Mary Reilly.

Review #2623: Mary Reilly.

Cast:

Julia Roberts (Mary Reilly; Sasha Hanau as young Mary Reilly), John Malkovich (Dr. Henry Jekyll / Edward Hyde), Michael Sheen (Bradshaw), George Cole (Mr. Poole), Kathy Staff (Mrs. Kent), Bronagh Gallagher (Annie), Glenn Close (Mrs. Faraday), Michael Gambon (Mr. Reilly), Linda Bassett (Mrs. Reilly), Henry Goodman (Haffinger), Ciarán Hinds (Sir Danvers Carew), Tim Barlow (the Vicar), and Stephen Boxer (the Inspector) Directed by Stephen Frears (#2333 - High Fidelity)

Review: 

I guess if anybody needed a re-invention of the old horror stuff, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde probably did merit consideration for the 1990s. Actually, the movie is based on the 1990 novel Mary Reilly by Valerie Martin, which was inspired by Robert Louis Stevenson's 1886 novella that I'm sure you know, well, didn't have a woman as among the key focus. Christopher Hampton (British playwright/screenwriter previous responsible for such works as Les Liaisons Dangereuses) wrote the screenplay and there were initial plans for Tim Burton (announced as early as 1993) to direct after he did Ed Wood, reportedly with Winona Ryder in mind for the lead. However, the ramifications of Wood being rushed to make a decision and the overmentioned Wood movie being put in turnaround led him dropping out. As much as TriStar Pictures wanted Daniel Day-Lewis to pair off with Julia Roberts, they got Roberts paired with John Malkovich instead. Amidst production delays from Tristar changing the release date over and over (to where it finally landed in February 1996 after production had started in 1994) to 25 drafts being written to quibbles over the ending (to the point where the studio tried making their own cut only to see test audiences not care for it either), the film plopped as a flop with audiences*.

There were various people in Stevenson's life that probably influenced him in making the original novella, whether that was the double life of cabinet-maker William Brodie or murderer Eugène Chantrelle. It probably would go hand-in-hand with Bram Stoker's Dracula [1992] and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein [1994] in deciding, hey, big Gothic re-inventions of old horror stuff that sees a desire of seeing repressed evil urges basically go for a desire to escape from a form of depression that sees the same type of things go awry. The result is the strangest type of disappointment: it isn't as nearly as the odd reputation that it garnered at the time, but it also isn't as interesting to actually hold up and defend besides calling it a close misfire. It aims for the horror of a woman living in the margins who has curiosity over what she sees from Jekyll and Hyde in sympathy and also revulsion. A good chunk of what Roberts does (besides wearing some scar makeup because hey, rat bites) is basically observing what is going around her that is very, very, very drawn out. Yes, even during the one transformation sequence of Hyde/Jekyll, she sits close by and watches, because heaven forbid anything of substance is allowed to just happen. If she is meant to be the face that drives a movie without saying much, I'd probably just take the bus and look somewhere else for presence. Whether by choice or otherwise, Malkovich mainly just comes off as awkward in the attempted display of a man in turmoil, with one side actually coming off as interesting (the bawdy, opinionated measure of a man that likes to kick people) and the other side coming off as a strange type of seething monotony that makes you ask the question, "Yes, and?". Every step of the way basically comes with weird caveats that tease rather than actually cut loose for 108 minutes that lets Close and Gambon basically sit on the sidelines for a painfully mundane movie (at least Cole gets to be a tiny bit jealous as the eldest of butlers). You get the occasional flash of blood and the idea of a body-count, but most times one is spent experiencing the day-to-day life of a person get upheaved by, well, things happening (oh but she doesn't hate the evil men in her life, that's a real keeper). You'd have better luck asking one of your parents how their week went. 

Sure, it has a certain type of look that actually seems pretty appropriate for the setting, but there is something about how the movie maneuvers that makes you feel as if you were watching a poor man's The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll (1960). It's the 1990s for God's sake, you can't even cut loose for a really sexually charged scene? I would even settle for a real head-popping scene, because if you're going to tell a "companion piece" to the most well-told, well-known thing in existence that ends (most of the time, anyway) with dire circumstances for Dr. Jekyll, you have to at least have something to stir that stands out! Working women get slaughtered, the tease of libido gets strung around, but hey, we get to see the poor little maid grapple with what the hell is going on with the sulk of someone who can't get out of a long-winding conversation at the store. As a whole, there are some interesting moments to be had in the horrors of being swayed one way or the other by a man in turmoil, but Mary Reilly trudges along with no sense of involvement of actually getting to where it wants to go without dragging its feet until only the devoted have given up. You can only go so far with a mediocre movie before it all turns to mush, and that I suppose is the real lesson to learn when digging for "horror" and turning up for this.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Next up: The Last Broadcast.

