempt at making revenge and action seem more than it really is. It brandishes itself in camp and fervor that does do fine with some of its sequences in generating shock or a bit of smile, and the opening sequence is at the very least a useful to set itself up on the right track. Pitt and Waltz do enough to carry a film in casual interest of sidestepping history that mostly make up for a film with flickering energy to actually land its convictions and passion it yearns to have, but it certainly could provide a curiosity for those interested in its presentation and its vision to get there.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Troy (2004).

Review #1538: Troy.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (Achilles), Eric Bana (Hector), Orlando Bloom (Paris), Diane Kruger (Helen), Brian Cox (Agamemnon), Sean Bean (Odysseus, King of Ithaca), Brendan Gleeson (Menelaus, King of Sparta), Rose Byrne (Briseis), Saffron Burrows (Andromache), Julie Christie (Thetis), Peter O'Toole (Priam, King of Troy), Garrett Hedlund (Patroclus), and John Shrapnel (Nestor) Directed by Wolfgang Petersen (#414 - Air Force One)

Review: 
"Homer's work was violent and brutal and sexy and bold and powerful," he states. "It's long and it's epic, with a lot of characters - a full spectrum of bloody, beautiful elements. The material does not ask you to cut a corner here or remove something there. This is too extreme; too rough, too violent…And I suppose I have to mea culpa, because there I was, crying in the editing room, but still doing it… I've learned a lot and next time, I promise, there will be a big fight!"

Bring on the spectacle, bring them on from all places in the world. Wolfgang Petersen gradually rose up the ranks in his native Germany through the theater (along with doing short films of his own in 1968) before studying at the Film and Television Academy in Berlin that helped him move on to television and eventually his first film feature in 1974 with One or the Other of Us. It was Das Boot (1982), his third work, that generated the most attention in his country and abroad, which The NeverEnding Story (1984) helped continue to that trend. Over the years, Petersen has made twelve films (mostly regarded as blockbusters) that have resulted in mostly fruitful successes. What better way to try and do an epic based in some part on myth by taking out the mythological effect and striving to make an historical epic? Of course this is a loose adaptation Homer's Iliad (with the script of the film being written by David Benioff, who had done The 25th Hour two years prior), considering the fact that numerous characters don't actually die in the poem as compared to the film that condenses its Trojan War to a few weeks. The original version of the film was 162 minutes, while the director's cut adds 30 minutes. I saw the original version because hey, that's the DVD I had.

Whether one eels having intervention from above is a bit silly or not, it definitely makes this film a bit strange to view through the lens of an epic, and the result is something that will either prove just fine for some and a little hollow for others. Maybe one could blame Gladiator (2000) for the idea of doing ancient epics like this with big spectacle for gladiatorial combat in ancient times and a flash of stars while taking brevity out to the toolshed to hammer repeatedly. Honestly though, there isn't anything inherently terrible about this particular movie, but it just happens to be so incredibly mediocre in pretty much every aspect, where the only thing going for it is a flash of scenery and spectacle to gaze upon. In a way, it is like seeing a large dog rumble around in the yard wearing "clothes" - it's a dopey sight, but it is probably too precious to think of as anything other than just silly. Pitt certainly looks like he tries to give his all to looking and seeming the part of the big hero (despite his subsequent reservations about the film's lack of mystery) that works in parts in trying to inspire some sort of nuance that sort of works in conviction but seems sort of lost in the shuffle of camp. Bana and Bloom come and go with about as much charm as dollar-store mannequins, where one fights the urge to look at their watch (particularly in the case of the latter, playing a bland coward). Kruger was brought in because Petersen wanted an unknown for Helen of Troy, but she never really seems that compelling to really drive drama forward to really serve as a "face that launched a thousand ships", instead seeming like a face in the crowd. Cox certainly seems to be having a grand time in being involved in a epic, and I can applaud him having bluster with a big bulky costume. Bean and Gleeson compliment things just fine in reserved moments, although it is obviously O'Toole who seems to make the most out of a paycheck-I mean appearance as a king with clarity. If I cared about what went on with this spectacle, maybe it would matter more than its ultimate result, the bastion of clichés ancient and less ancient that seems suited for irritating fans of mythology or flat-out making them yawn for all the stuff that comes out at them like a grand old cutscene.  If one believes in its scope through shots in Malta and Mexico and its 163 minute odyssey through some sort of meaning in mythology, trek on and relax with where it wants to go in its bellowing of an epic for its own time. I can't give it a winning recommendation, but you can certainly draw the line in the sand for yourself for if it matters enough to seem right for you.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

12 Monkeys.

Review #1511: 12 Monkeys.

