Redux: Tron.

Redux #098: Tron.

Cast: 

Jeff Bridges (Kevin Flynn / Clu), Bruce Boxleitner (Alan Bradley / Tron), David Warner (Ed Dillinger / Sark / Master Control Program), Cindy Morgan (Dr. Lora Baines / Yori), Barnard Hughes (Dr. Walter Gibbs / Dumont), Dan Shor (Roy Kleinberg / Ram), and Peter Jurasik (Crom) Directed by Steven Lisberger.

Review: 

“Tron is so idealistic. It was the digital frontier and we were seeing it and exploring it for the first time. We were very, very idealistic and you can feel that when you watch ‘Tron.’”

The art of making a good film, or at the very least a memorable one, comes from how one uses their imagination and circumstances to get there. Born in New York City but raised in Hazelton, Pennsylvania, Steven Lisberger studied at Tufts University within its Fine Arts school, where he soon formed an animation studio that bore his name. Their first animation project in Cosmic Cartoon earned a Student Academy Award nomination in 1973, and the studio eventually made a handful of projects such as commercials, title sequences, and feature segments. Probably the most noted production the studio did was Animalympics, a series of two specials commissioned by NBC to pair with both the 1980 Winter and Summer Olympics (one special worked out better than the other, but the studio did cobble together a theatrical version for overseas and home video), which had a staff of animators with connections to bigger and better things (such as animator Brad Bird and art director Roger Allers) along with slight connections to Tron. Lisberger would direct two further features after the release of Tron in Hot Pursuit (1987) and Slipstream (1989), although neither approached the audience curiosity of Tron (he of course would serve as a producer on the eventual release of Tron: Legacy in 2010). Lisberger had seen the potential for computer animation with the video game Pong in the last 1970s that came from a sample reel from a computer firm, which went nicely with the creation of a backlit neon character for an advertisement for a radio station by Lisberger and company. The effects presented here feature use of computers that could only give you static images that resulted in coordinates for each image having to be entered in for each image in say, a light cycle. The movie is actually a hybrid of animation and live-action rather than just a movie of computers (there is 15-20 minutes of actual computer animation in a 96-minute movie), what with the use of hand-animation and filming certain characters with light sources to go alongside backlight and diffusion (take a look at the actual look of the suit without the glowing colors sometime) and special animation cels with Kodaliths. On a level of costumes and sound, folks were dazzled by its execution, for which the film won two Academy Awards while being shut out for effects because of a perception that the film cheated by using computers. The influence of Tron can't be understated in the four decades since its release, with John Lasseter being quoted as saying that without Tron, there would not have been Toy Story (1995).

In a summer of movies such as The Thing, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and E.T., Tron was only a mild success with audiences, making $50 million on a $17 million budget. You know, it is entirely possible that the best audience for this movie is a teenager in 1982. For one, they certainly would gawk at the dazzling spectacle that came from computers and believe it to be one of the best creations of its time in an era where Walt Disney Productions actually tried making movies with some sort of daring sensibility. Now, I imagine if you show the movie forty years later, one will try to consider the fact that spectacle goes only so far for a movie that seems to consider what would happen if your Pong console had people in it. Of course, Lisberger wrote this movie in a time when IBM was the dominant technology company to go along with being a spiritual allegory as his parents (both half-Jewish) had died when he was young. The film was written by Lisberger and Bonnie MacBird. MacBird had done multiple drafts and outlines before numerous writers ended up dabbling into the script, as she did not have involvement with the production of the movie after the script had been sold to Disney (for her part, she had written the film with Robin WIlliams in mind for the lead while having the themes of the folly of hubris to go along with the danger of going along with the status quo). So, with an interpretation of Alice in Wonderland with computers, particularly since every main actor is playing a double role, how does it hold up? Your mileage may vary, depending on one's patience. Some of the amazement I had when I first saw it a decade ago is still there, but it definitely is a movie that lives on the strength of presenting its effects and world more than any great acting or general coherence. Bridges is and always was a tremendous presence with charm to spare, which means he does just fine with the hodgepodge of whirring lights that might as well make one seem lost in the land of electronic Oz. Boxleitner and Morgan have the trouble of being key leads that are separated from Bridges for a portion of time that barely make a distinction from surface to computer characters. It is amusing that it is Boxleitner who is playing an electronic gladiator, which works out to the minimum in stirring interest; Morgan is just kind of there for the ride, with even Hughes seeming more interested in the experience of being the pseudo Wizard of Oz. Warner does pretty well in the corporate/computer stooge role because he excels in generating ooze to counteract the others playing Oz for some sort of meaningful fun. I give the effects credit for the time and effort taken to try and create a computerized world, one that seems to serve as a first step in further movies built on the steps of CG to create further inventive worlds to immerse oneself in, for better or worse. The plot is a jumble, one that tries to play parable while trying to fascinate the viewer about the world of computers in a time when a good chunk of people either didn't know how to use one or were scared by it. This results in a decent movie that happens to look prophetic in the age of computers where one can type sentences out from one's lap. In that sense, Tron is the ideal hybrid movie after four decades because of what it ventures to show within a scramble of ideas and views, living and dying on how much one cares for its execution- take that for its splash of idealism.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Titanic (1997).

Review #1515: Titanic.

Cast: 
Leonardo DiCaprio (Jack Dawson), Kate Winslet (Rose Dewitt Bukater), Billy Zane (Cal Hockley), Kathy Bates (Molly Brown), Frances Fisher (Ruth Dewitt Bukater), Gloria Stuart (Old Rose), Bill Paxton (Brock Lovett), Bernard Hill (Captain Smith), David Warner (Spicer Lovejoy), Victor Garber (Thomas Andrews), Jonathan Hyde (J. Bruce Ismay), Suzy Amis (Lizzy Calvert), Lewis Abernathy (Lewis Bodine), Nicholas Cascone (Bobby Buell), and Anatoly M. Sagalevitch (Anatoly Milkailavich) Written and Directed by James Cameron (#001 - Terminator 2: Judgement Day, #063 - The Terminator, #388 - Avatar, #574 - Aliens, and #606 - True Lies)

Review:
"People call me a perfectionist, but I'm not. I'm a rightist. I do something until it's right, and then I move on to the next thing."

Having particular interests and a particular way of wanting to do them can prove for a resilient director, and James Cameron certainly has proved one of the more memorably resilient directors in ambition. While growing up in Chippewa, Cameron had an interest in building things and in art, although he later expressed interest in doing 8mm home movies after seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). He had an interest in building and physics in his brief time in Fullerton College, but he moved on to small-time jobs such as truck driving with writing on the side. However, he decided to get himself into films because of the excitement of seeing Star Wars (1977). The following year, he raised funds to do a short film in Xenogenesis (1978). Over the next few years, he worked on a few films in effects and assistant work (such as Battle Beyond the Stars and Galaxy of Terror) before being hired to direct for the first time with Piranha II: The Spawning (1982). Although it was a flop, his next film brought him into prominence within science fiction entertainment with The Terminator (1984). Cameron has ventured beyond filmmaking in subsequent years, such as sea exploring and documentary filmmaking alongside activist work.

What can one expect from a film that is actually longer than the sinking of the ship the film is named after? Director/writer/co-producer/co-editor Cameron spent a great deal of time in research while pitching it as "Romeo & Juliet on the Titanic" to 20th Century Fox, with Cameron taking numerous diving trips with a miniature remotely operated vessels to view the wreckage of the Titanic. The film was a tremendous financial venture, with 20th Century Fox handling the international rights while Paramount Pictures handled the North America distribution for a total $200 million budget upon release...and you know the rest. What's there to say that isn't already known or stated already by someone else? It certainly handles itself well in spectacle and trappings of the period in detail. Once it gets to the wreck, you can't stop the freight train of chaos. Of course the film also quibbles itself with a mediocre love story that bloats itself in woodenness that will either inspire fluster in its audience or snickers at just being a slightly-better version of The Poseidon Adventure (1972) while somehow not being as rewarding as Cameron's previous works. One can make two billion dollars with a movie and still come out of it feeling like they only got 80 cents on the dollar, I suppose.

There proves to be an interesting mix of acting, trying their best in a period drama that also has to not become lost within effects and occasional stilted moments. DiCaprio certainly has an instinctive everyman quality to him, certainly proving idea in resonating charm out of simple things, whether that means first seeing the ship for the first time or his high society dinner act with others. Winslet proves just as resounding, wrapped with resourceful grace that makes the star-crossed romance come across without too many obstacles. They click well and likely prove enough in interest to make the inevitability all the more bittersweet to see play out in a climax effects ride. Zane proves quite enjoyable as the default adversary of the film, surprisingly enough. He is quite hammy in the right places needed when it comes to arrogance and anti-chemistry with Winslet that chews scenery quite handily, and the only quibble I have is that his fate is told to us rather than being shown, because one does need one more hammy last moments with Zane, honestly. Bates proves ready in small moments when it comes to clear-cut contrast with stuffier companions. Fisher comes and goes with inevitable parental conflict over romance that is decent for those fleeting moments needed. Stuart and Paxton bridge the beginning and end with proper fitting in clear perspectives when it comes to the ship and the story that is weaved from it.

For all the expense spared in making one feel like they really are on the Titanic, there are still little details that inevitably spring up. Was it really so hard to depict a mix of fictional and real-life characters without tarnishing reputation? What is the point of perpetuating the myth and lie that J. Bruce Ismay was a coward? While he had his part in the reduction of lifeboats on the ship (which could have had sixty but had barely a third of that), he most certainly did not force the ship to go faster. Perceptions can be everything, and press coverage of Ismay was extremely negative to the point that subsequent film adaptations (including the famed A Night to Remember (1958), which the film apparently shares a few moments of similarity with in terms of arrangement) included this in their portrayals of him (this can be said in a different light about Captain Smith in regards to how history recorded him and his actions before going down with the ship). One depiction was controversial enough to literally inspire an apology to the relatives of William Murdoch (first officer), who is depicted shooting two people before dying himself (the circumstances of his death are disputed, and his body was never found). The enjoyment comes from the obvious for me: the great and wonderfully re-created ship that makes one really experience this ship and the time that comes from it with finesse - and then of course the splitting of said ship that goes from growing waters to panicky escape attempts. This was a pure technical winner for those involved, with Academy Awards ranging from cinematography to visual effects to costume design to other awards like music (score and song) while Cameron would win three Academy Awards. Perhaps this really is just a film that people just love because they love the emotions it can inspire, particularly in crying. If one really wants to judge movies on how well they make you cry, all power to you, but crying at something isn't exactly my thing, and the idea of crying at this almost seems hysterical. To some, it is a great experience, capable of inspiring tears and quotable moments, while others might find it as pure pablum. I recognize its scope and semi-effective touch as enough to win me over on a casual level, where I may roll my eyes at some of its moments while knowing full well it still ranks as good enough to be worth it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Omen (1976).

Review #1452: The Omen.

Cast: 
Gregory Peck (Robert Thorn), Lee Remick (Katherine Thorn), David Warner (Keith Jennings), Billie Whitelaw (Mrs. Willa Baylock), Harvey Spencer Stephens (Damien Thorn), Patrick Troughton (Father Brennan), Martin Benson (Father Spiletto), Leo McKern (Carl Bugenhagen), Robert Rietti (Monk), John Stride (The Psychiatrist), and Anthony Nicholls (Dr. Fred Becker) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, #547 - Superman, #619 - Maverick, #731 - Lethal Weapon 3, and #734 - Lethal Weapon 4)

Review: 
"With The Omen, I really felt I wasn't in control. It was panic...It was constantly on my head. I was scared, and I didn't want to disappoint Alan Ladd, who had trusted me."

When you think of good horror films, what comes to your mind first? Maybe it involves something involving the possible Antichrist, or some straight-laced acting, or maybe something with occasional gore that will sneak up on you with creeping terror without being too wretchedly scary. It should only figure that its director would receive a breakthrough with making it in Richard Donner (his next feature in Superman. He had an initial interest in acting, doing a few Off-Broadway productions and bit parts before being encouraged by Martin Ritt to try his hand at directing. In the 1960s, he would cultivate a modest career of directing television with shows such as The Rifleman (1962, seven episodes), Mr. Novak (1963-64, also seven), and The Twilight Zone (1963-64, six episodes). He made his feature debut with X-15 (1961) and followed it with a few other films in Salt and Pepper (1968) and Twinky (1969). There were quite a few actors who rejected starring as the lead for this film, ranging from Charlton Heston to Dick Van Dyke (no, not joking), and William Holden (who would star in the sequel four years later), although Warner Brothers initially considered doing this film with Oliver Reed in mind before 20th Century Fox later developed interest after Donner had seen the script and convinced Fox head Alan Ladd Jr to look over the script and take it on (albeit with reduction of elements that was felt to be too obvious, like cloven hoofs). David Seltzer was behind the screenplay, which took a year to write after inspiration came to producer Harvey Bernhard from his friend Bob Munger. Donner described in an interview how he approached Peck to do the film in treating it as a "mystery suspense thriller" rather than straight horror, which convinced Peck to sign on.

The best thing that can be said about the film is that it does manage to build a sense of foreboding to make a useful experience with consistent acting, top-rate music from Jerry Goldsmith and worthwhile moments of horror terror that make a decent if not exceptional horror film for its time. I suppose it really depends on how much one knows about its threat of evil (or at least the possibility of it, since this is a child we are talking about) when it comes to stoking true tension without waiting for the inevitable. I do wonder how this might compare to Rosemary's Baby (1968), which dealt with the possibility of a newborn being the spawn of a jackal to be used by cultists (or at least that's what I read from browsing). The film builds itself on carrying itself calmly to where you will presumably will let your guard down when something scary could befall someone in connecting the dots to the idea that yes indeed there is something wrong with this dark-haired little gremlin child, as if one might actually believe that we are going to be faked out at the last minute. It just depends on what seems the most interesting in whether the parts with the family seem more involving than the hunt for clues for evil, where one can either spend time with Peck and Remick, or see Peck and Warner. Peck is interesting, in the sense that he is taking things with a good grain of salt that doesn't crush the film's credibility nor make things a bore. Remick does fine, albeit with slightly less to do when comparing the first and second halves (though the zoo sequence is pretty amusing). Whitelaw makes a fair adversarial presence to nurture Stephens (who when prompted to go at Donner during the auditions like the others apparently screamed and clawed at him) to the other side without too much silliness. Warner follows along with quiet foreboding. Really though the most interesting small presence is Troughton (best known for his television work in programs such as Doctor Who), who is quite interesting in generating furor in small doses (before having to run away from foreboding weather, of course). This is a film caught between two worlds: On the one hand, it is a dignified kind of film that has plenty of production value to elevate what could've been very hokey in schlockier hands. On the other hand, it is the kind of film that runs for 111 minutes with a concept of horror rather than a true finish, where it only just works as a thriller if you aren't already incredibly familiar with what it is trying to sell you about a main threat of a five year old who could be the Antichrist (insert jokes about him coming to power in politics here). The ending is downbeat enough to make the idea potentially spring further into something more concrete (for which two sequels and an apparent line-by-line remake followed), and on the whole this makes for satisfactory entertainment worth a curious look.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Planet of the Apes (2001).

Review #969: Planet of the Apes.

Cast: 
Mark Wahlberg (Captain Leo Davidson), Tim Roth (General Thade), Helena Bonham Carter (Ari), Michael Clarke Duncan (Attar), Paul Giamatti (Limbo), Estella Warren (Daena), Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa (General Krull), David Warner (Senator Sandar), Kris Kristofferson (Karubi), and Erick Avari (Tival) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride, and #316 - Batman Returns)

Review: 
On the cusp of a new film from the Planet of the Apes franchise (of which I've covered three of them: #347 - Planet of the Apes (1968), #615 - Rise of the Planet of the Apes, #662 - Beneath the Planet of the Apes) , I figured that it made sense to cover the 2001 film of the same name that was a remake and an attempt to start the franchise up again; I remember my dad watching this on DVD one quite a bit when I was growing up, and the only part I remember vividly was the ending, so perhaps that colors my thoughts on the movie (although it is the probably the only part of the film anyone remembers). Not only does it try to be based of the 1968 film, it also is based off the novel La Planète des Singes (known in English as Planet of the Apes) by Pierre Boulle. So how does this "reimaging" do?

How is it a movie with a good deal of production value like this manage to feel so shallow? What is it about this movie that springs an energy of mild but not quite there sense of entertainment? How is this not as good as the original? Unlike the ending, these are questions that the movie can provide answers for. The easiest way to say why the movie isn't particularly exciting is the fact that the story and some of the acting seem hollowed out and not as appealing as in the original 1968 film. Wahlberg doesn't do a terrible performance, but he also never really springs much enthusiasm as a lead hero; even a scene where he laments the loss of a crew looking for him doesn't have much emotion to it. It's not that he is inherently unlikable, it's just that he also isn't inherently one to really root for. Not to compare it with the original too much, but Heston's character was someone the audience could go for and want to see succeed, and he actually viewed the environment he landed in with a better sense of shock, as opposed to Wahlberg's space jockey attitude. Technically he has two love interests in the film, though neither have particularly good chemistry with him and it predictably goes nowhere. Roth steals the show with his militaristic, scenery chewing performance that gives the film a bit of life, even if his fate is somewhat of a letdown. Bonham Carter is fairly decent, but she doesn't really give too much depth or life to the character that one probably would've wanted from the role. Clarke Duncan and Hiroyuki Tagawa are fairly decent standouts as well; Warren doesn't really have too much expression nor impact, and Giamatti does fine in a smarmy role that probably had more screen-time than it probably should've had. Charlton Heston has an uncredited cameo appearance, having a somewhat pivotal role that is interesting in the one scene he appears in. The prosthetic makeup by Rick Baker is commendable and quite an upgrade from the original, with this likely being the only shining achievement in the movie. The plot is a bit muddled, and with no real character to go for and care about, there isn't much to want to watch happen. It's watchable as an action flick, but not so much as a science fiction movie. Burton does direct the movie fine enough, with the movie looking pretty decent, but the way that the movie operates with its characters sinks its hopes.