*There were, however, a few defenders of the film, mainly Roger Ebert - https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/mary-reilly-1996

I didn't have time to see it, but he did at least one interview on the circuit about the film around the time it was out - Stephen Frears "Mary Reilly" 1996 - Bobbie Wygant Archive - YouTube

Or, alternatively: 'Mary Reilly' star defies easy expectations

Miami Vice.

Review #2091: Miami Vice.

Cast: 

Colin Farrell (Sonny Crockett), Jamie Foxx (Ricardo Tubbs), Gong Li (Isabella), Naomie Harris (Trudy Joplin), Ciarán Hinds (FBI Agent Fujima), Justin Theroux (Detective Larry Zito), Barry Shabaka Henley (Castillo), Luis Tosar (Montoya), John Ortiz (Jose Yero), Elizabeth Rodriguez (Gina Calabrese), Domenick Lombardozzi (Detective Stan Switek), Eddie Marsan (Nicholas), Isaach De Bankolé (Neptune), John Hawkes (Alonzo Stevens), Tom Towles (Coleman), and Mario Ernesto Sánchez (El Tiburon) Written and Directed by Michael Mann (#1531 - Ali, #1631 - The Last of the Mohicans, and #1713 - Manhunter)

Review: 

"I don't know how I feel about it. I know the ambition behind it, but it didn't fulfill that ambition for me because we couldn't shoot the real ending. But whole parts of the film are very evocative to me still, especially when it comes to the romance. It was about how far somebody goes when they’re undercover, and what that really means because, ultimately, who you become is yourself on steroids, manifested out there in the real world."

Believe it or not, I had been waiting for the right to do this film, because I actually had watched the television show for the curiosity roughly a year ago. Honestly, the curiosity was not so much for the perceived "style" but for the odds and ends that come with trying to wedge in certain guest stars and situations to fit the procedural. Show creator Anthony Yerkovich claimed his inspiration was hearing about asset forfeiture when it comes to confiscating drug dealer properties for use, but I think you can see how the rumor that it came from a memo that said "MTV cops" endures. He had wrote over two dozen scripts for the serial procedural Hill Street Blues, but he has been quoted as saying that he actually had collected info on the city of Miami when working on Blues, even calling it a "sort of modern-day American Casablanca" while noting the wide variety of people that lived there to go along with the service industries for the drug trade. Undeniably though, it was probably the performances of its two leads in Don Johnson and Philip Michael Thomas that probably made the show endure as well as it did to run from 1984 all the way to the very first few weeks of 1990. Yerkovich created the show and had executive duties for the first few episodes before leaving to leave it in the hands of Michael Mann (creator of Vegas (1978) and a couple of films) as executive producer, which he would do for most of the run. A great deal of expense was taken to do an episode of the show, whether that involved fancy cars, song licensing, or painting exterior walls to film in Miami. There are a handful of episodes one could probably mention to talk about to describe the cliches (favorable or not) that came with the show, but "No Exit" (guest starring a pre-Die Hard Bruce Willis) is probably the best example of the show in its prime. Evidently, the basis for making a feature film adaptation came because Foxx, who had starred in Mann's Ali (2001), suggested the idea. Perhaps it is irony that the production of what is considered one of Mann's average films eventually led to the creation of his most polarizing films. A "director's cut" version of the film takes the 132-minute runtime of the original to include a few contextual sequences along with trimming certain bits to make a 139-minute cut (probably the most noted thing is that Nonpoint's 2004 cover of Phil Collins's "In the Air Tonight" plays more clearly). Of course, nothing can erase the fact that the departure of Foxx from filming abroad (because of an incident in the Dominican Republic) led to the curtailing of the planned ending (which evidently would have been filmed in Paraguay) for a rewritten one.