Cast: 
Bruce Willis (James Cole), Madeleine Stowe (Kathryn Railly), Brad Pitt (Jeffrey Goines), Christopher Plummer (Dr. Leland Goines), David Morse (Dr. Peters), Jon Seda (Jose), Christopher Meloni (Lt. Halperin), Frank Gorshin (Dr. Fletcher), and Vernon Campbell (Tiny) Directed by Terry Gilliam (#1448 - Monty Python and the Holy Grail)

Review: 
"I do want to say things in these films. I want audiences to come out with shards stuck in them. I don't care if people love my films or walk out, as long as they have a strong response."

When it comes to films that have a bit of magic realism with a particular style of imagination, Terry Gilliam is a good director to start with. He had first started with cartoons and animation, such as with Help! magazine (before it closed in 1965) before moving to Europe and eventually moving into work within television with Do Not Adjust Your Set (1968). He would do both animation and various parts for a show that would become famous in England beyond its run in television with Monty Python's Flying Circus. He would serve as the co-director with Terry Jones in his first feature with Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975). He has done a fair mix of comedies, fantasies and adventures in his life, which has resulted in a share of success and clashes with meddling studio makers for films such as Time Bandits (1981), Brazil (1985), and The Fisher King (1991). This is the seventh of thirteen films by Gilliam, which is inspired by the 1962 short film La Jetee (directed and written by Chris Marker). That film told a story of time-travel experiment in a post-apocalyptic France, with travels into the past and future that was told as a still image film (except for one distinct moment) for 28 minutes. Executive producer Robert Kosberg pitched the idea of doing a film based on the short to Universal Pictures and this led to David and Janet Peoples being brought in to do the script while Gilliam was brought into the fold by Universal because of their belief in his style fitting what they needed here (with Gilliam liking the "disconcerting" story).

What we have here is a film about how nothing is ever like it seems, one that wants us ultimately to focus not on the past but instead to pay attention to what happens in the present, in all of its strange settings. With a world coming apart, one can see in this film both death and rebirth for a steady and dutiful 129 minute tale of morose but ultimately fruitful experience with a solid cast ready for the undertaking Gilliam requires in style and execution. The film jumps from time to time with a clear edge for distinguishing past from future with its use of various salvaged and acquired material that make for an unsettling future in creeping technology and even bleaker outlooks. In this sense, it should prove no wonder why Willis (in the midst of a prime career generally with action flicks) decided to do the film on a lower salary just to work with Gilliam and this role. He pulls wonders in the dreariest of requirements: a man lost in time with no future who has to discern what is and what isn't true. Willis weaves weariness and sensitivity with care to making the time go by with conviction and fine timing to fit what is needed without needing to do any tricks to the eye. Stowe follows along with rational care and a resoundingly shaky rapport with Willis that runs with pragmatic care. Pitt shows his resilience as the useful wild card in nervous rapid speech that goes with what is needed in a flickering state of chaotic agitation that makes for dazzling moments in and out of the looney bin. Plummer and Morse accompany the margins with mindful ease. In the end, what matters most is how much the narrative (which will be mostly fine to follow along with) resonates with the viewer in keeping interest with its eye on the present and future, where the pursuit isn't just the virus in front of you (or even shown to you) but instead on what it means to even have a future in the first place. Fear of the unknown can be a foreboding one, but it certainly beats knowing what is to come at all, with this working itself out in time as a carefully-cut curiosity to seek out for its beats in science fiction with a director suited for this particular story to make it right in logical rawness.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Se7en.

Review #1510: Seven.

Cast:
Brad Pitt (Detective David Mills), Morgan Freeman (Detective Lieutenant William Somerset), Gwyneth Paltrow (Tracy Mills), Kevin Spacey (John Doe), R. Lee Ermey (Police Captain), Richard Roundtree (District Attorney Martin Talbot), and Richard Schiff (Mark Swarr) Directed by David Fincher (#586 - Alien 3, #705 - The Social Network, and #1284 - Fight Club)

Review: 
"As a director, film is about how you dole out the information so that the audience stays with you when they're supposed to stay with you, behind you when they're supposed to stay behind you, and ahead of you when they're supposed to stay ahead of you."

