Layer Cake.

Review #2257: Layer Cake.

Cast: 

Daniel Craig (XXXX), Colm Meaney (Gene), George Harris (Morty), Sienna Miller (Tammy), Tamer Hassan (Terry), Jamie Foreman (the Duke), Kenneth Cranham (Jimmy Price), Michael Gambon (Eddie Temple), Ben Whishaw (Sidney), Tom Hardy (Clarkie), Dexter Fletcher (Cody), Steve John Shepherd (Tiptoes), Burn Gorman (Gazza), and Sally Hawkins (Slasher) Directed by Matthew Vaughn (#042 - X-Men: First Class, #993 - Kingsman: The Secret Service, #994 - Kingsman: The Golden Circle)

Review: 

"The problem is that every gangster film's been full of all this gore-blimey-cockney-mate-I'm-a-*******-hard-guy nonsense and that's what Layer Cake isn't. Lots of people in the test screenings complained that the drug dealers in the movie were middle class. But that's how life is! The idea that every drug dealer is a cockney or a scouser is just a cliché. My aspiration was to make Heat but set in Britain. That was the goal."

Twenty years ago in October of 2004, Matthew Vaughn directed his first feature film with Layer Cake, which actually was an adaptation of the 2000 novel of the same name by J. J. Connolly, who had described himself as formerly being "an end-user, a punter." He wrote the novel with a handful of it being based on anecdotes by people he knew while noting that when he wrote the book, it was a time when "smart criminals" (as he put it) getting to find the idea of having a public profile abhorrent. The interest that the book generated in the public found its way to Vaughn. The son of a banker, he had worked as a film director assistant before trying (and dropping) to attend university in London for history. He produced his first film (at the age of 25) with The Innocent Sleep (1996). His next two features were with Guy Ritchie as a director that attracted attention in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) and Snatch (2000). He happened to encounter Connolly on a train ride and found himself wrapped up in directing the film, complete with Connolly writing the script for the film. A neat hit with audiences, Vaughn has managed to direct (and produce) a handful of features over the next two decades. Connolly wrote a follow-up novel eleven years later with Viva La Madness, which has yet to be adapted in any form.

Really one could say this is a skewed look at "the process", only now in the view of a criminal. It ends up wracked with twists and layers that end up doing a few favors in the art of clever engagement for a solid feature. Of course, it happens to be the film associated with Daniel Craig getting to play James Bond in Casino Royale (2005), and it probably goes without saying that this is a pretty good showcase for him. Sure, it is a familiar feature but being hip and spry for 105 minutes is not a hard thing to accomplish, and the commitment works when you have a cast that is worthwhile to follow with. Craig just has that "it factor" here, which is interesting considering he had been around for a handful of film roles of varying prominence (after honing his craft on the stage, naturally), but he has a way with words that draws you in how direct he is in the art of not wanting to be a career guy with such suave confidence. One wonders exactly what our unnamed lead would actually have ended up pursuing as a "gentleman of leisure", but I think you can see that whatever it could have been in terms of a pursuit, he sure would've made a killing at it. His pursuit of dancing in and out of the inane web set upon him is a fun one for him to show his charm while blood gets drawn around him, and it probably helps to have Meaney around, because the occasional humorous moments that occur (amid the violence and the situations that arise from that) are mostly because of him and his piercing qualities. Others come and go to varying effect, whether that involves Miller and a few alluring glances or the stark differences in Cranham and Gambon when it comes to established figures in the "layer cake" of crime (Gambon in particular is quite amusing). Evidently, there were a few endings shot for the film before Vaughn maneuvered it so the one used was the one he wanted (one that apparently is distinct from the book, but they share the same last line). It is a startling ending to the film but worthwhile when you really get down to it, at least when compared to the usual fare. As a whole, it is a pretty good feature with entertaining execution from all involved in the art of process within the criminal underworld that cuts like a knife on butter for solid results.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.

Review #2251: Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.

Cast: 

Michael Keaton (Betelgeuse), Winona Ryder (Lydia Deetz), Catherine O'Hara (Delia Deetz), Jenna Ortega (Astrid Deetz), Justin Theroux (Rory), Monica Bellucci (Delores LaVerge), Willem Dafoe (Wolf Jackson), Arthur Conti (Jeremy Frazier), Burn Gorman (Father Damien), Amy Nuttall (Jane Butterfield Jr.), Santiago Cabrera (Richard), Danny DeVito (Janitor), and Nick Kellington (Bob) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman [1989], #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride, #316 - Batman Returns, #969 - Planet of the Apes [2001], #1257 - Pee-wee's Big Adventure, #1295 - Sleepy Hollow, #1615 - Edward Scissorhands, #2160 - Mars Attacks!)

Review: 

"It was only until fairly recently, with all this talk, that I just put all the noise away and I just go, 'Okay, I love the Lydia character.' That was the character that I connected with, like, as a teenager. So I go, 'What happened to this person 35 years later? What weird thing?' You go from cool teenager to some fucked-up adult. What relationships do you have? Do you have kids? What's your relationship with that? It's not something I could have done back then; it's only something you could do once you experience those things yourself. So for me, this became a very personal movie, like a kind of weird family movie about a weird family."

