Trick 'r Treat.

Review #2444: Trick 'r Treat.

Cast: 

Dylan Baker (Steven), Rochelle Aytes (Maria), Quinn Lord (Sam / Peeping Tommy), Lauren Lee Smith (Danielle), Moneca Delain (Janet), Tahmoh Penikett (Henry), Brett Kelly (Charlie), Britt McKillip (Macy), Isabelle Deluce (Sara), Jean-Luc Bilodeau (Schrader), Alberto Ghisi (Chip), Samm Todd (Rhonda), Anna Paquin (Laurie), Brian Cox (Mr. Kreeg; Gerald Paetz as young Kreeg), Leslie Bibb (Emma) Written and Directed by Michael Dougherty (#1227 - Godzilla: King of the Monsters, #1309 - Krampus)

Review: 

"Halloween is better than Christmas because it's all about self-expression. Everyone gets to dress up as a character. Even if they go to the store and buy one of those crappy pre-packaged costumes, they're still making a choice to dress up like an idiot, cut loose, and become something that they're not but is also indicative of their deeper personality. There's something so amazing in that. It's about purity, fun, and creativity."

Originally, Michael Dougherty created the character of Sam with his senior thesis film at New York University in "Season's Greetings" in 1996, doing so with hand-drawn animation over the course of seven months, specifically because he wanted to create a mascot for Halloween (a holiday he felt made life more magical than Christmas as a kid), noting that there was plenty of imagery but not "the one" - he landed on basically a small being with a sack. Eventually, the Columbus native wrote a first draft with Sam in 2001 but studios were not particularly interested in "old-fashioned" stuff like vampire, werewolves, and zombies (one thing that was different was that a graveyard was the setting for a story rather than a quarry). In the meantime, Dougherty devoted time to scriptwriting, contributing to X2 (2003) and Superman Returns (2006), which both were directed by Bryan Singer, who served as a producer on the film that started production in late 2006 and was shot over a few months. Doughtery aimed to get certain age groups for each story, whether that involves carving a pumpkin as a kid, heading out to trick-or-treat as a teenager, or being with hormones in your twenties...or being in your twilight years. Rather than having a traditional structure where the stories were separate, it was felt that the movie fit better when the stories were mixed in together, which is basically being inspired by Pulp Fiction. To put it mildly, Warner Bros. screwed this movie (one that was made for $12 million, mind you) over in every shape and form. It was first publicly screened on the festival circuit in 2007 but didn't get a real theatrical release, instead being released on DVD in 2009. Dougherty never got a straight answer as to why his movie was screwed over the way it was, but he had no bitter feelings over the making of the film, noting that because horror fans "don't like being told no", managed to boost the awareness of the film that apparently made it slip into the mainstream. Plans for a sequel have floated around for years but nothing has actively been in development.

Sure, it may not be Creepshow (1982) type of fun with spooky anthology fun, but it is at least enjoyable for most of what it aims for in the holiday spirit with some chuckles. Sure, it may not be the great Halloween thing ever (Halloween (1978) has won the argument year after year in quality, regardless of its gore because if you can't handle gore, you don't deserve it), but the enthusiasm for the holiday is clearly on display from Dougherty. So you get four (maybe five if you count the opening with Penikett/Bibb) stories that weave in with each other for varying effect. What comes first (as a whole story, technically) is Baker and the ever-lingering story of trying to deal with an unwilling captured body that probably feels the most macabre of the stories to come ahead; it helps that Baker can balance the line of chilling and amusing. You then get to see the next story involve a quartet of kids (McKillip/Ghisi/Bilodeau/Deluce and Todd) engage with a possible legend and dealing with the power of belief within legends and, well, fiction. The third one, and by that I mean one that has been here-and-there between Paquin and the trio of girls (Smith/Aytes/Delain) playing dressup while doing a Halloween shindig that has hang-ups more notable than being without a mate for the fire. Kinda funny, particularly with how the last story ended, anyway. The final segment involves Cox and directly seeing that mascot Sam and the mischief that arises in curmudgeons meeting the devoted, although I don't really know if Sam is really as much of a creature of mischief with the mix of whimsy and darkness as he is just kind of there. Maybe it is just me, but I do wish it was a tiny bit longer than the 82-minute runtime. It doesn't exactly take itself too seriously, but there is a part of me that believes the film doesn't bare enough fangs (despite having an R rating, it mostly cuts away in the body count) to really be as effective as it needs to be. As a whole, the quibbles I have with the movie don't detract from the fact that there is fun to be had in reminding oneself of the mischief that can be had on Halloween. It can be filled with candy, it could be filled with watching horror movies, it could be spent with friends*, or one of all/none of the above. It is a nice little movie that achieves most of what it wants to do, and I suppose that is more than enough for October.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Honestly, my one memory with a pumpkin is my dad putting some fireworks in one and exploding it on New Year's Eve 15+ years ago. Trick or treating was more of a thing I did with my mom with one exception in freshman year of high school. After that I pretty much gave up, but I argue horror movie marathons are just as fun.