From a young age, David Fincher knew he wanted to make films. He expressed an interest in photography and drawing as a child, and it was his viewing of a behind-the-scenes show about Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969) that proved the biggest inspiration to directing, noting that it was when he realized films didn't happen in real time, seeing it as a "cool job". He started making 16mm films in the third grade, with film classes during those times proved helpful to his pursuits (such as for example doing an assignment about making a film to a particular song). Fincher would do a variety of jobs and projects growing up in Oregon, such as directing and designing sets for his high school plays along with work with a news station and as a busboy. After turning 20, he moved into doing work in the film industry with people such as John Korty and Industrial Light and Magic (ILM) which started with work such as Twice Upon a Time (1983) with special photographic effects. He moved from doing assistant work to directing for television commercials and soon music videos (both involving prominent companies and groups like Levi's and Rick Springfield, respectively). He was given his first chance to direct a feature with Alien 3 (1990). To put it mildly, he hated the experience, one undone by script troubles and re-editing.

Fincher went back to making music videos, but he managed to come across an intriguing script done by Andrew Kevin Walker (who had based his experiences living in New York City for five years as his inspiration), which was looked into by New Line Cinema after a few revisions. Fincher asked to read the script, but it was accidentally the one with the original ending that was sent to him by the studio to garner his interest; Fincher liked what he saw, and consulting with studio head Mike De Luca led to the understanding that while studio pressure wanted to go forward with the more conventional manner of ending, provided that Fincher was ready to go in six weeks. This did not stop pressure from other hands at the studio from trying to guide the ending to something different, but several people, including Fincher, Pitt, Freeman, and Spacey, protested against changing the film, which succeeded as Fincher's first key hit in a career that has persisted for over three decades. The movies that linger in our memories are the ones where you can really distill it down to one key moment or quote in crystal clearness, one that you can say "The film with that ending." Sure, you could use The Usual Suspects for 1995's example of an iconic trickster for its ending, but Seven is the superior effort. It manages to achieve such a well-done construction of a compelling crime narrative that has a solid and recognizable cast to go alongside an unnerving tone and pace that makes its ending all the more wrenching in effectiveness, earning its twists and turns with no sort of cheating or contrivances, made particularly clear with the third act in its method of madness with Pitt, Freeman, and Spacey. Drenched in darkness, who can resist its realism? Precise and uncompromising scares of what makes a hunt for a murderer all the more successful. It is no wonder that Fincher was attracted to this, seeing it as a "meditation on evil and how evil gets on you and you can't get it off", rather than just a police procedural. With the way it goes with its gruesome moments (whether shown on camera or not), you almost could put it under horror as well.

When it comes to finely-tuned pairings of procedure, Pitt and Freeman make a good team. They bounce off each other in contrast with their sensibility towards virtue and reality that work out quite well. Pitt has an interesting natural ability to sink into this role with both feet facing forward and a capability of determination in a fledged interest with flaws for us to see through what seems to just be energy. Freeman accomplishes a weary and effective turn of the other side of the procedural screw, one with a steady pace towards his past and future when it comes to the grind of age and the regrets that can come from it. Paltrow lends some brightness to the atmosphere with grace as the only one that isn't directly related to the case yet see in her struggle to maintain oneself in the grind of a brooding life within a city looking dark enough to engulf all. Spacey is concise and effective with the moments he is given (which is best not to highlight in keeping the curiosity to oneself or in just waiting to see when he comes in), making a useful adversary that never adheres to all of the clichés you could see in a lesser killer film. Ermey and Roundtree have small moments, but they are each worthwhile actors with what is required when interacting with our leads regardless. With a slick way of maneuvering through its methods in 127 minutes with most of its moments hitting in keeping the pulse firmly in keeping the audience on their toes without needing to bash them over the head for the sins of lesser procedurals before it. This is a fairly effective film for its era that dares to take its audience through murky touchings with a capable cast and execution that will stay in the boxes of your mind for quite some time after it is finished.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Fight Club.

Review #1284: Fight Club.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (Tyler Durden), Edward Norton (The Narrator), Helena Bonham Carter (Marla Singer), Meat Loaf (Robert Paulson), Jared Leto (Angel Face), Zach Grenier (Richard Chesler), and Thom Gossom Jr. (Detective Stern) Directed by David Fincher (#586 - Alien 3 and #705 - The Social Network)

Review: 
Two decades after its release, what can one say about a film like this? The polarizing adaptation of novel of the same name from Chuck Palahniuk certainly has quite a following in the time following a mild run in its initial box office run. One wonders what sort of expectation is to be expected for something like this, a dark satire that happens to have a few fights and a compact cast that make for a fine movie. Sometimes you do need a film that will make you squirm a bit, and this film sure does fine with making some useful points through a run of 139 minutes that runs the gamut without hesitation, never seeming to stumble in trying to deliver a quirky story that hits more often than not. One can appreciate the effort made to deliver something that resembles The Graduate and Rebel Without a Cause, with a conflict involving a generation of all-singing, all-dancing stuff of the world and themselves, where beating people to oblivion seems like a good release. That, or causing mayhem, but that's neither here or there.

