Disclosure Day.

Review #2547: Disclosure Day.

Cast: 

Emily Blunt (Margaret Fairchild; Delaney Cuthbert as young Margaret), Josh O'Connor (Dr. Daniel Kellner; Tyler Renaud as young Daniel), Colin Firth (Noah Scanlon), Eve Hewson (Jane Blankenship), Colman Domingo (Hugo Wakefield), Wyatt Russell (Jackson), Henry Lloyd-Hughes (Casper Boyd), Elizabeth Marvel (Sister Maura), Hettienne Park (Serena), Tommy Martinez (Dave Santiago), Gabby Beans (Angela Childs), Jeremy Shamos (Claypool), Brandon Wilson (Nathan Twinning), Priyanka Kedia (Grace Zhao), Elliot Villar (Diaz), Noah Robbins (Munsey), and Michael Gaston (General Dobbs)

Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168-#170, #302, #351, #480, #563, #573,  #642, #958, #1068, #1305, #1478, #1520, #1528, #1560, #1843, #2000 - Duel), #2026 - Twilight Zone: The Movie) 

Review

"At the core of Disclosure Day is the question: Where has all our empathy gone? Would an actual disclosure day reunite what's divided, or begin to repair what's broken in this siphoning away of empathy? And I think that was the personal link for me. There's more focus in this story on human connection than even the eventual and hopeful connection between an off-world civilization and the human species."

For a movie with such a clunky title (no, I don't care that there was already a movie called "Disclosure" in the 1990s), it sure is interesting to hear how many people apparently went to see it in its first week, mainly because I chose to not see much of the marketing for the film, particularly with its trailer. It's been a while since I saw a Spielberg movie in theaters, mainly because I don't remember what I was doing when West Side Story [2021]* or The Fabelmans [2022] (but I do remember seeing Ready Player One [2018]), but the curiosity was bubbling since the first rumblings of a "UFO film" came around in 2024. One inspiration listed was a New York Times article ("Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program") about a program exploring space phenomena without identification (okay you've got "unidentified anomalous phenomena" and "unidentified flying object", what sounds better?); Spielberg wrote a story outline over two months in 2023. We've had a few things related to the disclosure movement* or conspiracies dictated about say, Roswell, ranging from the light fare such as getting a body from there in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) or the 2002 miniseries Taken (as executive produced by Spielberg) to, well, documentaries such as The Age of Disclosure (2025), which had presented former government officials and disclosure movement people with varying claims and arguments and, well, little physical evidence. David Koepp wrote the screenplay (reportedly doing over 40 drafts). Recently, there was a de-classification of UFO-related files, but, well, there was nothing about it as interesting as was present in the movie, so that's certainly a thing to say.

What you get with this movie is a thriller about trying to have people listen to one another. Sure, the "disclosure" looms heavily throughout the movie, but what is most important is the danger of fearing what one doesn't know. It takes a handful of big swings for the ideas of faith over fear, interest in beings that aren't just ourselves, and, well, washing away the established order of things as perhaps not the only supreme being in the universe* which might be nice for those who, say, liked a film like Signs [2000] (speaking of movies where t. It is a thriller of illumination (essentially by stating one is not an idol, but an instrument, whether in understanding or in math) that gradually assembles the pieces together for a fairly satisfying movie, although I'm not sure exactly how it will sit with me in the years to come and I can certainly understand where others might not anoint it as highly. It takes its swings of wonder and doesn't yearn to answer every nibbling question, for better or worse; Spielberg himself has said it is not a "holistic review of the entire history of the UFO phenomenon". Blunt commands the film with a fairly entertaining performance, managing to evoke plenty of curiosity and humor in the fractured world she finds herself part of beyond is seen and unseen, particularly since her and Russell have decent timing together for a time. O'Connor is merely fine, but he never really gets into his own as a character when him and Blunt actually meet (to say nothing of one scene in particular involving the big reveal). Domingo provides a bit of serenity to counteract the real veteran presence in Firth, who is delightfully malevolent that underlies a yin-and-yang of people who see the status quo and the place of any potential wild card element differently (whether seeing it as one for control or one for co-existence), which is neatly interesting to see in how each play it. It's a strangely bloodless journey to get through, but the sense of wonder is inviting for those who have the patience for the inevitable meshing of empathy and numbers. Basically, it's a fable about if the world actually had some more idealism rather than the cynic slop that pervades our lives in such loud fashion that the only real way to pay attention probably would be to just listen.