And of course there's the ending. To some, the ending could be viewed as a reasonable way to end the movie and leave the possibility of doing a sequel (as Burton has stated), or it could be viewed as one that doesn't make much sense. It's interesting, considering the ending falls in line with the novel that it is based off of. For me, it was weird watching the movie in full and then getting to the ending and finding myself giggling at it. Who knows how Thade beat Leo to Earth? Who can care to speculate about what the ending is supposed to mean? After all, this is a movie that never really kicks into full gear, with the ending that is like the movie: mild, without much substance. It's not awful, but it also doesn't feel entirely necessary either.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: Secret of the Ooze.

Review #439: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze.

Cast
Brian Tochi (Leonardo), Robbie Rist (Michelangelo), Adam Carl (Donatello), Laurie Faso (Raphael), Kevin Clash (Splinter), Paige Turco (April O'Neil), David McCharen (Shredder), David Warner (Jordan Perry), Ernie Reyes Jr (Keno), and Frank Welker (Voices of Tokka and Rahzar) Directed by Michael Pressman.

Review
Almost 400 reviews ago, I reviewed the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film, and I liked it, it was fun to watch, it had good action, and it aimed for a specific goal of entertainment succeeded. The second aims a bit lower, with more silliness and puns. And...it isn't half bad. While not as good as the first, the second film doesn't veer off completely off the deep end, though crashing into a rap concert by Vanilla Ice comes extremely close to the deep end. The actors are fine, not too shabby. Shredder with Bebop and- I mean Tokka and Rahzar are okay, and while the action is injected with silliness, it manages to at least have some entertainment, not as much as the first, but just enough for some, I suppose.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.

Review #225: Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.

Cast
William Shatner (James T. Kirk), Leonard Nimoy (Spock), DeForrest Kelley (Leonard McCoy), James Doohan (Montgomery Scott), Walter Koenig (Pavel Chekov), Nichelle Nichols (Nyota Uhura), George Takei (Hikaru Sulu), Laurence Luckinbill (Sybok), and David Warner (St. John Talbot) Directed by William Shatner.

Review
Well, well, well. It's been a while since I have reviewed a Star Trek film. A really long while (#9 - Star Trek) Anyway, this is the fifth out of six Star Trek films based on the original series created by Gene Roddenberry (One thing I neglected to mention in the Star Trek review) You might wonder how I found the film. I'm channel surfing at night, and I just so happen to find this film, and I figured, "What could go wrong?" I realized soon after that I might just regret it. Guess who's writing and directing? Shatner, who else? The whole film is a mess, from beginning to end. Its story is lame (Premise in one line: Trying to find "God" at the center of the galaxy), the villain isn't as much a villain as in Vulcan Elvis, and is a disappointment overall. Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley are a good trio, though, and they do have some fun moments, but at other times the film fizzles out. The effects are off at times, especially with the "Impenetrable Barrier" Shatner said this near the film's release, "Star Trek V is the epitome of my career, my experiences, my hopes and dreams. It is the quintessential me" After 23 years, it does represent the feelings I have: Shattered hopes, dull dreams, and reeking of Shatner all over. This nearly killed the franchise, which would have a sequel two years later to hopefully heal the wounds....

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: A Christmas Carol (1984)

Review #079: A Christmas Carol.

Cast
George C. Scott (Ebenezer Scrooge), Frank Finlay (Marley's Ghost), Angela Pleasence (Ghost of Christmas Past), Edward Woodward (Ghost of Christmas Present), Michael Carter (Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come), and David Warner (Bob Cratchit) Directed by Clive Donner.

Review
This film is a classic of the Christmas season, as this version is considered the best version of A Christmas Carol by many. I can not argue that, really. Scott delivers Scrooge in such a good way, with the skills he has done in other films of his (Patton being one example), the atmosphere and pace are good, with everything fitting in well to the story. Donner does a good job directing, and he has some experience with A Christmas Carol adaptations before, as he was also the editor in (#076) Scrooge, which is also a good flick. All in all, A Christmas Carol (1984) is truly a Christmas classic and one of the best Carol films I've seen. Merry Christmas.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.