American Beauty.

Review #2328: American Beauty.

Cast: 

Kevin Spacey (Lester Burnham), Annette Bening (Carolyn Burnham), Thora Birch (Jane Burnham), Wes Bentley (Ricky Fitts), Mena Suvari (Angela Hayes), Peter Gallagher (Buddy Kane), Allison Janney (Barbara Fitts), Chris Cooper (Col. Frank Fitts), Scott Bakula (Jim Olmeyer), and Sam Robards (Jim Berkley) Directed by Sam Mendes (#572 - Skyfall, #1585 - 1917, #1891 - Spectre)

Review: 

"If you are doing a play or a film, you have to have a secret way in if you are directing it. Sometimes it’s big things. American Beauty, for me, was about my adolescence."

It isn't every day you get a movie with a lead presence who throws away his responsibilities to go on a quest to maybe get with a much, much younger woman. To start, the movie was written by Alan Ball, the playwright-turned TV writer on the sitcoms Grace Under Fire and Cybill. The Atlanta native, frustrated by his work on those shows, tried to get into film. One of the scripts he would write was cribbed from a play idea he had come up and discarded, with the passion and "anger and rage at my working situation" resulting in a script that Dreamworks Pictures liked. There were numerous inspirations: one was the media circus surrounding the Amy Fisher trial (in which a 17-year old severely wounded the wife of a man she had a sexual relationship when still underage that saw her nicknamed the "Long Island Lolita"), and the other was an actual experience involving a plastic bag that he followed intently for 10 minutes (of course, his Buddhist faith played an influence too, where he was once quoted talking about a notion of "the miraculous within the mundane"). As strange as it sounds, it really was a script that wound up directed by a first-time filmmaker in Sam Mendes, who at the time had just done a revival of the musical Cabaret (interestingly, Mendes had Spacey and Bening in mind from the beginning). Present for rewrites during production (such as excising particular aspects of the ending), Mendes and Ball would each win an Academy Award that yer (television viewers might recognize that afterwards, Ball wound up creating Six Feet Under and True Blood).  

Hell, I suppose you could say that there is a beauty that is ironed out of people by culture, experience, or, well, conformity. Satire, psychological drama, whatever one calls the movie, it certainly is one that has managed to endure in the strange sphere of movies that some people really, really liked 25 years ago and others that, well, thought it was aging terribly by the years that went by (it most certainly is not the worst Best Picture winner when stuff like Cavalcade and Chariots of Fire exists). "Is that all there is?" isn't exactly the freshest premise, admittedly, because you could gleam that in another 1999 movie with Fight Club (which in perhaps a mirror of this film went from polarized reviews to a cult following in its 25 years of life) or even with Office Space. The times shifted fast on this film to a bizarro world where cynicism runs deep and the profound now reeks of pretentiousness. The facades that folks found funny to point at now just seem hollow in their barbs. Esteemed people of their age (insert any Administration of the past few decades) now resemble ghoulish relics. The taboos of older years are now stuff you may wish to bleach from your eyes on Twitter (or, for those with certain tastes, bookmark like a chipmunk), while others on social media seem to believe that their county and political values should be like of the old movies they watched as a youth. I think you get the idea, but I will say this much: the movie is kind of funny to me in that strange way that comes in facades and soap-opera weirdness. It narrates itself as if was Sunset Boulevard (1950), complete with strange self-importance and a worthwhile look (as shot by the famed Conrad L. Hall) of suburban facades.

I interpreted Spacey's performance as one that believe he is in on the joke of someone looking for meaning by basically reverting to a man-child. He trades one sense of totems for other totems in an amusing manner that is actually quite pathetic when you really get down to it. It isn't a role with any sense of dignity to it, but trying to re-invent oneself in the throes of balding hair and flabby nature is strangely enduring ot the now. I may not care for the man or his character, but I don't have to be to get a few chuckles at the pursuit of what one believes to be beauty. Honestly, Bening is the more interesting presence because somehow, her type-A personality facade is really, really amusing to me. It probably is represented best when one sees at her job in which she repeats the sentence "I will sell this house today" on a compulsive level that only makes the punchline (for all the facades one can put up, it all goes to shit in the face of looking closer) all the more amusing. Really, there may be a bit of the Burnhams in the people we may see every day, as that song by the Doors goes (people are strange...). Strangely, Bentley and Birch don't really have as much as impact as I thought they might have done for a movie that starts itself with the two of them for a moment that comes right back to the climax. It's just a couple of adrift youth that try to stake the waters between the ordinary and what is "interesting", and yeah, one gets it I suppose; Suvari may be played as an object, but her facade is at least obvious enough to be played to an actual conclusion. Besides, the brazen vulnerabilities that lie beneath the facade played by Cooper and Janney are far more compelling in those unspoken moments each has on screen (the latter basically seems to be as distant as a wide painting). In general, it is a movie that is shallow and yet somehow fascinating to see for the time it was made in, one in which it tries to make some sort of statement about the beauty of things that lie beneath the surface that have been left adrift in a time where people's pursuit for things and facades have only made one see the film as ridiculous rather than profound. Well-made and weirdly amusing, it is a movie that could only come from the turn of one millennium into another.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

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.