Undeniably, the highlight of the film is its main trio of castmates, who are interesting to watch. Norton plays his part with sardonic relish, where his narration carries the story quite well, making for some satirical bite that makes him quite involving to be around, an everyman who happens to visit support groups just to feel something and go to sleep (better than crying or substances, I suppose). It's not hard to recognize something from this character in oneself or others (such as buying things to fill something within themselves is one example I could posit). Pitt is enjoyable, wild as a stick of dynamite that is relentlessly entertaining each time he shows up on screen, filled with marked charisma that does tend to blend well in roughness with Norton, as if it was a coin that always seems ready to land on its side more than anything (which is less of a metaphor than the fighting is, I admit). Carter does fine with the crude side of this triad; she doesn't have as much time on screen as the other two, but she proves worthwhile with dark charm that is somewhat amusing. I'll give credit to anyone who takes a role where you need to wear a bulky harness, especially if one is singer-turned-actor Meat Loaf, who does garner a laugh or two without seeming like a distraction (one of course could insert a reference about other harness performances here, obviously). It sure is striking to see Leto for the brief moments he is on screen in the film's second half. The visual look sure works itself out well, with plenty of unflinching violence alongside other moments. The film was written by Jim Uhls, with several un-credited contributors, including director Fincher and and the movie's co-stars Pitt and Norton. Palahniuk approved of the final product, which he felt kept intact most of the "convoluted plot" of the novel (for which the climax is significantly different) while liking the main three actors when it came to stepping into these characters alongside Fincher's directorial efforts. I can't disagree with that assessment, since the film is well-done in entertainment value while making a concentrated effort to have some sort of meaning beyond fighting or mayhem, where responsibility is the key path instead of some sort of self-serving freedom or something more toxic in its brand. The film is not a perfect one by any means, but I do find it to be an interesting one, holding itself quite well for its start while making its conclusions one to to think about after it ends over a round of discussion with others.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Ad Astra.

Review #1277: Ad Astra.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (Major Roy McBride), Tommy Lee Jones (H. Clifford McBride), Ruth Negga (Helen Lantos), Liv Tyler (Eve McBride), Donald Sutherland (Colonel Pruitt), John Ortiz (General Rivas), Greg Bryk (Chip Garnes), Loren Dean (Donald Stanford), John Finn (General Stroud), and Kimberly Elise (Lorraine Deavers) Directed by James Gray.

Review: 
Admittedly, the interest for this film was fairly mild, with tinges of interest revolving around the approach of making a hostile space sci-fi movie, which one could probably see resembling Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. If the film is at least halfway accurate to reality with regards to space, that also helps too. Really though, one film I did see some parallels with was First Man (2018) with its focus on a closed off astronaut who holds in his fear for an important mission. Then again, that film didn't have a lead that voiced over several parts of the film, wonderful shots of other planets, killer baboons, or moon pirates. Really, with all that in mind, this likely could have been one of the most interesting space adventure films to come out in the past few years (this said for someone who hadn't encountered Interstellar first). It sure turned out to be an unbelievable movie - one that is so unbelievably average to the point of frustration. This feels like a film that needed another re-draft (for a film co-written by its director alongside Ethan Gross), and this is for something that reportedly had re-shoots that drove its budget higher than the initial $80 million - but does one need to know the budget to care about a movie? No, but it sure helps to make a movie that looks good and entertains just as well too.

There are highlights to be found here, such as the opening sequence involving a free fall to Earth. It is quite mesmerizing, seeing someone fall and fall to the Earth, even if you know that they will come out of it in at least one piece. The lunar rover scene with pirates on the Moon (or in other words, star pirates) is pretty captivating, interesting to view through the lens of space. The film also does have plenty of wonderful shots of other worlds, including when it finally encounters Neptune and its lovely rings. It just so happens that the film nearly collapses with the parts besides the ones I just mentioned. The loneliness of space sure seems like an interesting concept to go with, a better concept would be to make one that has two consistent halves to it. It does roll just fine for its first half in setting up its one useful lead and getting to Mars, but it sure does seem to seem less steady after that point. The baboon fight beforehand should've proved a worry already, but it barely even inspires a concern that our hero (I guess) will come out of it alive. By the time the film trudges to its climax, its attempts at inspiring some sort of spark of hope through an undeniably bleak and cynical foundation comes off as an utter joke. This is a film that makes cracks at having restaurants on the Moon with pricey blankets for the flight over there. It also seems to have shock for its main character that he won't get to go from Mars to Neptune to actually confront his kooky father (take your pick on how he reacts to that). Pick one tone and stick with it, especially since it probably could have just shown some actual moments around the locations it wants to go. But no, one really needs to see the plight of the sad lone space man again and again. The benefit is that a less competent director might have made these seem downright maudlin as opposed to mildly sobering. You know what did better as a one-man space film? Moon (2009), which actually knew where to go with its main character and his own crisis within the human element for a sci-fi film.

