Joker (2019).

Review #1282: Joker.

Cast: 
Joaquin Phoenix (Arthur Fleck / Joker), Robert De Niro (Murray Franklin), Zazie Beetz (Sophie Dumond), Frances Conroy (Penny Fleck), Brett Cullen (Thomas Wayne), Douglas Hodge (Alfred Pennyworth), Dante Pereira-Olson (Bruce Wayne), Glenn Fleshler (Randall), Bill Camp (Garrity), Shea Whigham (Burke), Marc Maron (Gene Ufland), and Leigh Gill (Gary) Directed by Todd Phillips (#564 - Starsky & Hutch)

Review: 
I would not be the first to admit that this film picked up traction for curiosity in the months before its release. Actually, the interest for most probably was pretty much there from when it was announced back in 2017. It certainly seems to be the kind of film to have staying power, particularly in conversation over its merits as a different kind of comic book film (along with some other conversations about its tone possibly inspiring real word violence, which really does come off as a big joke that could only be done by hack writers repeating the same fear that did not transpire for other films, like Do the Right Thing). It surely has taken influence from films such as Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, where it tries to ground itself in its look of a man from the other parts of society, where warmth seems like a commodity waiting to be crushed into the ground and chaos seems only fitting for a place like this. Phillips also co-wrote the screenplay with Scott Silver, which certainly likes to play itself as a creepy tense drama along with moments of humor, each of which work themselves well enough to a degree. For all the posturing one could do about the subject matter or its tone, the easiest thing to say in my mind is that Joker proved to be just fine. It isn't a masterpiece by any means (which is apparent if you compare it the two films I just mentioned or not), nor one becomes engulfed by mediocrity, which is certainly fun to say when it comes to having a good time and then having to think about exactly what they just saw.

This is a movie about a failed comedian who ends up turning to crime while dressed up as a clown, after all. If one can see the origin of Batman several times on film in the past few decades, why wouldn't there be an origin on his greatest foe? After all, each portrayal of the Joker (as created by Bill Finger, Bob Kane, and Jerry Robinson) on film has their own take of the criminal mastermind since Cesar Romero in 1966 (with most of them being pretty good, minus the previous one). It only makes sense to do an origin story (of sorts), where it isn't beholden to the outlines delivered by the comics featuring the character on-and-off over seven decades but instead makes its own path forward. In that sense, Phoenix is positively the one for this role, undeniably captivating to watch in seeing such a pained broken man, whether physically or through a matter or laughing. The others of the cast make their moments count fairly well for a film that tries to have its cake of commentary and its origin story with small moments for the supporting characters to grasp at. Beetz is fine, having a smooth quiet chemistry with Phoenix for what is needed, if that makes sense. De Niro playing a homage with a talk show host crossing paths with a failed comedian does work out alright for his few minutes on screen. Conroy and Cullen are just as alright for the needed moments, all things considered. It should come as no surprise that the film indulges itself in violence at times, to where one almost could see this as horror (bit of a stretch, but think about it) rather than a psychological thriller, but it doesn't come off as unnecessary or to the detriment of the film and its intent, which works itself out just fine. It verges as a sometimes thoughtful look on society and what could happen when one's binders to the world around them wears off. The film is a wild weird mess at 122 minutes, but I applaud the efforts to make a dark film out of a comic book, as it is the kind of bold film that will surely have plenty of fans and detractors to write screeds about, for better or worse. It is a movie that is dreary, cynical, riveting, and plenty of other descriptions that fits its title character as well as anyone could really expect.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Ghost Rider (2007).

Review #1261: Ghost Rider.

Cast: 
Nicolas Cage (Johnny Blaze / Ghost Rider), Eva Mendes (Roxanne Simpson), Wes Bentley (Blackheart / Legion), Sam Elliott (Carter Slade / Caretaker), Donal Logue (Mack), Peter Fonda (Mephistopheles), Brett Cullen (Barton Blaze), David Roberts (Captain Jack Dolan), Laurence Breuls (Gressil), Daniel Frederiksen (Wallow), and Mathew Wilkinson (Abigor) Directed by Mark Steven Johnson (#443 - Daredevil)

Review: 
What can you really say about something like this? If you've seen one superhero film, does it mean you've really seen them all? With the case of a film like this based on a Marvel comic character of the same name (created by Roy Thomas, Gary Friedrich, Mike Ploog that made its first appearance in 1972 - an oddly appropriate decade for a character like this), I really did have a curiosity to see exactly what was going to happen with a film about a guy who turns into a leather-clad flaming skeleton on a bike because he sold his soul to a certain individual. The execution, needless to say, does not exactly come off well enough to make this a solid winner. It seems to strive for a over-the-top kind of action glitz that films like Blade (1998) did with its outlandish premise, but it flails around with awkwardness that is more akin to other comic book films of its ilk like Fantastic Four (2005) or even Johnson's previous work with Daredevil. In going for a supernatural kind of comic book film with tinges of a Western and Horror, the resulting concoction is much like being told a long and winding story by someone hanging around your friends that you accidentally started: ridiculous and messy while having you learning what a waste of time looks like. Is there really a way to make a movie about a bounty hunter for the wicked seem involving? Perhaps there is a way, but this is really not the best way to make it happen. If I don't care about the stakes of what is going on with its main mystical plot or what is being fought for (some sort of evil contract that can't fall into the wrong hands because...reasons), then what chance does the cast have in making this stuff come alive?