Admittedly, it rests heavily on the idea that seeing is believing in a world that actively sees plenty of videos and images filled with despair (and then of course there is AI slop, which is disgusting, full stop). Would we tune out a theoretical creature from a different world than ours like people do when trying to tune out the rhetoric of hatred of others (or, alternatively, watching alternative media; my caveat is that if the film involved trying to distribute top-secret stuff on the Internet, people would've just said it was being cribbed from Glass [2019]). To say nothing of the news anchor in the climax, which actually took me out of the movie more than the CG for the animals (which I can at least defend as, well, something that is meant to be a bit off-kilter). In some ways, you could call this an extended version of say, an X-Files episode (at least it's not trying to rip off one of the lamer "mythology" ones?). It is a goofy and naive film all about getting people all tuned in on one thing, for better or worse. But even with the little quibbles*, you still have a solid movie worth looking into, one that is a finely tuned thriller in assembling its pieces where it wants to go for a film built on the milage of understanding more than anything.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Okay, with West Side Story, I just thought it sounded like a waste of time to remake a beloved movie. Especially with Ansel Elgort as the lead.

*David Wilcock is, sorry, was, a hack and should've been thrown out of serious discussion years ago. Seeing his face on a Wikipedia article and clicking it just to find a hack is actually kind of annoying. Anyways.

*I would basically call myself agnostic, mainly because it seems illogical to fully deny the divine even if I am not the kind of person interested in church. To say nothing of the cringe nature of religion/atheism in certain circles online.

*One spoiler, if you like highlighting. The abduction scene is probably so heavy-handed that of course people equate it to molestation or Mysterious Skin [2004], which involved two boys being affected by a certain event that sees them lead different lives in young adulthood, with one being into alien abductions. My take? Nah. I just don't see it. If anything, it's just an overgrown fulfillment fantasy that we see over and over with powers that just happens to involve alien rocks. Besides, it's a friggin fable, not Dateline.

1917.

Review #1585: 1917.

Cast: 

George MacKay (Lance Corporal William "Will" Schofield), Dean-Charles Chapman (Lance Corporal Thomas "Tom" Blake), Mark Strong (Captain Smith), Andrew Scott (Lieutenant Leslie), Richard Madden (Lieutenant Joseph Blake), Claire Duburcq (Lauri), Colin Firth (General Erinmore), Benedict Cumberbatch (Colonel Mackenzie), Daniel Mays (Sergeant Sanders), and Adrian Scarborough (Major Hepburn) Directed by Sam Mendes (#572 - Skyfall)

Review: 

“I wanted something that had the quality of a dream at times, but had real-life stakes. Any narrative, any fiction is a compression in time, a compression of character. You’re trying to find the tip of an iceberg. And if the tip is well done, the iceberg becomes clear. You don’t have to see it if you know it’s there.”