The Campaign.

Review #2021: The Campaign.

Cast: 

Will Ferrell (Representative Cam Brady), Zach Galifianakis (Marty Huggins), Jason Sudeikis (Mitch Wilson), Dylan McDermott (Tim Wattley), Katherine LaNasa (Rose Brady), Sarah Baker (Mitzi Huggins), John Lithgow (Glenn Motch), Dan Aykroyd (Wade Motch), and Brian Cox (Raymond Huggins) Directed by Jay Roach (#133 - Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me, #134 - Austin Powers in Goldmember, #490 - Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery)

Review: 

I had considered watching the film a couple of years ago, because the 2010s certainly were a time for some odd-duck political movies and now the movie is over a decade old and maybe merited curiosity for what reputation one might see from a film that was moderately successful upon release. It was the eighth feature film directed by Jay Roach, who first started out working in production for music videos after film school at USC. His first film was Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1999), the first of a string of comedy films that were pretty successful. Of course, he did do a few drama films in between the comedies, most notably with two HBO productions with Recount (2008) and Game Change (2012), which detailed a key moment in the 2000 and 2008 U.S. presidential election, respectively. The screenplay was done by Chris Henchy and Shawn Harwell, who also did the story with Adam McKay (like Henchy and Ferrell, McKay was a founder of the comedy website Funny or Die). I suppose it is a sign of the times if a comedy film like this ends up being made for $95 million.

I wish I liked the movie better. I don't even think it reflects the time we live in when it comes to a supposed increase in the insanity of the political circus, because the movie is not nearly clever enough to justify only being 85 minutes. If you want to be a neat and tidy satire, one should probably save it for television rather than make a film that is mild in crude effectiveness. I don't want this to sound like a wish for better presences at the lead, because Ferrell and Galifianakis do generally make for amusing moments, but could you just imagine a more serious actor trying to play things off such as their opponent having a beard just like a terrorist group? (Incidentally, John Goodman makes a cameo appearance late in the film, and it only made me sad). It probably doesn't help that the film's cameo appearances of contemporary public figures (which also happened with films such as The Candidate (1972)) only helps to remind me to avoid the brain rot of cable TV without really laughing. At least one can credit the fact that the two leads are meant to play folks trying to win in such pathetic ways that can only mean one can laugh at them without too much trouble, although Ferrell probably proves better. Both are basically playing a "bit", but one isn't seemingly playing it with a higher pitch and "quirky" habits, so there is that. Ferrell just ends up doing better in pathetic ridiculousness, a perfect career politician stooge. Coincidentally, Galifianakis had an uncle who was a U.S. Representative in North Carolina. He is fine in the film, getting some of the schtick down in terms of demonstrating how it feels when one is thrust into a world of mudslingers. The best presence in the movie besides the main two is somehow McDermott, who makes for an amusing heavy that looms around the foreground more often than Aykroyd and Lithgow, who play their roles with shockingly little hammy qualities that I kind of thought would come from playing the not-Koch brothers. The rest of the cast are okay in the background of political lunacy, whether that involves LaNasa and Baker being adequate reactionary presences to the on-screen duel of idiots or a worthy straight man to the withering sense of dignity in Sudeikis. The film wants to have little moments of crudeness (such as say, mouthy voicemails or slo-mo punching of babies and dogs) but not go too far with hammy-ness, and that mostly means the movie ebbs and flows through average middle ground, right down to its ending that is okay. It probably would work fine as an educational tool when trying to understand just how far one can go if they ride a message of "America, Jesus, freedom" with a little bit of showmanship (and perhaps a certain type of funder). At the end of the day, it is mildly amusing, one that for better or worse could inspire one to look further into how much one can mine in the realm of satire or with politics, if one cares for that sort of thing. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: The Ring.

Redux #140: The Ring.

Cast: 

Naomi Watts (Rachel Keller), David Dorfman (Aidan Keller), Martin Henderson (Noah Clay), Daveigh Chase (Samara Morgan), Brian Cox (Richard Morgan), Shannon Cochran (Anna Morgan), Jane Alexander (Dr. Grasnik), Lindsay Frost (Ruth Embry), Amber Tamblyn (Katherine Embry), Rachael Bella (Rebecca Kotler), Richard Lineback (Innkeeper), and Pauley Perette (Beth) Directed by Gore Verbinski.

Review: 

This was the third feature film of Gore Verbinski, a Tennessee native that grew up as both a filmmaker and a man interested in playing guitar. He directed numerous commercials after graduating from UCLA before Mouse Hunt (1997) was his feature film debut. Oh, but you aren't here for background when it comes to a review dedicated to re-doing an old review. Enclosed here is the entire review of what I thought about the movie in 2012, as a 15-year old in his second year of doing reviews.