This was the ninth feature film for Mann, and it was a mild success with audiences at the time. The reputation of the film has certainly lent to interesting perspectives with the passage of over a decade since its release, which has softened the middle-ground view of the time. The style and aesthetics of the film certainly lends plenty of credit for a film that really verges itself on the passion of not really trying to pay attention to its attempt at a "ripped from the headlines" story that has the pacing of a hamster on a deflated ball. The show had a main character who lived in a boat with an alligator, the film basically is just two guys who might as well be named Man A and Man B. That doesn't mean I dislike the film, because it is still fairly interesting as a curiosity when it comes to ideas about flawed men trying to live flawless lives of deception and enterprise. It meanders, but it means well. Going into it with minimal knowledge of the show probably works out better for all involved. Whether because of the curtailed ending or not, Foxx somehow suffers in comparison to Farrell when it comes to trying to grasp a useful performance that isn't just "adequate". Strangely enough, Farrell is the one most prevalent in saying his displeasure with the film, stating it as some sort of "missed opportunity" when it came to the friendship meant to be portrayed between the two characters (of course, the fact that he went to rehab right after production probably doesn't help). manages the look of a man who is truly conscious of just what it means to be alive in that game of trust that seems to enjoy the rush of it but also looks like he is being eaten on the inside because of the grind that comes with those moments of where the truth lies. The romance between him and Gong. They may not look like the ideal pairing, but that's the point, its like a crash of waves that only a surfer could want to take no matter the highs and lows that come with it. Foxx, well, hmm, yea, maybe he really should have thought twice about wanting a Vice film. It's not so much that he doesn't really capture the tone of the original (as set by Thomas), it just seems that he is in autopilot, as if the only thing that mattered was to simply be there to say a few lines and boom, there's a partnership of deception (the dynamic between him and Harris doesn't even me blink, but then again I barely remember that there is supposed to be a supporting cast around Crockett and Tubbs 25% of the time in the actual show). Both of the leads seem a bit distant in that regard, but I think you can let it pass if you let the movie pass through. If not, try another buddy film. So yes, it isn't really a straight-line show adaptation, because if that were the case, the one-note capture of folks (in relation to show counterparts) such as Henley would bother me more. At least Ortiz makes a suitable adversary when it comes to players and aggressors of trust. In the end, "time is luck", and that means a film that tries to hold itself to the vibes of the moment for interesting style and a few useful action cues to cover what is neither a masterpiece or a bad time but is instead just fine. If you really care about the intricate vibes that make style and culture to walk over a mild storyline and mid acting, well, then you have quite the curiosity here. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

There Will Be Blood.

Review #1546: There Will Be Blood.

Cast: 
Daniel Day-Lewis (Daniel Plainview), Paul Dano (Eli and Paul Sunday), Kevin J. O'Connor (Henry), Ciarán Hinds (Fletcher Hamilton), Dillon Freasier (H. W. Plainview), Russell Harvard (adult H. W. Plainview), Sydney McCallister (young Mary Sunday), Colleen Foy (adult Mary Sunday), David Willis (Abel Sunday), and Hans Howes (William Bandy) Written and Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson.

Review: 
"I really subscribe to that old adage that you should never let the audience get ahead of you for a second. So if the film's abrasive and wrongfoots people then, y'know, that's great. But I hope it involves an audience. If not, that's my fuck-up."
"I begin with a sense of mystery. In other words, I am intrigued by a life that seems very far removed from my own. And I have a sense of curiosity to discover that life and maybe change places with it for a while."

Anyone with a particular vision and the right sense of timing can be a director, just ask Paul Thomas Anderson. The son of actor and horror host Ernie "Ghoulardi" Anderson, he found himself interested in making movies from a young age, doing them on video and 8mm camera while also doing writing. He made his first attempt at a true production in high school with The Dirk Diggler Story (1988), which took a mockumentary approach (Boogie Nights, released nine years later based on that material, proved his breakthrough). He did brief study at Santa Monica and Emerson College along with two days at New York University before deciding to set out on his own with work (a production assistant, mainly for television. It was during one of those experiences that he met Philip Baker Hall and told him about a short script that he believed would suit him and after his liking of the script Anderson set out to raise the funds to do what would become Cigarettes & Coffee (1993) - it received notice from festivals and got Anderson on his way to venturing into theatrical works, which resulted in movies such as Hard Eight (1996), Magnolia (1999) and Punch-Drunk Love (2002), although this has turned out to be his biggest success in terms of notice or with audiences. Similarly, anyone with a particular vision and the right sense of timing can also be an actor, and Daniel Day-Lewis would certainly come to mind fairly early as one of those actors with reputation to spare. Born in London, Day-Lewis found interest in a variety of fields that included acting and woodworking (with one inspiration for the former being the films of Ken Loach), and he studied like other famed alumni before him at the British Old Vic Theatre School. He soon honed himself a method actor with theatre before growing to shine in film with a dedication to maintaining character that resulted in highlights such as My Beautiful Laundrette (1985), My Left Foot (1989), and The Last of the Mohicans (1992) in a career that spanned 35 years and 20 films before retirement in 2017.