Nobody delivers a terrible performance, but they sure look constrained by what the script requires, especially a criminally wasted Jones. His scraggly beard and weary nature beg for more to do than this. Oh sure, Pitt looks to be gnawing at the idea of a literal one-man show where you can see his stoic nature to space travel and accompanying voiceover over being alone just fine. One can only take so much before wanting to just find something else to view alongside him, especially since nearly every other character is hopelessly incompetent or a shadow. Jones may be wasted, but Tyler and Sutherland make their own captivating contention for being underused. You could take Tyler out of the film and barely anything would feel different. Sutherland only seems to be there just to spew plot points before his 20 minutes are up. Maybe I am being a bit too harsh on these folks, or perhaps this is exactly the kind of film that deserves better and should do better. Mediocre movies can be tiresome, high-priced ones that can't live up to their own premise without nearly poisoning its own foundations with a big d'oh are especially tiresome. On the whole, Ad Astra does deliver on some of its promises when it comes to spectacle and a decent one-man show from Pitt. It proceeds to bewilder and frustrate for two hours by being as ridiculously self-serious as it wants with such amusement that it almost becomes parody. Perhaps a re-watch could give a bit of clarity and understanding to what makes this film tick, but one could just re-watch other better sci-fi films of its ilk instead. On a ranking scale, it would get a C, but since I use numbers, I suppose it averages out to being one to recommend, if only by slim margins. It is watchable, if not one to grumble at sometimes.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)

Review #1256: Mr. & Mrs. Smith.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (John Smith), Angelina Jolie (Jane Smith), Vince Vaughn (Eddie), Adam Brody (Benjamin "The Tank" Danz), Kerry Washington (Jasmine), Keith David (Father), Chris Weitz (Martin Coleman), Rachael Huntley (Suzy Coleman), and Michelle Monaghan (Gwen) Directed by Doug Liman (#1064 - Jumper)

Review: 
What can you really expect from a summer blockbuster like this one? Perhaps it is good that I didn't have many expectations for one aimed to deliver action and laughs, as it makes the disappointment over the final result less awful to bear. If I actually felt something of interest over these characters when it comes to the action scenarios or the sitcom-level atmosphere besides it, this could actually fit just fine as a neat gem to eat popcorn with. As is, it i's just a mediocre product that feels like it should be much better, headlined by a cast that seems like it wants more to do. Sure, you could say that Pitt and Jolie make for a decent team, but they just seem stuck in something more pale than Lethal Weapon 4 - at least that film's highlight wasn't a dance between its main two characters. Chemistry is one thing, but how about a script with something more substantial to go with it? This is especially apparent when it comes to the scenes beside the action sequences, where there isn't really anything too funny or charming, where the lines feel like they want to be yukked out on a sitcom than an actual film. Even the therapy scenes seem bereft of something interesting to write something about. The action sequences are alright, but nothing too special to really write home about. I never really feel that either of them are in any actual danger, especially for its climax. Obviously they aren't going to hunt each other down, so why would I think a bunch of spies are going to finish the job for them? It just seems ridiculous to begin with that they could actually hide this sort of info from each other for years - actually, what exactly is the film's endgame if their agencies went to go take them down but failed the first time? An episode of Get Smart probably has more personality with their agency than this film, honestly. Vaughn gives off a few laughs in the brief time he shows up; Brody is essentially an afterthought until he has to deliver a key plotpoint before the climax. Washington and David aren't too particularly involved with things too much to make highlights of. On the whole, the film likes to talk a big game with trying to mix action and comedy, but it sure comes up flabby in the final result - it fits more for background noise than something really put on for involvement. I would say that this should be expected from someone who gave us Jumper (which can also be said for its writer, Simon Kinberg), but this actually was the film done by Liman three years prior. Imagine going from this to Jumper. If you have to make a mediocre product that will make a bunch of money and being just okay, this is probably a decent example of that scenario.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