This is a remake of a 1998 Japanese film named Ring (which was based on the novel also named Ring). Anyway, this film has some scares that don't use sneaking up on people, found footage, or gore, but by disturbing images that keep you invested. The acting's decent, with Watts doing a good job. The little kid feels like a Sixth Sense type of kid, which isn't necessary. This film feels fine, until the end. I feel this is a confusing end that makes you wonder this: Why? Why do you need this type of ending? Why not just end on a good end rather then twist end us, setting up the basis for a sequel rather then just easily close out this film that is decent, with scares, and...a setup for a sequel.

Pretty short, huh? I gave a movie a 7-star rating and I didn't even bother to make a useful case for why. I can at least give myself credit for listing it as a remake of Hideo Nakata's Ring (1998) which in turn was an adaptation of the Koji Suzuki novel of the same name that had a key distinction: no psych-meter to attempt to solve the horror-mystery like in the novel. That movie had a slow build in narrative threading to play on expectations with spirituality and calm pacing involving the threat of Sadako. The 2002 movie (as scripted by Ehren Kruger) has its own approach to its threat, now named Samara, based on the same idea of a ghost that is manifested after death with a grip of rage to seek vengeance on the living while never sleeping. So yes, you watch a VHS tape (yes) and possibly die in seven days. Incidentally, the film was 130 minutes when it came to its original version before being trimmed to 115 that mainly involved making it a bit less graphic along with cutting a character played by Chris Cooper that showed up for just the start and climax. Two decades later, The Ring is a decent movie, one that represents the time that it was made in capturing anxiety and unease without verging into gore. Granted, no movie is good or bad just because they don't play into the gore angle for horror (unless you happen to be squeamish or really into things), it all goes down to execution. After all, the VHS tape that makes it all possible is brief but unnerving enough to lurk in your mind. I think it works out quite well in keeping the tension at a reasonable length when it comes to the human element, complete with a gloomy setting in the state of Washington (mostly Seattle) to make it fit. Watts makes a solid presence to hold the film up in ordinary withered charm that works to the tension required when it comes to balancing mystery and family devotion, which works best when paired against her on-screen son Dorfman, who lurks in nerves without saying much. Henderson is casually there, but really the attention goes to Cox, hostile but alluring when presented in the second half of the film to bring it all together. 

Having seen both films, at least one can say the ending works just about right for a film that involves a cycle that does not yield to simple actions. I think the original film has a better resolution when it comes to the final decision made, although each have pretty decent choices to show its creature without going overboard. One could have ended without going back to the TV, but you need that little bit about what kind of sacrifice is needed to "combat" the threat. It is debatable as to which film is the better one, since the 1998 is probably a bit more subtle in subverting expectations while the 2002 film carries its own way of getting from point A to point B without falling into the remake trap of repetition without innovation. A 2005 sequel to the film followed in The Ring Two, directed by Hideo Nakata. It did not end well, to say the least. A 2017 film called Rings was released by Paramount Pictures. As a whole, the appeal of Ring definitely kept the attention of filmmakers in Japan busy, evidenced by the eight features (Sadako DX was released in October of 2022) with varying plot relations to the books or previous films. As for The Ring, the legacy of the film is the fact that it managed to be a quality remake that stands on its own in calm suspense for the 21st century.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Rings (2017). We are almost done.

The Bourne Identity.

Review #1852: The Bourne Identity.

Cast: 

Matt Damon (Jason Bourne / David Webb), Franka Potente (Marie Kreutz), Chris Cooper (Alexander Conklin), Clive Owen (The Professor), Brian Cox (Ward Abbott), Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Nykwana Wombosi), Gabriel Mann (Danny Zorn), Julia Stiles (Nicolette "Nicky" Parsons), Orso Maria Guerrini (Giancarlo), Tim Dutton (Eamon), Nicky Naude (Castel), Russell Levy (Manheim), and Vincent Franklin (Rawlins) Directed by Doug Liman (#1064 - Jumper (2008), #1256 - Mr. & Mrs. Smith, and #1569 - Edge of Tomorrow)

Review: 

The movie is a loose adaptation of the 1980 novel of the same name by Robert Ludlum. He did not have his first novel published until he was over forty years old, as he actually served as a theatrical actor and producer before finding a desire to make a living with writing; his writing may have been influenced by his experiences there, as he once stated that good theater and suspense were quite similar to him). An adaptation of the novel had occurred once before in 1988 that featured Richard Chamberlain as Bourne, which aired as a three-hour television movie on ABC. The basic premise of the novel is the key element retained here, since the novel was done during the Cold War with a lead threat involving terrorist "Carlos the Jackal", as the book includes newspaper articles from 1975 of his crimes (apparently, the Bourne in the book was actually a double-agent killed by the lead character before he assumed Bourne's identity to draw out an assassin). Ludlum followed this novel with two further books; after his death in 2001, with the approval of Ludlum's estate, new novels with the Bourne character were commissioned. After the success of his film Swingers (1996), Liman expressed interest in making a film adaptation of Bourne, and he wrote an outline, complete with taking inspiration for the CIA operation detail from the memoirs of Arthur L. Liman, chief counsel for the Senate investigation of the Iran-Contra Affair in the 1980s. Development would take a number of years in securing the rights to the novel alongside production; the final script was done by Tony Gilroy and William Blake Herron. The film was originally set to release in 2001, but the attacks on September 11 led to the producers deciding to alter the opening and ending sequences (which apparently featured flashbacks). The movie would prove quite successful, leading to further Bourne movies such as The Bourne Supremacy (2004), The Bourne Ultimatum (2007), The Bourne Legacy (2012), and Jason Bourne (2016), with all but one featuring Damon.