The Town.

Review #1554: The Town.

Cast: 
Ben Affleck (Douglas "Doug" MacRay), Rebecca Hall (Claire Keesey), Jon Hamm (FBI Special Agent Adam Frawley), Jeremy Renner (James "Jem" Coughlin), Blake Lively (Krista "Kris" Coughlin), Chris Cooper (Stephen MacRay), Pete Postlethwaite (Fergus "Fergie" Colm), Slaine (Albert "Gloansy" MacGloan), Owen Burke (Desmond "Dez" Elden), and Titus Welliver (Officer Dino Ciampa) Directed by Ben Affleck.

Review: 
"It was concealing a character-based drama centered around themes that I was interested in, particularly the theme of children paying for the sins of their parents...But wrapping that in the sort of candy shell of a heist movie."

There is always room for another actor to find additional calling in directing, particularly if they have the instinct to accomplish it well. Ben Affleck (born in Berkeley, California but raised in Cambridge, Massachusetts) had started in acting since he was a child with television such as The Voyage of the Mimi (1984) before eventually moving on to search for work after high school in film (initially with small roles before his first lead role in Glory Daze in 1995). His prominent moment came at the age of 25, where he co-wrote and co-starred with Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting (1997, which resulted in his first of two Academy Awards). The years that followed resulted in a varying quality of films, but he moved on to directing with Gone Baby Gone (2007, which he also co-wrote), which led to fair notice. It is adapted from the 2004 novel Prince of Thieves written by Chuck Hogan (born in Massachusetts that based his story upon the dubious reputation of the neighborhood of Charlestown), which was adapted to the screen by Affleck, Peter Craig, and Aaron Stockard. After a few years of shuffling in development struggle (including a failed attempt to have Adrian Lyne to direct and Hogan to write a script for), Affleck found himself attached to star and direct. He was attracted to its similar to Gone, Baby, Gone in how he could use its structure of the story alongside its characters and dialogue that could inspire him to add on to it for a film adaptation. This naturally led to research being done within the region alongside consultation with the FBI and actual bank robbers, with Affleck finding his note-taking of the latter particularly fascinating. It should be noted that there exists three versions of the film - the theatrical version, which runs at 124 minutes (as per request by the studio), and an extended cut that runs at 153 minutes, alongside with a 154 minute version that has an ending more faithful to the novel (which is more darker; I picked the original cut because that seemed like the right one to pick).

What we have is a film wrapped entirely in Boston that might as well be summed up by its opening quote involving pride in one's city despite it ruining their life - one could almost think of it as Affleck's attempt to make a city crime movie in the style of Mean Streets (1973), although Affleck has cited influences being films in the crime genre like Heat (1995) and The Departed (2006). It is a fine film building on delivering a heist and drama worth investing some time with, headlined by a usefully-crafted ensemble cast and some usefully crafted action sequences that make a worthwhile sophomore effort from Affleck. For a film that builds itself on part-heist/part-human interest, Affleck handles acting/directing just fine, displaying range in getting what he needs from his fellow actors while displaying wavering charm in directing himself that works most of its points of finding oneself apart from what was and instead trying to look somewhere else for satisfaction in life. Hall does fine in going along with Affleck in unassuming prevalence that does fine with the occasional task needed that makes decent chemistry with Affleck. Hamm has something of interest to do in terms of authority and pursuit, which he handles alright in terms of terse usefulness in that segmented time needed. Renner outshines the others in terms of hardened edge and menace that drives the film in various scenes that can be as simple as entering in a lunch conversation with Affleck and Hall. Lively does alright when quivering against Affleck, while Cooper and Postlethwaite (in his penultimate role before his death in 2011) each do well in momentary scenes involving wat it means to wrapped in a web of crime. On the whole, I liked the film in what it manages to accomplish in its heist aspects mixed in with its attempts at looking at life beyond the score that lend itself to some useful points of interest without being too wrapped up in cliché. It's a nice movie, honing itself with some realism and atmosphere for a useful film to start off another decade of heist drama cinema.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

And now, the list for the final decade of focus this year. The decade will start and end with new directors to make their first spotlight moment, which includes a few notable films for the decade we just left along with some other ones to highlight that I hope you enjoy.

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.

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood.