Review #1251: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

Cast: 
Leonardo DiCaprio (Rick Dalton), Brad Pitt (Cliff Booth), Margot Robbie (Sharon Tate), Emile Hirsch (Jay Sebring), Margaret Qualley (Pussycat), Timothy Olyphant (James Stacy), Julia Butters (Trudi Fraser), Austin Butler (Charles "Tex" Watson), Dakota Fanning (Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme), Bruce Dern (George Spahn), Mike Moh (Bruce Lee), Luke Perry (Wayne Maunder), Damian Lewis (Steve McQueen), Al Pacino (Marvin Schwarz), Brenda Vaccaro (Mary Alice Schwarz), Kurt Russell (Randy), Zoë Bell (Janet), and Lorenza Izzo (Francesca Cappucci) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, and #1218 - Pulp Fiction)

Review: 
It is not a surprise to find myself watching a love letter to a time long since past in terms of movies, particularly since it is a Tarantino movie but also because of the intrigue of seeing such an interesting time like 1969 come to life. It attempts to talk a grand tale of fact and fiction with a cavalcade of actors and images that surely make for an ambitious piece of entertainment. The final result is something that will surely work wonders in terms of design and energy, although it holds itself together with a paste that may very well be described as frantic excess. Tarantino clearly wanted to make a great sprawling tale much in the same vein of other films of the 1960s that has its cake and eats plenty of it in a 161 minute run-time that his fans will probably clamor for (while wondering was left on the cutting floor) while others will probably wonder why it wanders for so long on certain aspects while leaving other parts less covered, with the ending being one of those moments ripe for discussion for quite a while, alongside other moments.

In a sea of actors spread out from substantial to one-scene wonder, DiCaprio and Pitt are game to lead the way in delivering plenty of enthusiasm and charm in respective ways that carry the film steady. DiCaprio in particular shines as a falling star pastiche, where one can see his fading attempts at what was and what could be in the changing of the time. Pitt joins that same kind of road with vigor that rolls right along when all is said and done. Robbie, the last of the main trio, doesn't have as much to say but does make a key impression of warmth and charm whenever we see her, such as when she sees herself in The Wrecking Crew in a theater while enjoying what she sees of her fictional comic relief lead. She plays her time for a part that doesn't fall under complete biopic structure - which can either prove fine or a bit disappointing. Others make their mark, some more than others. Qualley and Butters each make their mark count, conveying plenty of conviction in where they stand in the moment, the former being a marker of descent into the other side of 1969 Hollywood and the latter a young (but aspiring) talent firmly in the system in a changing time. Butler, Fanning and Dern also contribute for a scene with wiry impact, and it is sure is nice to see Russell make his mark from time to time. The actors with one-shot moments in the TV scenes (Olyphant and Perry) do fairly well with representing the time in helping making a show as forgotten as Lancer come to life again. Moh and Lewis are fine if not too particularly important in the grand scheme.

Once it garners itself to setting a conclusion (complete with narration that certainly feels a bit wry when coming from Russell), the film has already garnered enough enticement that you don't really want it to ever come crashing down (to say nothing of the request from Tarantino to avoid spoiling the film before release, which is a bit strange to say in a quasi fact/fiction film). It fights against the dawn of a different kind of Hollywood and the sign of the times itself that surely can resonate with those who seek the resonance that was a decade such as the 1960s without devolving too much into an old man argument. It aspires to have its cake and eat it too, doing plenty of both with no shame. It is a film that certainly will have fans who will find joy with its decisions (such as its visual and musical choices), but it isn't impossible to find aspects that test the grounds of patience if not in the mood for all the roads wanting to be covered by Tarantino. I enjoyed a good chunk of what I saw, and it could either teeter at the high or low end of his directorial efforts when all is said and done, which is a pretty good testament to his craft. After one views a tale like this, they will likely leave their theater with acceptance with what they saw - the times of big stars and big sights like drive-in theaters and the like may not resonate as much as they did before, but there sure is still something to enjoy then as in now when it comes to the movies and showmanship. It is a bittersweet tribute that succeeds more often than not with plenty of charm and entertainment value to go around that surely will endure just as much as the people that came from it did.
Any movie where a bunch of hippies are beaten to hell does tend to win praise from me, too.
Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Interview with the Vampire.

Review #1141: Interview with the Vampire.

Cast: 
Tom Cruise (Lestat de Lioncourt), Brad Pitt (Louis de Pointe du Lac), Christian Slater (Daniel Molloy), Kirsten Dunst (Claudia), Antonio Banderas (Armand), Stephen Rea (Santiago), Domiziana Giordano (Madeleine), and Thandie Newton (Yvette) Directed by Neil Jordan.