It is the kind of character-driven action movie where one seems to watch a man get calmer when things become more intense. As a different road presented when compared to spy movies such as James Bond or the Mission: Impossible series, it stands out pretty stark with its touch of action alongside its thriller aspect. It basically rolls along the lines of a noir (to the point where it has been thought to be a "neo-noir) with its slow unravel of mystery that manages to pull off the tightrope of balancing character interest with action that doesn't see one wanting more of either. The car chase in Paris alongside the hand-to-hand sequences are good ones to highlight in that regard. While Liman did not get to any of the sequels, he did serve as a producer on a number of them, while Gilroy would write the next two features, and it is evident that Identity makes for a good start to seeing further burrowing into who the lead character is without baiting itself. At the heart of that is Damon, who prior to this had been involved with films such as Good Will Hunting and Saving Private Ryan (interestingly, one actor who rejected the role before Damon was Brad Pitt, who did his own thing with Spy Game, released in 2001). Damon does pretty good here with the role required, one that is confused by the very idea that they can just have a hazardous situation thrust onto them and not bat an eye when solving it carefully. Sure, there is vulnerability present here, but the main idea is that we have a capable lead trying to find themselves more so than any random objective, and he also handles the action sequences with effectiveness. Potente, wrapped in the middle of all this, fares fairly well in meaningful patience, one who seems capable in being paired with Damon in general reaction (such as when she sees a man jump out a window). In a sense, Cooper is the adversary of the film, since he is the one trying to deal with a wayward agent. He approaches the material with steely timing and determination that matches differently on a spy movie without a willing spy, especially when Cooper and Cox are present together. The rest of the cast includes quiet adversaries such as Owen and mildly interesting side folks like Stiles or an outspoken Akinnuoye-Agbaje. At any rate, a movie like this works best when on its feet, for which the movie shuffles along with careful efficiency in 119 minutes with general effectiveness that makes for a fairly solid action-thriller that stands pretty well two decades after its release.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Red (2010).

Review #1824: Red.

Cast: 

Bruce Willis (Frank Moses), Morgan Freeman (Joe Matheson), John Malkovich (Marvin Boggs), Helen Mirren (Victoria Winslow), Karl Urban (William Cooper), Mary-Louise Parker (Sarah Ross), Rebecca Pidgeon (Cynthia Wilkes), Brian Cox (Ivan Simanov), Richard Dreyfuss (Alexander Dunning), Julian McMahon (Vice President Robert Stanton), Ernest Borgnine (Henry, the records keeper), and James Remar (Gabriel Singer) Directed by Robert Schwentke. 

Review: 

Red (standing for Retired: Extremely Dangerous), if you didn't know, was originally a comic miniseries (or as the film credits put it, a graphic novel), done by writer Warren Ellis and artist Cully Hamner that was published from 2003-04 by Homage Comics (a subdivision of comic imprint Wildstorm, which in term was a publishing imprint of DC Comics until its shutdown in 2010). So technically speaking, one is dealing with a comic book movie, although it apparently is lighter in tone (as scripted by Jon Hoeber and Erich Hoeber) than the actual comic, judging by the cursory glance at the plot (Ellis once stated that while the script wasn't exactly the book, he felt it wasn't a bad script, noting the tight casting). This happened to be released in the same year of The Expendables, which also recruited a bunch of familiar names for an action film with a few select quips (which incidentally had Willis in a cameo). This was the fifth feature film for its director in Schwentke, a West German graduate of Columbia College Hollywood.

You get what you pay for when it comes to recognizable names maneuvering their way through an ensemble designed to draw smiles without too many story beats to count on (in other words, smiling at Borgnine is more interesting than the climax reveal). By this point in his career, Willis was 45. In the decade of the 2010s, he would do a variety of action appearances...alongside plenty of direct-to-video work ("on demand", specifically). It probably isn't a surprise that Willis was the prime actor in mind when it came to casting, since his sly charm is suitable for what is needed here in the small parts before the action pastiche moments come around, which turn out fine (modern movies have certain aims and limits, remember). Freeman doesn't exactly have much to really do here, seemingly overshadowed by the eccentrics like Malkovich with calmness that only works to a certain extent, likely because the film pulls a fake-out involving the character being "dead" for a time. Malkovich makes for a paranoid ham for some splendid amusing moments, which work out for the best without turning into a drudge. Urban lumbers through as the foil for most of the film which works out for engaging action moments. Parker seems bemused just to be there, contributing a few chuckles while having a quirky chemistry with Willis that at the very least doesn't become consumed in all the cliches needed. Mirren seems pleased to be there with graceful engagement that works when finally presented as the last piece of the ensemble for useful effect. One could only hope for further time with Dreyfuss, who has exactly two scenes with a bit that seems honed right in with cliches from the 1980s that is lost in the shuffle. Granted, the movie is going for a light touch when it comes to story, but still. One knows Cox is putting on an accent, but he seems firmly game to make the bit count, which works pretty well for those small moments with Mirren. 