You know, I actually had to go back and look up the most recent Tim Burton film I expressed interest in seeing right then and there. I actually forgot it has been five years since his last feature film, in which I'm sure went completely well in non-soulless remaking in Dumbo [2019] (in fairness, younger me was okay with Alice in Wonderland [2010]). I didn't really think about the chance of Beetlejuice having a sequel, even though I remember having a neat time with it in the couple times I remember seeing it, one originally devised by Michael McDowell and Larry Wilson with helpful re-writing from Warren Skaaren that had plenty of amusement within the bureaucracy of the dead and a free-spirited (read: pervert) bio-exorcist. In some ways, it really is a manic syrupy tribute to the B-movies that Burton grew up with, made in an era where one could just do stop motion and blue screen effects to go with slapstick in a neat 92-minute package. The idea of a sequel has been kicked around long enough that one concept was to have the title character go to Hawaii, but it only gained actual steam in the last couple of years (so just a bit after someone adapted the film into a musical). The screenplay this time around was done by Alfred Gough and Miles Millar (best known for developing Smallville and incidentally, Wednesday) while the story was done by Gough, Millar, and Seth Grahame-Smith (probably best known as the writer of the mashup Pride and Prejudice and Zombies). 

Sure, the sequel isn't quite at the same level of "good" than the original, but it is evident that Burton and company at least had a good time making it. I didn't really pick it because "hey, sequel to something I liked", I picked it more because I figured it would be the type of film to experience with a crowd at least once (as opposed to the usual "who cares" or half-empty amusement, because even mothers deserve a visit to the theater for the first time since *Cats*). It complements the original while fulfilling two obvious things: thank goodness this was not a lazy "continuation TV series" (or god forbid, a streaming original) and thank goodness it was a film that wasn't merely a lazy vessel for passing the torch. One moves on from the stylings of Harry Belafonte to stuff such as "Tragedy" and "MacArthur Park" without a bump in the road that will surely mean a Beetlejuice double-header in the coming years would be a delightful idea for the spooky season (104 minutes is resourceful enough when you consider the earlier film was also under two hours). Of course, it helps that Keaton, Ryder and O'Hara are committed to not mailing in their returns to go with a few neat moments from the fresh faces to go alongside a few interesting moments involving effects (read: a movie that generally doesn't look like it got shot on one stage), which is probably most amusing in its handling of killing off a character (ironic that a film about a perverted title character featured an actor later found to be a pervert) or in not over-riding the "Beetlejuice baby" into the ground. Keaton might be in his seventies, but he obviously hasn't lost his enjoyment in terms of mischief that he handles in such carefully crafted time on screen (Keaton didn't want to have that much screentime in the film, which actually reflects the original, when you think about it). One can savor those moments of mischief without thinking back to the original and thinking things have gone soft (sure, he might not turn into a snake, but one late bit is pretty hell-raising). Of course, the dynamic of Ortega and Ryder is playing on a few familiar beats (we have graduated from "strange and unusual" to estrange daughter of "strange and unusual"), but Ortega is snappy and charming enough to go with the material for us to follow along with. Theroux is amusingly wormy to stick out, while Bellucci is basically relying on screen presence and little to really do for a movie that isn't exactly keen on having a "big bad" but instead just relies of, shall we say, casual macabre vibes (this is a movie where someone gets their limbs back while playing an oldie tape). Dafoe playing a stock cop type somehow seems on point for worthwhile commitment. In general, the movie inspired a few neat chuckles in its eventual road to getting a climax that borrows a bit from before while feeling the need to try and do something a bit wilder than already mentioned, which is, well, fine. I was conflicted about rating the film for a few days because sometimes it really does take a while to wonder just how "good" something is. The original was pretty neat, and the sequel is fine, but I'm not sure if giving it the whole "good" rating makes sense when there is a totally serviceable option in calling it "fine" (this is when I debate if putting a ".5" rating would be ideal in the future). It is a solid film in the aspects of slipping it on one night and just admiring that a well-made sequel to a film from decades ago will come and go in spooking the gut without churning one's soul, if you know what I mean.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Pacific Rim.

Review #425: Pacific Rim.

Cast
Charlie Hunnam (Raleigh Becket), Idris Elba (Stacker Pentecost), Rinko Kikuchi (Mako Mori), Charlie Day (Dr. Newton Geizler), Burn Gorman (Dr. Hermann Gottlieb), Ron Perlman (Hannibal Chau), Heather Doerksen (Sasha Kaidanovsky), Ellen McLain (Jaeger AI), Robert Kazinsky (Chuck Hansen), Robert Maillet (Aleksis Kaidanovsky), Max Martini (Herc Hansen), and Diego Klattenhoff (Yancy Becket) Directed by Guillermo del Toro.

Review
Pacific Rim is the third in my walks to my movie theater, and when the film started, the audience had grown from a handful to a near room full. After I left, I kept that in mind while trying to form my opinions into one singular review that didn't say the same thing over and over again. And what did I think of this film? It was pretty awesome. Was it a great film? No, but for 2 hours, it was entertaining, and yet it didn't feel like it had been too sacrificing in the characterization, in fact I liked the characters, they were written alright, and the actors were good, such as Hunnam, Elba, Kikuchi, and even the supporting cast. They were likable, they were useful and they all had a purpose in this film. But of course, the main thing about this film is the Jaegers and Kaiju, who are grand in scale, but grander when battling each other. The battle scenes look beautiful, and they bring an epic scale, truly grand in scale. This film is about 80% battling, 15% on characters and about 5% manic energy. It even manages to bring a chuckle or two out of me, and this did a far better job of spectacle than the Transformers films ever did. But nevertheless, this is a pretty good film. It may take spectacle over characterization, but really did anyone not expect that? My main reason for watching this was because of the fact I could see giant robots fighting monsters and not have it all be a great dream. Instead, it is brought to life by Guillermo del Toro, who does a wonderful job. Truly, this one deserves the hype, and it deserves a watch, for the grand spectacle and the fun that it delivers. Truly, I did not waste my money watching this.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.