Review: 
This film was adapted from the novel of the same name by Anne Rice, written in 1976 as her debut novel, which was a hit with audiences. Subsequently, this inspired more installments in what became known as The Vampire Chronicles (which would be used as this film's subtitle), of which is still being written by Rice. In any case, when it came time to make an adaptation of the book into a movie, Rice wrote the screenplay, although Jordan heavily re-wrote it (although Rice would be the only one who would receive credit for the film).

In any case, this is certainly a different kind of vampire film, one that likes to bask in Gothic horror but also bask in darkness and brooding characterizations in an attempt to stand out from the vampire films of yore - while having some violence and blood, naturally. While I can't quite hold this film up as any sort of great horror classic, I will say that it does have enough sense of entertainment and positive qualities to pass through some nagging elements. Undeniably, the cast is a key highlight. Cruise, who Rice had initially disliked for the lead role before viewing the film, manages to do a fine job with such a strange role. He shows a degree of animalism with such a compelling character without devolving into overbearing camp, although I did take amusement at his first big scene involving him carrying Pitt's character up in the air - which is quite the silly thing to describe. He's fun to be around with how weird he is whenever on screen. Pitt comes off alright with trying to balance both being the storyteller of his sad tale and being someone to follow with said tale. He broods along with the nature of being a vampire just fine, but I find that he words best when with Cruise than when it is just himself. There's just something about how they work well with each other that makes the first half a bit more interesting that the latter half. After all, this is a movie where all of the main characters in the tale told by Pitt are immortals who rely on blood to live, especially since Cruise and Pitt differ in the nature of how to get said blood. Dunst, appearing in only her fifth role in a film, is pretty adept at making such a strange role for a child actor to play work without wrecking the mood, especially since the role involves a 12-year old turned into a vampire. The family dynamic that the three share for a time does work alright for the most part, since the differences between how each treat the other stand out enough to work for drama. Slater does fine with what he's given, since he is only present for the interview parts in the beginning and end (with occasional bits in the middle) that doesn't distract at any part. Banderas shines for his time on screen, having a clear sense of charm. The other actors are okay for their time to shine. The movie certainly ends itself on a fair note to close out on, complete with a cover of "Sympathy for the Devil" by Guns N' Roses.

The film earns its pace of 122 minutes just enough, never having too many boring moments while having just enough high points of energy to carry itself amiably. It invites interest and keeps the audience satisfied just enough, whether with some blood or with some of its character moments. It generally has enough chilling moments that work over the ones that don't while never becoming too boring for comfort. The visual effects by Stan Winston and digital effects by Digital Domain are pretty well done, particularly with the vampire appearance, aided by stencilled blue veins by having the actors hang upside down for 30 minutes. Rice seemed to enjoy the film herself pretty well, noting her appreciation of numerous categories from its look to its acting performances, while citing minor quibbles (such as the fact the film was rated R rather than PG-13). For the most part, this is a movie that works just fine as entertainment in Gothic horror that is just compelling enough at the right points to make a solid little film for the night.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Thelma & Louise.

Review #1076: Thelma & Louise.

Cast: 
Susan Sarandon (Louise Sawyer), Geena Davis (Thelma Dickinson), Harvey Keitel (Detective Hal Slocumb), Michael Madsen (Jimmy Lennox), Christopher McDonald (Darryl Dickinson), Stephen Tobolowsky (Max), Brad Pitt (J.D.), and Timothy Carhart (Harlan Puckett) Directed by Ridley Scott (#100 - Blade Runner, #530 - Alien, and #739 - The Martian)

Review: 
Thelma & Louise is an engaging road movie that has its shares of laughs and tough moments that belies itself on the strength of its two main characters. It manages to serve as great entertainment full of self-discovery and sharp honestly that resonates even after over two decades since its release. Sarandon and Davis make for a capable duo in part because of how their distinct personalities mix and match. Sarandon plays her role with a roughly honest type of viewpoint that never seems too cynical nor too out-of-place in any scene. Davis does a great job in making her dependably energetic character seem the perfect match to play with Sarandon, and her chemistry with Pitt is fairly well-done if not quick. Pitt has a slinky hustler charm to him that makes him watchable each scene that he is in, having a magnetic pull that served to be his breakthrough role. Keitel does a good job, evoking honestly in his authority role that never comes off as distracting. Madsen sells his casual rocker role fairly adeptly, quick to charm and care. McDonald plays his character with the right sense of control and inflated self-importance that fits the movie pretty well. The film has numerous particularly emotions in its scenes, whether shocking or amusing, and it manages to never veer itself too much in one direction that would come off as distracting. The screenplay by Callie Khouri is a tightly packed one that was rewarded with Academy Award and Golden Globe honors. The film has a controlled look that feels fairly authentic, having an execution to it that is surely captivating - particularly since it doesn't betray its principles. It doesn't ever comes off as just a road movie without much substance, with these main characters becoming memorable ones to follow. It has some turns and cliches that seem par for the course for this type of genre, but it doesn't detract from its value as an adventure too much. Even at 129 minutes, this is a film that never feels like it is wasting any moment with these characters and the tale that it is weaving. The movie has an ending that certainly serves as a symbolic and memorable capstone to something that clicks at the right times with the right kind of people behind and in front of the camera. It makes a leap for entertainment - and it succeeds at that quite well.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Fury.