Most films in some form have something to do with family. Sam Mendes was inspired to do the film from stories that were told to him by his grandfather Alfred Mendes about his service in World War I. The elder Mendes was born in Trinidad in 1897, with chances of study in university being curtailed by the start of the Great War (also known as World War I). He served in the war under the 1st Battalion King's Royal Rifle Brigade and carried messages between no-man's land through the muddy trenches of war. After his war service, he wrote short stories and novels while working in provisions and civil service. His grandson Sam was the son of an author and a professor, who first developed an interest in cinema from a young age. His studies at Peterhouse, Cambridge helped him find interest in theatre as well, where he directed a number of plays at the Marlowe Society before his graduation in 1987. He soon became a director for plays in the theatre that rose in prominence over the next decade and a half before being brought in to direct his first ever film with American Beauty (1999), a tremendous success (he aspired to make films like the ones he had seen at Cambridge, such as Paris, Texas (1984), Repo Man (1984), and River's Edge (1986)). Other films (mostly successes) followed in its wake, with this being his eighth feature film (and first script written, done with Krysty Wilson-Cairns). He described his idea to do a film based on a messenger on a short time period to where he needs to go in the trenches of war that he described was "fundamentally about paralysis and stasis", one that would appear as two continuous shots (with the use of long takes). The primary stars and supporting characters are fictional, but the film's inspiration is Operation Alberich, in which Germany made their withdrawal to change their positions on the Hindenburg Line that happened in the span of a month in 1917 (as opposed to the date of April 6, 1917 that the film begins its story). 

There have been quite a number of war films over the years, with a portion of them revolving around World War I in some manner, whether that involves the silent era with The Big Parade (1925), or with sound in novel adaptations like All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) and Paths of Glory (1957) or further down the line of perspective with Gallipoli (1981). To me, the sense of urgency that comes with the film seems a bit reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan (1999, a messenger film of sorts) or perhaps a more modern example would be with Dunkirk (2017, which dealt with an escape through three storylines and minimal dialogue), and the enjoyment of the film comes from how much of its filmmaking reaches you in interest for its urgent pacing for 119 minutes. The camera almost seems like a person following these two main characters at times, as cinematographer Roger Deakins weaves together a dynamic look and execution to following along with the span of one moment in time. For better or worse, the film is more a technical achievement than an achieved war film - it is fairly entertaining, in the same way that it will generally keep you on your toes for what could come around the screen next, but it can be easy to see a small divide between viewers that find marvel with its shot structure and others who find it more distracting to the real sense of the war as a whole. Having just two main characters mixed in with a group of glorified cameos also in some ways seems to tinker with its magnitude of war. MacKay does well with a role on the routine, having to move fast with bits and pieces of useful dialogue mixed in with the sounds of war that are fine without being wooden - in other words, we can follow him fine in those long takes without constantly checking our watch. Chapman does alright as well with his time to spend on screen, as each make for a useful duo that can have small exchanges beyond just the mission, such as when they have to get through a trapped place with one blind leap. The others come and go in parts, notably with Firth as the one detailing the mission, Strong as one of the leaders in transport, and Cumberbatch as the person to focus on to end the goal, and they all do fine here (it isn't exactly a role to mug the scenery if the camera is on the move anyway). As a whole, it is generally engaging with its intent of urgent moviemaking that will likely prove fascinating for those looking to find films of its era that capture curiosity in technical terms with a good hand guiding the way to looking back to the past as a way to keep it around in the present.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

And so this ends the Tribute to the Decades project (January-October). This was the largest project that Movie Night has ever had, and it is that drive to do ten months of reviews to cover a wide range of films that led to this being the greatest year ever for writing (the previous record was 242 in 2012), and it isn't quite over yet. Plans for what happens next will be on a smaller scale (namely, not more themed months for a while), but I hope you all enjoyed this project for what it covered and what it could have covered - Thanks, folks.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle.

Review #994: Kingsman: The Golden Circle.