The film is based in part on the 1927 novel Oil! by Upton Sinclair (Anderson stated they drew upon material from the first 150 pages), which had inspiration from the exploits of oil man Edward L. Doheny that included success in Southern California and Mexico alongside a key part in the Teapot Dome Scandal in the 1920s. Anderson found it a "great stepping-stone" in terms of helping to lend cohesive material to draw upon, which included research to cities and museums displaying pieces of oil equipment from the days of the boom while citing further inspiration in part from The Treasure of Sierra Madre (1948, which he apparently watched every night during production). What we have here is a film of great physicality and loneliness, one involving a man that seems to have oil in his veins rather than blood in the way that he moves along in wheeling-and-dealing through a rise to fame, fortune, and eventually madness. Day-Lewis based his voice and characterization on recordings of famed director John Huston while also looking over letters and artifacts of the time period involving the oil boom that included reading up on Dohney. He captures something profound in predatory greatness, one more entity than man in his ultra-competitive nature and ever-growing hatred of the people that encompass him (one with no friends, lovers, or even a true son) - he dominates most of the scenes present in terms of dialogue and stature that generally works out in a performance for the ages. Dano has the interesting task of two roles, as the original actor cast for Eli (Kel O'Neill) was replaced by Anderson a few days into shooting. What could have been a gimmick used to stand out for having the same actor play different roles is instead done quite well by Dano in drawing out differences in the response to opportunity - whether that means clear-edge honesty in one brother or something devout in ambition in another. O'Connor does fine what is needed as a shadow of hope in his time spent with Day-Lewis in revealing the differences in one's humanity and what one needs from those close in some relation to them, whether that means affection or something else. This applies just as well to Freasier, who accompanies Day-Lewis as a sort of token of machinations and later a token of something else - anguish, which Harvard utilizes for his one key scene near the end to display the contrast between blood and partner as a man of the basket and his own path.

Of course no film comes without at least one caveat. It may very well prove a bit much for some audiences, in regards to its length or in its uncompromising approach to its subject matter that maintains a dour atmosphere that might seem overdone or pretentious to those who don't see with what it aims to do involving its sprawling scope as an epic with its own kind of scenery of oil. This is basically a fable involving the nature of two people aiming for success by any means necessary, even if it involves sacrifice of one's soul to get there (since we are dealing with a man of oil and a man of faith) that either will satisfy those in its reach or slip some from its sermon on the derrick. One other thing to note is its ending involving a bowling alley and a "milkshake" analogy. While I can certainly feel a chuckle out of that particular line, I do find it to be a satisfying way to close out its method of madness with proper finish in displaying the blood, sweat, and tears that could come from trying to cultivate liquid gold from the ground and beat out the competition and problems on all sides - whether that involves humiliation at needing to atone for oneself or finding oneself to be utterly removed from humanity in the basic form. It is a brutal and uncompromising look upon the nature of man with regard to power that can consume one's family or even themselves in the end, which ultimately makes a devastating winner that works for those in the mindset with patience for 158 minutes of a grand tale of oil and blood. It's an unsettling film, but it is exactly what it wants to be without consequence.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Justice League.

Review #1011: Justice League.

Cast: 
Ben Affleck (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Henry Cavill (Kal-El / Clark Kent / Superman), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), Gal Gadot (Diana Prince / Wonder Woman), Ezra Miller (Barry Allen / Flash), Jason Momoa (Arthur Curry / Aquaman), Ray Fisher (Victor Stone / Cyborg), Jeremy Irons (Alfred Pennyworth), Diane Lane (Martha Kent), Connie Nielsen (Hippolyta), J. K. Simmons (James Gordon), and Ciarán Hinds (Steppenwolf) Directed by Zack Snyder (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice)

Review: 
To fellow readers: I did not intend for this review to be over 700 words, but here we are. Hopefully this review is consistent enough and useful for you.