Review #1303: A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Fred Rogers), Matthew Rhys (Lloyd Vogel), Susan Kelechi Watson (Andrea Vogel), Chris Cooper (Jerry Vogel), Enrico Colantoni (Bill Isler), Maryann Plunkett (Joanne Rogers), Tammy Blanchard (Lorraine), Wendy Makkena (Dorothy), and Carmen Cusack (Margy) Directed by Marielle Heller.

Review: 
“You know everyone has lots of ways of feeling, and all those ways of feeling are fine. It’s what we do with our feelings that matter in this life. I trust that you’re growing in ways that will help you with whatever feelings you may have. When you’re a child and when you’re a grown up. I hope you’re able to grow to respect whoever you are inside.” - Mister Rogers

I do admit that there was plenty of interest in my mind to see this film. I even watched a pair of Mister Rogers Neighborhood episodes to remind myself of the effect that the show and its star had when it came to charm and sincerity when it came to feelings. This is a biographical drama loosely inspired by the 1998 article by Tom Junod, "Can You Say ... Hero?",  published by Esquire Magazine. It centers itself on its reporter character and the impact that his interview with Rogers has on him, as opposed to a biopic. A documentary based on his life and guiding philosophy had already been released prior with Won't You Be My Neighbor? (2018), but it is still interesting to see what one can do with depicting a man as beloved as Fred Rogers - a beacon of goodness when it came to public television and beyond - on screen. In a time like this where skepticism and cynical outlooks seem more and more prevalent in both media and life as a whole, it does seem refreshing to see a film that doesn't need to escape through action but rather careful honesty. It confronts its drama with the kind of style one could see from the show when it dealt with one's emotions (which work with children just as well as with adults) without becoming overly mawkish. Hanks drives the film all the way forward with care and sincerity, a portrait very much like its subject that inspires some thought alongside a smile without being in the film as much, looming even before he is formally introduced to his costar (helped by a nicely recreated opening sequence of the show, no doubt). Rhys has the task of playing someone racked with vulnerability and world-weariness for a character whose arc leans more towards fiction with its family drama trappings. Ultimately, his striking distinction serves the movie fine, proving worthy enough to follow in the film without needing to see Hanks pop out until proven necessary. It all comes with the right air of care, where one finds to accept their flaws and open themselves through the eyes of someone who strove to be honest and good on and off the camera while still being human. Watson does fine with the family drama without being in the background often. Cooper gives off a few layers to make an interesting play on the family drama without being too predictable. The rest of the cast fill in the environment fine. On the whole, it is the little moments that provide big results, such as a sequence involving silence in a public setting (itself a take off an actual call for silence by Rogers at an awards ceremony), or even just sequences around the Neighborhood set that seem so inviting. One can find themselves invested into this world because it doesn't try to evade or hide its human self, where fact and fiction work themselves into a well balanced thing to spend time with. Maybe it will inspire some emotion within the fellow viewer, but it certainly will inspire a look within oneself inside and outside.

Well, well, a Sunday review. Actually, I had meant to do this earlier, but this whole week has been a busy one. Oddly enough, today is my birthday - so why not break the (unofficial) no-Sunday tradition just once? Good to be another year older, too.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Me, Myself & Irene.

Review #979: Me, Myself & Irene.

Cast: 
Jim Carrey (Charlie Baileygates/Hank Evans), Renée Zellweger (Irene P. Waters), Chris Cooper (Lt. Gerke), Robert Forster (Colonel Partington), Richard Jenkins (Agent Boshane), Zen Gesner (Agent Peterson), Michael Bowman (Casper), Rob Moran (Trooper Finneran), Daniel Greene (Dickie Thurman), Anthony Anderson (Jamal Baileygates), Mongo Brownlee (Lee Harvey Baileygates), Jerod Mixon (Shonté Jr. Baileygates), Tony Cox (Shonté), Steve Tyler (Delivery Room Doctor), Traylor Howard (Layla Baileygates) Directed by Peter Farrelly and Bobby Farrelly.

Review: 
Admittedly, I didn't have high hopes for this film, in part because I had remembered seeing the first five or ten minutes on television roughly a few years ago and not really being interested enough to watch it all the way through. Years later, it only makes sense that I watch it in a month as middling as this film turned out to be. Carrey does exactly what you would expect in terms of his facial expressions and mannerisms, which can be amusing or at worst tedious, depending on your view of Carrey as a comedian. He works best when playing the Jekyll aspect of his character, having more amusement (and charm, which applies when subject to different kinds of abuse) than when playing the Hyde aspect (diagnosed as advanced delusionary schizophrenia with involuntary narcissistic rage...yes I'm serious), which doesn't really feel funny to watch nor particularly welcome to watch dominate over the other persona (with ensuing times of revenge over people) for a good majority of the film. Seeing him change personas also isn't particularly funny, though that may be because of how many times he shifts throughout the film, such as when he argues with himself in the climax.