Cage, who evidently lobbied hard to portray this character, surely does seem like he wants to bring eccentric charm to a Evel Knievel/growly skull man kind of guy. He does seem hammy, but at least he seems like he really wants to be there, even if he can't quite show much chemistry with Mendes, who seems as interested in this material in the same way one is interested in looking at the painter paint one side of the wall. Nobody has a completely terrible performance, but nobody really pulls off a show-stopper kind of fun time either. If only one could say much about Bentley and his adversarial role more than a sentence: his character is an undeveloped joke that is too laughably terrible to be taken seriously as a threat, with Bentley looking more and more like he picked the wrong film in each scene. Elliott is likely the one actor who comes off without much ridicule, in part because one feels the need to see him in more scenes besides being the deliverer of exposition (whether through his rich voice or not) who leaves before the climax can start (complete with a sequence with him on a horse and Cage on a bike that ends with him leaving). There is a certain curiosity to seeing Fonda on screen, wondering how he would play a man of the darkness, which is quickly extinguished by the fact that you don't see him enough. If one wanted to use an analogy, he is essentially three pieces short of a whole devil's food cake, if it were made out of some sort of weird cardboard. The film ultimately feels flabby with where it wants to really go with its story (also done by Johnson) and tone. The action sequences seem more something you have to struggle to take seriously, especially when it comes to its climax, where the stakes have never felt so mild. Maybe this could have been a tongue-in-cheek film, or a self-serious one that really wanted to be supernatural with some action thrown in. Instead, you get a film that doesn't really please anyone unless you need to kill two hours (110 minutes for the original cut and 123 for the extended cut because of course there is more) and don't have one of the other comic book films laying around. What kind of sentence can really close such a mediocre piece of dreck like this. Honestly, I have just six words: Ghost Rider is a flaming disaster.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: 42.

Review #372: 42.

Cast
Chadwick Boseman (Jackie Robinson), Harrison Ford (Branch Rickey), Andre Holland (Wendell Smith), Christopher Meloni (Leo Durocher), John C. McGinley (Red Barber), Lucas Black (Pee Wee Reese), Alan Tudyk (Ben Chapman), Nicole Beharie (Rachel Isum Robinson), Brett Cullen (Clay Hopper), and Ryan Merriman (Dixie Walker) Directed by Brian Helgeland.

Review
On a day like this where baseball is around to entertain us as the week begins, history is once again turned into a movie and once again I'm reviewing a film about Jackie Robinson, the first one starring himself (#365 - The Jackie Robinson Story), which wasn't bad, but not too special. This is first film reviewed here from 2013, and trust me there will be more soon enough from 2013. This film...manages to be entertaining. While it may have some inaccuracies that some have found, I don't mind. It seems sweetening and easy to figure, but it manages to capture a tone of the 1940's, which given the mood back then, makes sense, I suppose. Boseman is a surprisingly good actor for someone I haven't watched before, leaving an impression, looking the part. But the actor I think is the best out of all of them is Harrison Ford, who surprised me because he does radical change to be Rickey and does a great job, making me smile. The rest of the cast (Examples being Meloni, Holland and Beharie) do a fine job, keeping the film at pace as well. The baseball action works well, and it captures an old feel of life, baseball and more. It has its moments, and it certainly is a good biopic. Essentially, 42 hits a ball that goes deep into right field, narrowly missing the foul pole but still going fair.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Replacements.

Review #370: The Replacements.

Cast
Keanu Reeves (Shane Falco), Gene Hackman (Jimmy McGinty), Brooke Langton (Annabelle Farrell), Jon Favreau (Daniel Bateman), Rhys Ifans (Nigel Gruff), Orlando Jones (Clifford Franklin), Brett Cullen (Eddie Martel), Faizon Love (Jamal Jackson), Michael Taliferro (Andre Jackson), Jack Warden (Edward O'Neil), and Ace Yonamine (Jumbo) Directed by Howard Deutch.

Review
This is at heart...an epitome of generic sports movie. This is a movie filled with sports cliche on top of more sports cliches. In fact, you could count the amount of cliches and play Cliche Bingo. What is Cliche Bingo? Think of the cliches that make up sports movies, such as:

The washed up player who is trying to redeem himself.
The grumpy coach.
The romance subplot between a player and cheerleader/person.
The crazy owner.

The big man.
The crazy guy who has a lot of power.
A speech about needing heart/determination/the guts to win.
Playing a strong team and being the underdogs yet somehow winning.

The antagonist who could also be one of their own.
The comic relief character.
Being down at halftime/near the end of the game.
Dramatically diving/slding/slapshooting/moving by a player.

I realize that's only 12 and you would need 12 more to make an actual bingo card, but let me tell you a secret: You can find the rest if you look hard enough. The acting is decent enough, though I do wonder what exactly motivated Hackman to do this movie. I know what you're thinking is the reason, which might be the reason for Welcome to Mooseport, but that's neither here or there. The football action is at least watchable, the movie's not horrible, it's just a typical sports movie that is sickeningly sweet to the point where by the end of it you just want to watch actual football, at least that isn't acted out. Most of the time.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.