Admittedly, the DC comic book films over the past few years have a been a bit...diverse (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, #828 - Suicide Squad, #942 - Wonder Woman), with their own particular brand of taste and style (and that is putting it lightly). This remains the case with this film, which is certainly a strange movie for one that is also wildly mediocre. Sure, I enjoyed the movie, but it is easily one that won't go down as anything great (in fairness, it's not like Thor: Ragnarok will go down as a hallmark of comic book films). It's clear that this movie wants to be lighter and fun, with varying results that come off as slightly inconsistent, particularly with characters like Batman, though that is not the biggest flaw. In any case, let me start with the main six, which is certainly an interesting bunch.

Affleck pulls off a pretty decent performance, being somewhat endearing even if seems like the character shifts tone from stoic to snarky, though it isn't too awfully distracting. Gadot is the best one of the group, being quite enjoyable and graceful as she was in her prior film. Miller is fairly entertaining in the film and is likely the most amusing part of the film. Momoa is fairly decent, though I'd say it takes time for him to really grow on you. Fisher is probably the weakest of the six, feeling a bit flat (though his character is at least useful to the plot). Cavill (with accompanying CGI-erased mustache) is decent enough for the time that he appears, but he doesn't really appear as much as he probably should've appeared. The supporting cast aren't really given much to do, and that can prove to be a bit disappointing (even in a movie all about the main six). It's not so much that Hinds does a terrible job as the villain as it is the fact that his character just isn't compelling to watch. with this being the worst part of the film. He is not a character that ever inspires fear or anything other than a mild expression, with his scenes with dialogue or fighting reminding me more of cut-scenes than actual scenes. Naturally, he is a villain that doesn't take too long to take down, with the victory feeling somewhat hollow that actually feels amusing to laugh at. The action sequences prove to be a mixed bag. On the one hand, they are sometimes pretty entertaining in their spectacle. On the other hand, the CGI just doesn't hold up that well, and for a movie that was reportedly made for over $300 million it certainly seems puzzling to see how it doesn't really work in the department. The film is at least sometimes amusing, and the cast does seem to have some good chemistry with each other, although at times it can come off a bit rushed, which can also apply in some way to the plot, which isn't too special, especially when it seems to go all over the place with its characters.

The film certainly feels a bit jumbled, no doubt due to post-production efforts in which Josh Whedon  (director of #312 - The Avengers and #706 - Avengers: Age of Ultron) was hired to rewrite additional scenes. In May of this year, Snyder stepped down during this process due to the death of his daughter, with Whedon taking over for rest of post-production, serving as director for scenes that he had written. In any case, Snyder is listed as the only director, though Whedon is given a credit for the screenplay (along with Chris Terrio, who had also co-written the story with Synder). The film certainly feels like a jumbling of numerous things, trying to give time for the three characters without their own film (Aquaman, The Flash, Cyborg). Subsequently, the film feels rushed when trying to deliver exposition for them.

Ultimately, this is a movie that achieves its most basic goals of being escapism and entertainment. It is ridiculous in how okay it is, but I found it to be fairly acceptable, warts and all. It isn't anything worthwhile, but it's a movie that will prove just enough for some audiences. Take this film for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Frozen.

Review #579: Frozen.

Cast
Kristen Bell (Anna), Idina Menzel (Elsa), Jonathan Groff (Kristoff), Josh Gad (Olaf), Santino Fontana (Hans), Alan Tudyk (Duke of Weselton), and Ciarán Hinds (Grand Pabbie the Troll King) Directed by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee.

Review
Frozen is a movie that after watching it, feels like a classic. The songs are the first shining moments as they flow so well with each other and make a powerful feeling of fun. The characters are likable, they are fun to watch interact with one each other, especially Olaf, who is fun and certainly enduring, though Elsa is a brilliantly written character that is given her moment to shine. But most of all, the story is really well crafted, it's a really creative tale. The animation is wonderful, especially all the shots of ice because it looks so beautiful. Is the movie really great? Only time will tell, as movies come and go, but classics never fade from our memories, which is also what I say when trying to get "Let It Go" out of my head.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.