Review #694: Fury.

Cast
Brad Pitt (Don Collier), Logan Lerman (Norman Ellison), Shia LaBeouf (Boyd Swan), Michael Peña (Trini Garcia), Jon Bernthal (Grady Travis), Jason Isaacs (Cpt. Waggoner), and Scott Eastwood (Sgt. Miles) Directed by David Ayer.

Review
When it comes to World War II movies, we watch regardless of the era. Whether it is Patton, or Sands of Iwo Jima, or The Dirty Dozen, or various others, it's a subject that is endless. And this just happens to be another one, though this one is influenced by evens, which I guess makes the movie less susceptible to criticism of inaccuracy. And what we have here is a movie well fit for war. Watching war movies takes a little endurance because the subject matter has to hold itself to a standard while taking the brunt of horror. In that case, this movie works just fine for it. The performances are well done, and I like Pitt's tone. I was a bit surprised that LeBeouf does a pretty fine job, mostly because he really seems into this role. The action and effects are well done, which is good because had the effects not been up to par, it would've made for a distracting mess. The movie has just enough edge to make for a brutal, but ultimately functional movie. If you're not a fan of war movies or a fan of happier times, I'd suggest anything else. But for the rest of the audience at home, this is up their alley.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: World War Z.

Review #542: World War Z.

Cast
Brad Pitt (Gerry Lane), Mireille Enos (Karin Lane), Daniella Kertesz (Segen), James Badge Dale (Captain Speke), Ludi Boeken (Jurgen Warmbrunn), Matthew Fox (Parajumper), Fana Mokoena (Thierry Umutoni), David Morse (Ex-CIA Agent), Elyes Gabel (Andrew Fassbach), and Peter Capaldi (W.H.O. Doctor) Directed by Marc Forster (#384 - Quantum of Solace)

Review

Talking about the book the movie was "adapted" from is pointless, only because it apparently took only the name of the book, with no relation to the book's plot, thus the way the movie adapted the book means nothing in the rating of this film. World War Z has an interesting premise, a war between humans and zombies...at least I thought it was that before watching it. In reality, it's a thriller that sometimes has action, but maybe not enough action. Pitt is at least entertaining, and the cast isn't bad (*insert your Peter Capaldi is the 12th Doctor joke here*), the movie isn't undercut by the cast, it's just not always interesting. It's an okay film, and the zombie attack on the plane is at least interesting to watch, but the zombies to me, while at least quick (slow zombies could be killed really easily), seem to growl really silly, which sometimes undercuts the terror. I'm still wondering why there were no tanks around, but I probably missed that reason for a vehicle that could crush the zombies. The "twist" ending is sort of clever, though admittedly, it could be regarded a plot hole as well. SPOILER ALERT: Sick people are apparently immune to zombies. Why? Zombies don't even have brains, why are they so selective? Regardless, the movie isn't bad, it's just underwhelming, and the ending feels sort of rushed, but I digress. It's an okay movie, but there are probably better zombie movies around. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Megamind.

Review #195: Megamind.

Cast
Will Ferrell (Megamind), Tina Fey (Roxanne Ritchi), David Cross (Minion), Jonah Hill (Tighten/Hal Stewart), Brad Pitt (Metro Man), J. K. Simmons (Warden), and Ben Stiller (Bernard) Directed by Tom McGrath (#165 - Madagascar and #154 - Madagascar 2)

Review
Megamind has been compared to a mix between Superman and Despicable Me, which is a strange combination of films, but is it really? Not so much, but you eventually get over that comparison and start to watch with interest. Ferrell does a good job, he's charming and somewhat sympathetic. The rest of the cast do good as well, such as Fey and Cross, who are both fun to watch. The animation is refined and excellent, the movie is enjoyable and while it may not be a great movie, it at least is a fun one. The plot line is alright, with some good jokes and dynamic action all around to make an excellent film. Countdown to 200: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.