Cast: 
Colin Firth (Harry Hart / Galahad), Julianne Moore (Poppy Adams), Taron Egerton (Gary "Eggs)" Unwin / Galahad), Mark Strong (Merlin), Halle Berry (Ginger), Elton John (Himself), Channing Tatum (Tequila), Jeff Bridges (Champagne), Pedro Pascal (Whiskey), Edward Holcroft (Charles "Charlie" Hesketh), Hanna Alström (Crown Princess Tilde of Sweden), Poppy Delevingne (Clara Von Gluckfberg), and Bruce Greenwood (The President) Directed by Matthew Vaughn (#042 - X-Men: First Class and #993 - Kingsman: The Secret Service)

Review: 
Sequels always seem like they have to try and live up to the original film, whether by having high stakes or anteing up the action/effects. In the case of this film, there is definitely an attempt at making a bigger piece of extravagant action and violence (complete with an extended Elton John cameo), for better or for worse. It is hard to not compare this film to the first one, and in that comparison this is the weaker installment, not seeming to have much in terms of cleverness, though it does retain most of the charm and style. It doesn't play for any kind of safe territory that other spy films might pull, and it certainly is daring to see the risks that the movie takes, even if it sometimes feels a bit much. Some might term the film's tactics as "overkill", but it definitely has an appeal for someone looking for a movie that will go off the rails and yet still have enough pull from its action sequences and humor to work. If there is any kind of film that this one might remind me of, it would likely be Men in Black II (#212), or even Die Another Day (#174) - take that for what you will.

Firth and Egerton are still a fine duo, even if they don't have that same kind of chemistry as before. Moore proves to be fairly entertaining, and her plan is definitely an interesting one, but I felt that her plot thread nearly went off the rails by the time the climax ended. The Statesman crew are fairly interesting, although they do not have too much screen-time (with Tatum's role feeling like a cameo) as compared to the main Kingsman, with Pascal being the key standout, mostly because he certainly comes off as the most interesting. The rest of the cast is fairly decent, with Strong being a fine highlight. Whether one is a big Elton John fan or not (I have two songs of his in my one of my playlists), he certainly has an interesting presence over the time(s) that he appears in the movie - which can either be charming or tiresome - I found him to be fairly entertaining on the whole. The run-time may be an easy issue for some (141 minutes, as opposed to the original's 129 minute run-time), in part because it may just seem too long for a movie that seems to want to pack in every sort of action and effect it can, which can come off as a bit tedious. The film strives to entertain, and it does on some level succeed in its goal, but whether it comes at the price of competency is up to the viewer to decide. I fall around the middle, it that I know the movie is somewhat inferior to the first film, but I also know that I had a fine time watching it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Kingsman: The Secret Service.

Review #993: Kingsman: The Secret Service.

Cast: 
Colin Firth (Harry Hart / Galahad), Samuel L. Jackson (Richmond Valentine), Mark Strong (Merlin), Taron Egerton (Gary "Eggsy" Unwin), Michael Caine (Chester King / Arthur), Sophie Cookson (Roxanne "Roxy" Morton / Lancelot), Sofia Boutella (Gazelle), Samantha Womack (Michelle Unwin), Geoff Bell (Dean), Edward Holcroft (Charles "Charlie" Hesketh), Mark Hamill (Professor James Arnold), Jack Davenport (James Spencer / Lancelot), Jack Cutmore-Scott (Rufus Saville), Lily Travers (Lady Sophie), Hanna Alström (Princess Tilde), and Bjørn Floberg (Scandinavian Prime Minister) Directed by Matthew Vaughn (#042 - X-Men: First Class)

Review: 
It is evident early on to see the influence the James Bond films had in making this movie (based on the comic book series The Secret Service): specifically, the Roger Moore films. Granted, this is certainly more stylized in its action (and decidedly more violent) than those films, but this is a movie that is fairly enjoyable entertainment that will fill some people's taste significantly better than others. The best parts of the film involve either Firth and Egerton together on screen, or Jackson. The mentor-trainee aspects aren't particularly new (you could take your pick on what it reminds you, my pick would be Men in Black - #211), but they certainly are enjoyable to watch along with being capable heroes in their own right. Jackson does a capable job in part because he seems so comfortable with the role he is playing on screen, with a good sense of humor and self-awareness (which the film has a good deal of already) that is fairly entertaining; his supervillain plot is certainly an interesting one, resembling something one of the Moore Bond films would've done, reminding me a bit of Moonraker (minus the space parts, naturally) that certainly might seem a bit odd with its implications if deep thought was put into it, though what spy flick doesn't have that kind of quirk? The rest of the cast is fairly enjoyable and capable at their roles, such as Strong and Cookson, with Boutella proving to be a fairly useful (and thrilling) henchwoman.

The movie certainly has a useful sense of humor to it that hits more than it misses when required, fitting with the tone of the film for the most part. The action sequences are interesting to watch to be executed on screen, never really seeming to miss a beat nor feel too murky (with the easiest standout being at the church); the violence might prove to be a bit graphic for some, but I generally thought that it worked finely enough to the movie's advantage, for better or for worse. Ultimately, the enjoyment one gets from this movie comes from how they feel about the action and the way the movie goes about with getting to the highs (and slight lows) that it does. Take it for what it is worth, and you get a movie that has something to like (or watch) for most people, for better or for worse.

I don't usually get to say exactly what is next up on Movie Night, but here's a rare exception.
Next Review: Kingsman: The Golden Circle. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

And When Did You Last See Your Father?

Review #713: And When Did You Last See Your Father?

Cast
Jim Broadbent (Arthur Morrison), Colin Firth (Blake Morrison), Juliet Stevenson (Kim Morrison), Gina McKee (Kathy Morrison), Claire Skinner (Gillian), Sarah Lancashire (Beaty), Matthew Beard (Teenage Blake), and Elaine Cassidy (Sandra) Directed by Anand Tucker.

Review
Today is Father's Day. As such, I decided this would be fitting. I've also decided to split the review into two paragraphs, mainly to indicate two feelings of mine today. Anyway, let me get to the movie first. When it comes to 90 minute movies, the good news is that if it is bad, it ends quickly enough. However if the movie is actually pretty decent for itself, then that's just bad news, mainly because you feel disappointed that it's already over. But at least with this movie, I enjoyed the time I had with the film, mainly due to the chemistry that Broadbent and Firth have with each other. Granted, the movie has more to do with flashbacks between Broadbent and Beard's characters, but either way, I enjoy Broadbent mostly because he is really the glue that holds the movie together, and any scene with him has its share of joy but also a tinge of sadness, given the circumstances of the movie's set up, right near the end of his character's life. It's a movie that has beautiful sets and color to it, which I suppose helps make the movie easier to watch. It has its moments of emotion, and while it may seem that there isn't much of a resolution, I suppose that was the point, because ultimately life doesn't always have such endings. But oh well. Is it a perfect film? No, but at least it manages to give you a look into how lives always seem to inter wine with other lives over time, while also being engaging to watch. It's a decent movie that goes with Father's Day and seeing Broadbent and Firth shine together.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

And now, my other thoughts on the day (this is not a continuation of the review, but I wanted to include this for this occasion): I chose this movie mainly because it reminded me of my father and myself in a way. My last day with my father could be either the last time I saw him alive (just a few days before, where we didn't really have much of a conversation), or on his death day, which I would characterize as one of the days I would not wish upon anyone. My father had his secrets, which spilled onto the surface after his death, but they did not make my perception of him negative, rather they made me realize that sometimes even our idols and the people we look up to have their quirks and differences. How we deal with it is what matters. I remember how I used to (lightly) head tap my father when I was younger, and how he used to hold me up and laugh. I remember giving him a card on Father's Day mainly because when you're young, real gifts are hard to imagine both fiscally and feasibly. But he always seemed to like it. He was tempered with anger towards things in his life, and I think I inherited some of that anger towards the little things. But he always seemed to have laughter, too. He was my father, and throughout all of his flaws and quirks, I appreciated what he did for me and my mother. Lastly, I apologize if this went on too long, but I just want to say one last thing: I love you, Dad. Thank you.