The 111-minute run-time is fairly serviceable, in that the film manages to have enough action set-pieces to go along with occasional chuckles without slowing to a halt too many times, although the climax does nearly slug itself out with abrupt set-ups to nearly derail it. Honestly, the movie is fine. Granted, it might not exactly win many favors as an action spectacle, but it is at the least something that proves suitable for enjoyment with fair style and sly charm. Technically speaking, this is a cast that might have been really, really captivating a couple of years ago, if only to note the names that come together to (put it lightly) "kick ass". It moves through the cheesy aspects with an awareness that it is meant to be that way, not trying to take itself too seriously, which results in a decent movie with only a few surprises but a suitable ensemble film. It could have been better with the number of names involved, but the fact that it slugs through the finish line without many stilted bumps in terms of action sequencing and light touches means that it will prove worthy of your time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Manhunter.

Review #1713: Manhunter.

Cast: 

William Petersen (Will Graham), Kim Greist (Molly Graham), Joan Allen (Reba McClane), Brian Cox (Dr. Hannibal Lecktor), Dennis Farina (Jack Crawford), Tom Noonan (Francis Dollarhyde), Stephen Lang (Freddy Lounds), David Seaman (Kevin Graham), Benjamin Hendrickson (Dr. Frederick Chilton), Michael Talbott (Geehan), and Dan Butler (Jimmy Price) Written and Directed by Michael Mann (#1531 - Ali and #1631 - The Last of the Mohicans)

Review: 

It is odd to think that this film has only just reached its 35th anniversary today. The movie is an adaptation of Red Dragon, which was written by Thomas Harris in 1981 as his second novel (Black Sunday (1975) was his first, and that book was turned into a film two years later). He took a good deal of research into the novel that meant classes with the FBI Behavioral Science Unit in Quantico, Virginia. Stephen King, when asked about the book, gave notice to Harris for his "clean eye for prose and his impeccable choice of detail" alongside the great deal of suspense packed into the narrative. Of course, when one thinks of a producer to bring something big into theaters, you probably think of Dino De Laurentiis (and his wife Martha, who both would own the rights to the character of Lecter on film). Since he had experienced failure with Year of the Dragon (1985), this somehow meant that the title of this movie had to be Manhunter (no points as to who came up with adding a K to Lector's name). Of course, we all know what came to follow after the release of the book and the film adaptation. Harris wrote a second book involving Hannibal Lecter with The Silence of the Lambs in 1988 that was turned into a film three years later to near unanimous praise (featuring Anthony Hopkins as Lector over Cox); amusingly enough, the De Laurentiis couple allowed Orion Pictures to produce the film without their involvement, and obviously they were eager to find a way to see a new novel by Harris to adapt. One sequel book/film adaptation later, a second adaptation of Red Dragon followed in 2002 (with the De Laurentiis couple back as producers again, in probably one of the most befuddling distinctions ever in being behind two adaptations of the same book), which was directed by Brett Ratner with Edward Norton as Graham and Hopkins as Lector one more time.

Oddly enough, I am reminded of Mann's other most noted work in the decade with the television show Miami Vice, which he served as executive producer (mostly with the color palate, which had distinct touches in the early years) Granted, Manhunter is generally more consistent, but that detail of style seems apparent when talking about the film when it is paired with the intensity of the grim pursuit for a solid thriller. Undeniably, there is a good amount of folks that will encounter this after seeing the more famous Lector movie, and the differences between the two might surprise folks. It eschews attempts at going for levels of squeamishness that keep the manhunt at the forefront that makes one at least have some sort of shiver at what it takes to try and come back into getting into the the mindset of thinking like a killer with a distinct sense of voyeurism that keeps one on their toes. It makes sense to have Petersen there as your lead if only because one knows he already excelled with stuff like To Live and Die in L.A. (1985), which Mann saw footage of and liked enough to cast Petersen (he also had a small role in Mann's debut film Thief in 1981); as a whole, he proves quite curious, whether that means he is shown talking to home movies in pursuit of the mind or when trying to justify why he does the things he does.  It should be noted that Farina was a police officer for the Chicago Police Department for eighteen years before a chance role as a police consultant for Thief (1981) helped get him into moonlighting for Chicago-based movies and shows; incidentally, he would star in Crime Story (1986-88, which Mann served as executive producer and occasional writer/director) a month after this film premiered in theaters. Farina seems exactly at home here with solid procedural material, wrapped with tough energy that makes one at least wonder why they didn't keep him over Scott Glenn when it came time for the aforementioned next film. Greist has a few moments here and there with Petersen that go over okay, while Allen eventually gets to be paired with Noonan that ends up quite cursory. This was actually one of Lang's earliest roles, and while he may not have much to do besides play a pest, he does alright with generating a smarmy chuckle to what needs to happen. Cox is quite restrained here, but it makes sense for what happens here for a movie adaptation focused on the hunt of a different killer anyway. Hopkins would have more "meat" to chew on a few years later, but Cox sets his own stage nicely enough with a calm ooze. One doesn't need to really see him out of those bars to know that there is something dark lurking within a supposedly pathetic state. Besides, one knows the power that comes in making a fearful beast. He proves the highlight of the film, and he doesn't ever show up until nearly an hour in for a two-hour movie. Honestly, while it may be a bit too glossy for its own good at certain times, one can't say that it is a forgettable experience. It manages to keep you roped in to what is going to happen next with its pursuit with a fairly game cast and workable tension that still proves useful even after 35 years as a solid work from Mann.

Overall, I give it 8 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.

Adaptation.

Review #1533: Adaptation.

Cast: 
Nicolas Cage (Charlie Kaufman / Donald Kaufman), Meryl Streep (Susan Orlean), Chris Cooper (John Laroche), Cara Seymour (Amelia Kavan), Brian Cox (Robert McKee), Tilda Swinton (Valerie Thomas), Ron Livingston (Marty Bowen), Maggie Gyllenhaal (Caroline Cunningham), Judy Greer (Alice), Bob Yerkes (Charles Darwin), Jim Beaver (Ranger Tony), and Litefoot (Russell) Directed by Spike Jonze (#1308 - Being John Malkovich)

Review: 
It begins with a customary quote from someone involved with the film, since Robert had felt was a fun way to differentiate reviews from 2019 to now, with this one being from Charlie Kaufman.

"I really thought I was ending my career by turning that in!"

INT. NEIGHBORHOOD - ROBERT'S HOUSE - NIGHT
Robert sits on his couch, appalled at what he tries to write on his laptop, working at 7am like usual on yet another display of adapting words of thought of someone else's work of brilliance. He looks at his screen and some basic data about what he saw, his eyes begging to be shut for some sleep rather than yet another nap built to cheat himself until the next time. He wonders about how to start a review about a film about writer's block and originality while acknowledging the sheer talent of its cast without seeming repetitive after over 200 reviews in a year, wanting to also acknowledge the accomplishment of a writer that solved his problem by simply putting themselves into what they wrote. Perhaps he should take up making pizzas. He takes a left and then a right with his fingers as he starts typing.

It never hurts to talk about actors, particularly one involving a talented award-winning trio of actors for a film packed with such originality and talent within a main trio of actors. One can make whole paragraphs about Cage and his self-described "Nouveau Shamanic" style of acting that has made him an object of curiosity since Valley Girl (1983) with his style of mega acting. That might be enough for a film, but Meryl Streep elevates it further, since she has made a career of versatility and range since her start in theater in 1975 that evolved to television and film with productions such as The Deer Hunter (1978), Kramer vs. Kramer (1979), and Sophie's Choice (1982). The third and final key to the puzzle is in Cooper, who actually took up acting after initially doing theater for set design as a way to overcome shyness and subsequently worked for years in theater an construction before shuffling the ranks to supporting roles with Matewan (1987). The Orchid Thief began originally as an article that Susan Orlean wrote for The New Yorker (published on January 16, 1995) that detailed John Laroche's efforts to poach orchids (looking for the rare ghost orchid) in a Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve with a group of Seminoles, having believed to have found a loophole in studying Indian law with the case of Chief James E. Billie, which the film mentions as having avoided conviction for hunting an endangered species of panther. Writer Charlie Kaufman was tasked to write a screenplay adaptation of the subsequent 1998 book The Orchid Thief. However, he suffered through a lack of ideas in making a film out of it (since it wasn't particularly suited for a basic film, which is why executives had approached Jonze to direct an "unfilmable" book), so Kaufman decided to use his frustrations into making an exaggerated script with a fictional twin brother, and Columbia Pictures found it fairly suitable enough to make a film of (with filming starting in 2001). Orlean, when approached about the screenplay, was not exactly supportive of what she read, but she did not get in the way of allowing the film to move forward; Orlean found that it turned out to be "very true to the book's themes of life and obsession."

INT. NEIGHBORHOOD - ROBERT'S HOUSE - NIGHT, HOURS LATER
Now the writer is pleased and can go on with his night, confused over the fact that his cluttered table seems rearranged and his computer tabs seem smaller for 6am. He motions to acknowledge the real meat of what is meant to be writing and not words on a screen before he decides to take a nap instead. He struggles to wonder what the true difference between a 10-star film and a 9-star film in terms of "really good" and "great" without automatically tracing back to what was thought of either category. 

What we have here is a fairly playful film, one that writes the book on what it means to adapt and persist within a sense of longing and disappointment that come from trying to reach a certain passion without getting lost in its process. After all, this is a film about a writer trying to adapt a writer's tale about orchids while also getting caught up in a tale stranger than fiction. In this sense, Cage is exactly the type of actor for an dauntingly ideal situation - two performances for the price of one, complete with a fat suit and split-screen photography. In this sense, Cage does great because of how he holds true to making each Kaufman a distinct presence that isn't merely just one talking to themselves, capturing equally the weariness and foolish abandon that comes from belief (or perhaps fear) in one's ability to tell a good story that can be splattered on screen. While it does have comedic elements in it, Cage never takes the meta aspects too far into stretching credibility or making it a self-centered work. In between scenes with Cage and Cage are conversations spent between Streep and Cooper that border the lines of fact and fiction, and it takes a dedicated person like Streep to not have the other author get lost in the process of adaptation. She captures an essence of longing in passion that results in an excellent performance, engaging and right at home in conviction. Cooper has the task of playing someone once described by Orlean as "pale-eyed, slouch-shouldered, and sharply handsome, in spite of the fact that he is missing all his front teeth." - to which I say he does a tremendous job in conveying someone filled with charm that captures the essence of a man with nuance for doing things his way with no sort of false pretense or cheap tricks needed to push his passion to something we can understand. Others in the cast do fine with gradual moments, such as Cox and his portrayal of the only other real figure in lecturer/story consultant McKee, which he does quite well in measured

The writer looks upon his work. He notices that yet again he has to make that lasting decision over how much he really enjoyed this movie. It isn't like flipping a coin, because at least the coin doesn't really seem to somehow look right and wrong. You win this round, writing voice in my head.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Super Troopers.

Review #1121: Super Troopers.

Cast: 
Jay Chandrasekhar (Trooper Arcot "Thorny" Ramathorn), Kevin Heffernan (Trooper Rodney "Rod" Farva), Steve Lemme (Trooper MacIntyre "Mac" Womack), Paul Soter (Trooper Jeff Foster), Erik Stolhanske (Trooper Robert "Rabbit" Roto), Brian Cox (Captain John O'Hagen), Marisa Coughlan (Officer Ursula Hanson), Daniel von Bargen (Police Chief Bruce Grady), James Grace (Officer Jim Rando), Michael Weaver (Officer Samuel Smy), and Dan Fey (Officer Jack Burton) Directed by Jay Chandrasekhar.

Review: 
It is interesting to think about a movie such as this and see the nature of its success and upbringing-the byproduct of a comedy troupe known as Broken Lizard. The troupe, which stars as the main trooper group for the film, originated at Colgate University in 1989, although it only became the five-man troupe people know in later years (as was the name, since originally one of the names was "Charred Goosebeak"). It is pretty easy to see influence from films such as Animal House, Caddyshack and Police Academy when it comes to the comedy stylings that this film has in its approach - to have a bunch of ridiculous fun. This was the second directed feature from the group, after making Puddle Cruiser (1996). Super Troopers was their first major release, with a final budget of around $3 million that premiered on January 19, 2001, at the Sundance Film Festival. After its premiere, it was bought by Fox Searchlight Pictures, which distributed a general release the following year, with the film being a minor success, making $20 million at the box office while inspiring a cult following that led to a sequel in 2018. meow

It is easy to see why this has endured as a cult classic in the years that have followed its release - it's a silly movie, but it's one that knows what its going for with its audience and reaches for amusement with skit after skit. Whether involving wordplay, sight gags, or some sort of mix of both, this is something that managed to warm up to me because it was satisfactory with being wacky. There are more hits in it than misses, with some of the gags in particular sticking out pretty well - such as one involving syrup or a word challenge. The plot is thin, but the film will prove to win itself over by having enough payoff while keeping a good sense of humor that doesn't prove distracting. The main five are entertaining to watch together, such as Chandrasekhar and Stolhanske, who each make for good fun people to follow with. Heffernan proves amusing, playing it with obnoxiousness that lends laughs that contrasts pretty neatly with the others - such as his request for a "litre" of cola. Lemme and Soter prove amusing, making for some amusing shenanigans alongside the rest that generate good times. Cox and von Bargen play the authority roles the way you expect, but Cox is a warm one to go along with while von Bargen makes for an amusing adversary. Coughlan rounds out the cast with significant screen-time (aside from a brief cameo from Lynda Carter), and she does stand out in her own way from the antics played with the others, making for a welcome addition. The 103 minute run-time feels fine to sustain itself enough, with the first and last thirds of the movie holding up the best, never riding the waters of annoyance nor being too slow. The film pulls itself into something to like with the charm that it tries to pull with the numerous gags it likes to throw at the audience, and it has a range of success with the fun it tries to have that I can recommend, provided one is in the right mood for it. meow

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Red Eye.

Review #633: Red Eye.

Cast
Rachel McAdams (Lisa Reisert), Cillian Murphy (Jackson Rippner), Brian Cox (Joe Reisert), Jayma Mays (Cynthia), and Jack Scalia (Charles Keefe) Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street and #558 - Scream)

Review
What we have here is a simple premise with a simple setting with a limited amount of cast members that manages to be a pretty good thriller. Murphy makes for a cold but effective villain, he looks the part and he certainly does a good job in being the villain without overacting it up too much, he's calm, but he is at least imposing and that helps, and his interactions with McAdams start nicely but slowly get more chilling. Speaking of that, the small cast do interact fine with each other, it's always nice to see Brian Cox, even in a supporting role, he doesn't have much to do, but still. The movie runs pretty short (85 minutes), which I guess makes it easily accessible to watch, the movie goes pretty quickly, but it is at least entertaining, and the action is passable. The movie relies on suspense and while it may not be a great thriller, it at least a competent one, and it's a good way to spend a hour and a half, and you take my word for it. Probably.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

Review #615: Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

Cast
James Franco (Will Rodman), Freida Pinto (Caroline Aranha), Andy Serkis (Caesar), John Lithgow (Charles Rodma), Brian Cox (John Landon), Tom Felton (Dodge Landon), David Oyelowo (Steven Jacobs), Tyler Labine (Robert Franklin), and Karin Konoval (Maurice) Directed by Rupert Wyatt.

Review
I admit, maybe I should've watched and reviewed this movie earlier in the year, or even earlier, but mistakes happen, so here's my chance to rectify that. So how's the movie? You know who makes the movie better than just good? Andy Serkis as Caesar. It is just more than performance capture, it's watching Serkis just disappear into the role, you forget about the fact that it's a person's movements being captured and later being turned into looking like an ape. It's fun to watch Serkis act in a sense without speaking, though he does have lines near the end, which genuinely surprised me, especially his last three: "Caesar is home", which is really touching to me for some reason. Maybe it's because his plot line closes smoothly, and the movie works best when focused on the apes. That's not to say the human cast is bad, but Serkis steals the show. Franco does fine admittedly, and his scenes with Serkis work well. Pinto is okay, but she doesn't really get much screen time to do anything, even Lithgow has stuff to do (though my praise of Lithgow is 90% due to his performance and 10% because you don't see Lithgow much anymore, unless you capture a Third Rock from the Sun rerun or watch Shrek), but at least the cast is enjoyable at times. The effects are good, it's fun to watch the apes when they march on the Golden Gate Bridge. The story is alright, I suppose, the movie is entertaining enough, and the end scene is brilliant and just makes you want more, like a sequel, which came out yesterday. This is a movie that while not as good as the original Planet of the Apes, is at least a good origin story.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Ringer.

Review #052: The Ringer.

Cast
Johnny Knoxville (Steve Barker), Brian Cox (Gary Barker), Katherine Heigl (Lynn Sheridan), Jed Rees (Glen), Bill Chott (Thomas), Edward Barbanell (Billy), Leonard Earl Howze (Mark), Geoffrey Arend (Winston), John Taylor (Rudy), Luis Avalos (Stavi), Leonard Flowers (Jimmy) Directed by Barry W. Blaustein.

Review
The film is typically drawn out, but it does try to have some laughs, with Knoxville doing a fine job for the most part. The film has some laughs, as the film sort of works. It may be typical, but it tries to be a little more then usual, being harmless, but not too bad.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: X2.

Review #010: X2.

Cast
Patrick Stewart (Professor Charles Xavier), Hugh Jackman (Logan / Wolverine), Ian McKellen (Eric Lehnsherr / Magneto), Halle Berry (Ororo Munroe / Storm), Famke Janssen (Jean Grey), James Marsden (Scott Summers / Cyclops), Anna Paquin (Rogue), Rebecca Romijn (Raven Darkholme / Mystique / Grace), Brian Cox (William Stryker), Alan Cumming (Kurt Wagner / Nightcrawler), Bruce Davison (Senator Kelly), Aaron Stanford (John Allerdyce / Pyro), Shawn Ashmore (Bobby Drake / Ice Man), Kelly Hu (Yuriko Oyama / Lady Deathstrike), and Katie Stuart (Shadowcat) Directed by Bryan Singer (#008 - X-Men)

Review
This is the sequel to X-Men (already reviewed two reviews ago) and this might possibly be better then the 1st. It's a longer plot, which allows more depth and detail and it shows with a Plot of complications and heart. The cast does great and all, with good acting from Jackman and Stewart. While I don't approve of having Wolverine having to fight a technically evil version of him, it doesn't make the film have much effects. Anyway, with those things in the way, it's still a good movie, but is the third better? Or worse...?

Overall, I give it an 9 out of 10 stars.