Much like the plot, Zellweger's character doesn't really have much depth (though she is fairly charming enough), with the film also not doing fairly well either as a black comedy or a road movie, mostly because the jokes themselves aren't really that special. Obviously there is a market for gross out comedies, but for me it just didn't work most of the time. Sure, there's a decent sequence with a cow, but other jokes feel longer than they should (such as the case with Bowman and his character). The narration by Rex Allen Jr (whose father did the narration for The Incredible Journey - #917) is fine. Did I mention there was a plot? Yes, something involving the EPA and crooked cops, but it all feels secondhand along with not particularly interesting (with Cooper not being given much to do as the de facto bad guy along with Greene). His three children (Anderson, Brownlee & Mixon) are somewhat amusing, though they can't really lift the movie towards anything too clever. The film runs at 116 minutes and even longer on television, but in any case it feels too long. This isn't a terrible experience, but it is also is not a fun experience, at least for me anyway.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Muppets.

Review #522: The Muppets.

Cast
Jason Segel (Gary), Amy Adams (Mary), Chris Cooper (Tex Richman), Steve Whitmire (Kermit the Frog/Beaket/Statler/Rizzo the Rat/Link Hogthrob/The Muppet Newsman/Lips), Eric Jacobson (Miss Piggy/Fozzie Bear/Animal/Sam the Eagle/Marvin Suggs), Dave Goelz (Gonzo/Dr. Bunsen Honeydew/Zoot, Beauregard/Waldorf/Kermit Moopet), Bill Barretta (Rowlf the Dog/The Swedish Chef/Dr. Teeth/Pepe the King Prawn/Bobo the Bear/Beautiful Day Monster/Mahna Mahna/Behemoth/Fozzie Moope/Muppet Gary/Whatnot Hobo), Peter Linz (Walter), David Rudman (Scooter/Janice/Miss Poogy/Wayne, Nigel the Conductor/Bobby Benson), Matt Vogel (Floyd Pepper/Camilla the Chicken/Sweetums/'80s Robot, Lew Zealand/Uncle Deadly/Crazy Harry/Rowlf Moopet), Rashida Jones (Veronica), Jack Black (Himself), Alan Arkin (Muppet Studios Tour Guide), Bill Cobbs (Grandfather), Zach Galifianakis (Hobo Joe), and Jim Parsons (Human Walter) Directed by James Bobin.

Review
It had 12 years since the release of Muppets From Space (#377), and in that span the Muppets were confined to television specials only (Okay, okay, I admit to watching A Muppet Christmas: Letters to Santa when I was younger, it wasn't bad, but I don't remember watching any other special), until this film. I wanted to end this so called Muppet Trilogy of mine with this film because the first part of the trilogy began with the first, and so it only made sense to finish with the most recent (Muppets Most Wanted hasn't been released..yet.), and...this is a good Muppet film. It has its moments of fun, and Walter is a welcome addition for the Muppets, the human cast is interesting because Segel and Adams work alright together, and Cooper is pretty funny, and "Man or Muppet" is probably the most memorable song of the film along with being a really fitting one for a film like this. The Muppets are fine as usual and while not every joke works, the film still has enough passion for its subject to work. I hope you like this trilogy of Muppet films, as I enjoyed watching these films, and I hope you do as well.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Patriot.

Review #413: The Patriot.

Cast
Mel Gibson (Benjamin Martin), Heath Ledger (Gabriel Martin), Jason Issacs (William Tavington), Joely Richardson (Charlotte Selton), Chris Cooper (Harry Burwell), Tcheky Karyo (Jean Villeneuve), Rene Auberjonois (Oliver), Lisa Brenner (Anne Howard), Tom Wilkinson (Charles, Lord Cornwallis), and Peter Woodward (Charles O'Hara) Directed by Roland Emmerich (#193 - Independence Day)

Review
The Patriot boasts authenticity in costumes as they do look very nice, and very well made, the filmmakers even consulted the Smithsonian on advice, and it does look like there was real effort made into this film, especially given it's massive attempts at being a Revolutionary film, which isn't easy to do. This film manages to last over 2 and a half hours to try and tell a story that while sometimes veering into melodrama, does manages to be coherent. Whether this is a good film or not depends on what you want in this film. Action? The film has plenty of it, axes and weapon fights about. But if you want a film that has compelling villain that isn't one dimensional, you won't get that. It is not Issacs' fault, he's just the actor reading the lines that make this one dimensional character who is written to be evil without much thought to it. The rest of the actors are alright, and Mel Gibson tries his best. While this isn't a perfect film by any means, it manages to entertain, and it does a better job than Emmerich's previous film, Independence Day, so if you want some roaring action for July 4th and have time on your hands, I suppose this could work for you. Just take it in consideration.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

original: