Send Help.

Review #2505: Send Help.

Cast: 

Rachel McAdams (Linda Liddle), Dylan O'Brien (Bradley Preston), with Edyll Ismail (Zuri), Xavier Samuel (Donovan), Chris Pang (Chase), Dennis Haysbert (Franklin), Thaneth Warakulnukroh (Boat captain), Emma Raimi (River), and Kristy Best (Polly Perera) Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, #1495 - Darkman, #1695 - Spider-Man 2, #1779 - Spider-Man 3, #1840 - Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, #2141 - Army of Darkness)

Review: 

“[The studio] recognized what we were trying to do, and they were on board with that. Instead of taking this feathered fish and trying to cut off the feathers or trying to remove the scales, they said, ‘Yes, this is a unique thing. Changing it would not be for the better.’ Just embrace what it is. It’s just different.”

Oh hell yes, I was curious about this movie. Apparently, Sam Raimi was tapped to direct this film for a number of years after hearing a pitch from Mark Swift and Damian Shannon (who might be best known for their work on scripts such as Freddy vs. Jason [2003]). They wrote the script in 2019, and in that same year, Columbia Pictures had Raimi attached to do the project but it took several years in actually finding someone that wanted to finance it and also have it play in theaters rather than streaming (argue if you want, I applaud Raimi for his desire to do a theatrical film). It eventually found favor with 20th Century (Fox) Studios; the script was written by Mark Swift and Damian Shannon (who might be best known for their work on scripts such as Freddy vs. Jason [2003]).  And yes, this is the first Sam Raimi horror movie since Drag Me to Hell (2009)*, if you were curious.

Okay, sure, it's a "thriller" movie, but there is a body count and there are a few moments with blood and tension. It just so happens to be a movie involving radical reversal of their everyday routines that can be heaven or hell depending on how you view it. A little bit of Misery and a little bit of Cast Away (or, as others have argued, inspired in some part by Triangle of Sadness, which I never saw) goes a long way for a chippy survival film that has enjoyable bits that actually are darkly amusing. I myself wouldn't know what to do when stuck on an island (especially after being reminded yet again why I don't like the idea of flying on an airplane), so I cannot imagine being stuck with someone that actually watches Survivor (now, I could understand Big Brother, I watched that for a time...). You get your little moments of queasiness in terms of a body count, projectile vomit and more (I saw this in 3-D and yeah, I suppose it works to what you would hope for). With that in mind, McAdams is particularly entertaining because of the layers that fade in and out of that combo of awkwardness and determination. You get the best of both worlds in enjoying the character that comes through in the two environments: one that is corny but basically solitary in corporate life and one that is basically as happy as one could be in a "adapt or die" island life* that is, well, pretty likable. And then of course there is O'Brien, who manages to sell it just as well in the perils that come with being turned upside down in the totem pole of power dynamics that is just as amusing in the overgrown qualities that come with pathetic creatures that believe themselves to be better than you just because of who they were born to. To appreciate this movie is to enjoy the tension between McAdams and O'Brien in what is said and unsaid (at a certain point, any simmering might as well be in the freezer) between them, which is particularly entertaining for the climax in high-energy queasiness. As a whole, I enjoyed this movie to a pretty solid level. It is a nice movie that manages to make the 115 minute runtime roll off without one feeling helpless at what they are seeing (i.e. it feels like a complete movie to actually look at and have glee over without also wondering about the effects being distracting). It's a neat feature with a mix of squeamish and humorous moments that I would recommend without question for the level of fun to be had here.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*I really probably should've picked that movie for last November, because it was a finalist.

*A lot of this is basically code for "they put her in frumpy looking clothes before eventually revealing that when trapped in an island, yes, you would want to be there with Rachel McAdams.

Heat (1995).

Review #2491: Heat.

Cast: 

Al Pacino (LAPD Robbery Homicide Lieutenant Vincent Hanna), Robert De Niro (Neil McCauley), Val Kilmer (Chris Shiherlis), Jon Voight (Nate), Tom Sizemore (Michael Cheritto), Diane Venora (Justine Hanna), Amy Brenneman (Eady), Ashley Judd (Charlene Shiherlis), Mykelti Williamson (Sergeant Bobby Drucker), Wes Studi (Detective Sammy Casals), Ted Levine (Detective Mike Bosko), Dennis Haysbert (Don Breedan), William Fichtner (Roger Van Zant), Natalie Portman (Lauren Gustafson), Tom Noonan (Kelso), Niki Haris (Marcia Drucker), Kevin Gage (Waingro), Hank Azaria (Alan Marciano), Danny Trejo (Gilbert Trejo), Susan Traylor (Elaine Cheritto), Kim Staunton (Lillian), Henry Rollins (Hugh Benny), and Jerry Trimble (Detective Danny Schwartz) 

Written and Directed by Michael Mann (#1531 - Ali, #1631 - The Last of the Mohicans, #1713 - Manhunter, #2091 - Miami Vice, #2325 - Collateral)

Review: 

"I charted the film out like a 2 hr 45 min piece of music, so I'd know where to be smooth, where not to be smooth, where to be staccato, where to use a pulse like a heartbeat."

It helps to know the story a bit, admittedly. Once upon a time, a Chicago detective named Chuck Adamson kept tabs on the crew of one Neil McCauley, an ex-inmate of Alcatraz that one time saw the two end up meeting for a cup of coffee. Adamson later became a producer and screenwriter himself (where he co-created Crime Story, a show Mann was the executive producer on from 1986-1988). What interested him was the professionalism that Adamson respected in McCauley even with the recognized fact that one of them probably would kill the other. Mann had first written a draft in 1978 but he trimmed it down when NBC approached him to do a TV show. The result (filmed in less than a month) was L.A. Takedown (starring Scott Plank), a TV film that aired in 1989 that the network rejected because they didn't like the lead actor. But a few years later, with a few more moves under his belt, Mann set out to do the movie he wanted to do at last, complete with having Al Pacino and Robert De Niro being in the same movie (a relatively big deal for the time for a film that, well, has them meet twice) and one that was shot in Los Angeles that used nearly a hundred locations around the city for 100+ days of filming. Released on December 15, 1995, the film was a relative success with audiences (particularly abroad). Apparently, actual robbers took inspiration from the movie in later years to go along with video games such as Grand Theft Auto and directors such as Christopher Nolan.* In 2022, Heat 2, a novel written by Mann and Meg Gardiner was released that was both a prequel and sequel to the movie. A feature film adaptation is currently under development that may start filming in 2026.

What we have here is a movie full of intensity in the great game of choices, personal codes and the consequences that can have an effect on a wide range of people. It's a wonderful epic in the sprawling confines of a frontier that is intimidating as it is lonely. It's as much a neo-noir as it arguably is also a Western in its own respect, one that looks upon the nature of obsession and the sacrifices one makes to burnish that fire and live on the edge. A good chunk of the characters that we see throughout the near-three hour run time all have illusions about who they are vs. what really lies beneath the surface of their work, one in which it isn't so easy to just turn it off just because it's time to go home now, whether that involves cops that can't exactly tell their spouses about recently murdered people or men who believe themselves to be alone in their process or even those trying to dig their way out besides being an "ex-con". Simply put, the juice comes and goes but the work will be playing everywhere until the Earth is nothing but dust. Apparently, there was a scene that showed Pacino's character chip a bit of cocaine before it was cut out of the film. At any rate, high-strung user or not, I don't see anything wrong with where Pacino is going with such a fascinating role because, well, volatile is volatile (besides, "overacting" is only a bad thing when one wants to pick at things - the scene interrogating Azaria is delightful more than just "ham"). He handles it with such gusto that you understand pretty quickly how one can hate the sight of a horrible crime (dead hookers, robberies, you get it) and yet have the juice to want to crack it. Regardless of if one had a person like Venora or Portman in their orbit, there are just some people that need the chase because the pursuit of justice is just as addicting as the pursuit of a good score. De Niro matches that with his own type of worthwhile energy, a brooding man who values success at his craft because there is nothing better in his worldview even if he is confined by a code that might as well be a prison (such as how he lives or the ever-changing cars). One can only try to fool themselves with thoughts of being with Brenneman but really what matters to him is fulfilling his obligation to this mythic code of no excuses (and no second chances for violators) and trust for certain folks only. Pacino and De Niro basically are yin and yang in the knowing sense of "whatever it takes". It is just as well to see Kilmer and others fill the tapestry of obsession that wants to believe they are in control of their own lives in responsibility, whether that involves the disciplined (and still fallible as a character) Kilmer or the cut-rate Sizemore or even tragic side figures such as Haysbert that remind you that nothing is easy to escape. The robbery sequence obviously is the highlight of the film in its slam-bang execution of loud devastation that works to clockwork in seeing where one will go in realizing the full process of the job, right down to the eventual climax in wordless (but impactful for what is seen) resolution*. As a whole, Heat is a long burn not so much about a heist but about the people that toil in the work of people at a variety of angles that crisscross with each other in sacrifice and foibles to worthwhile staccato execution. It's a hell of a movie to see turn 30 years old.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

*Apparently, the way that Kilmer reloads his weapon during the famous shootout scene is apparently a thing that professionals tell others to aspire to do in real life.

*Honestly, it is a bit weird but not a dealbreaker at what happens to (the Kilmer character in how he just...escapes). 

Major League: Back to the Minors.

Review #1676: Major League: Back to the Minors.

Cast: 

Scott Bakula (Gus Cantrell), Corbin Bernsen (Roger Dorn), Dennis Haysbert (Pedro Cerrano), Takaaki Ishibashi (Taka Tanaka), Jensen Daggett (Maggie Reynolds), Eric Bruskotter (Rube Baker), Walton Goggins (Billy "Downtown" Anderson), Ted McGinley (Leonard Huff), Kenny Johnson (Lance "The Dance" Pere), Judson Mills (Hog Ellis), Lobo Sebastian (Carlos Liston), Thom Barry (Frank "Pops" Morgan), Peter Mackenzie (Carlton "Doc" Windgate), Tim and Tom DeFilippo (Juan Lopez), and Bob Uecker (Harry Doyle) Directed and Written by John Warren.

Review: 

You can tell there is probably a bit of laziness with the filmmaking with one little shot about 25 minutes before the end, where you can see the scoreboard that signifies the runs and hits in the wrong place (runs are listed in the inning portion for one team while the runs column says the game is 0-0); this also happens in the baseball game in the climax, where it lists a score of 4-2 but has two runs listed in the seventh and one in the eighth for the home team (which happens right before one sees the third run scored). Watching high school baseball a long time ago makes one appreciate the fine art of having a scoreboard operate correctly. Anyway, here is the third and final installment of the Major League films. Imagine thinking that the best things to follow up a foul-mouthed classic is two movies that all people of age would groan away at. If you didn't know already, David S. Ward (who had lived in a Cleveland suburb growing up) wanted to make a movie where he could see his beloved Cleveland Indians win (and with that in mind, he felt it would only happen in a comedy). The result was Major League (1989, #426) - a riveting classic, one that I revere as the perennial baseball movie that had a collection of name actors to go with soon-to-be familiar presences in an enjoyably predictable and raunchy time. It is actually one of the few movies I try to watch every year, preferably as baseball season is starting. The sequel (1994, #444), released five years later by Ward, was not quite as successful, likely owing to middling returns of humor that for some reason was done for a PG-audience. The co-producer of that film in James Robinson returns to produce this film, but this time around the attempts at humor try to reach a PG-13 level (Ward, who had no involvement in this movie, disowned it while trying to shuttle hopes for a true third movie, which has not gone anywhere). It is perhaps a bit baffling to see that the team of focus besides the minor leagues is the Minnesota Twins.. Welp, perhaps the state of Minnesota was more accommodating to the production or something, but I can technically say that I do think of pity when I think of sports in the state (on that matter, go Vikings), so I guess that works out, and Little Big League (1994) featured them while a child became their new owner, so technically this is a step up. This makes this the only Major League movie to actually use the right filming location for its intended team, since Milwaukee County Stadium and Oriole Park at Camden Yards doubled for Cleveland for the first and second film, respectively; one is curious about that air-supported roof of the Metrodome and its unique right-field wall that I kid you not was called "The Baggie" (besides, I cannot fault its Astroturf setup because the Astrodome would be one of the first places I could visit if I had to visit Houston). Besides, the movie can't even get the minor league aspect correctly, since the "Buzz" were actually the minor league team of the Twins...who played in Salt Lake City, not South Carolina (I suppose filming in the high elevation would have been quite a difference in contrast). I will admit that despite being a baseball nut, I really don't have many minor league team names on hand to note, except for one - my region had an independent baseball team named the Whitewings for over a decade, and my parents took me to a game when I was a young boy that resulted in a baseball I still have in my house.

I wonder if the film would have been an even bigger failure if it didn't have "Major League" slapped on (such as calling the movie Minor League). This was the work of writer/director John Warren, who apparently would not direct or write any more movies after this (the only other directing credit was for The Curse of Inferno, released in 1997). Keep in mind, nothing makes much sense in this movie. Beyond the collection of misfits that range from a ballerina-turned third baseman to a catcher that has to be told he stinks in order to be any good...a major league team plays a series of exhibition games with its minor league affiliate. Honestly, how does that work? Do the players in this mythical series get paid extra, or is it all just on the whim of their nut owner (who if you've seen these movies has somehow managed to purchase a baseball team on two separate occasions)? Is this really going to help inspire the major league team if they are playing against guys who could presumably replace them? Just how long is the major league manager for the Twins going to last at the position if he can't even beat the minor league team, especially when he apparently can just call the electricity man at the Metrodome and turn off the power in the span of a pitch being thrown? Then again, in this movie players will just come out if you call out to the sky and say you need a player right before you take a ball to the head. Five folks from the first two films return here through means that I can't really explain very well, because you have one guy who is managing a putt-putt course and a major-turned-minor league announcer. Maybe this was actually supposed to be thought of for television, because the levels of humor certainly feel that way, and it only seems to serve as the further de-evolution of a series that should have stopped when it was ahead. This isn't to say that the first movie is perfect (because it really isn't), but there is something about how it handled the clichés when it comes to the sports movie and made it a warm story that was never too crude or syrupy with characters and lines that actually could stick with you. Yes, seeing the Indians win is the end note, but it is the journey to get around with in the various little stories that encompass it that make it mean something; strangely enough, this statement might also apply in some way to another movie that received sequels with Slap Shot (1977). In short: there is no real heart to the movie. It has essentially turned into a product, one that groans and heaves towards trying to mine moments that are used for obvious gags or to remind you of something from before.

It is weird to see Bakula in this film, honestly. This isn't because of some sort of animosity towards him, because his star role in Quantum Leap (1989-1993) is a favorite of mine, but it is because half the time he really looks lost here (that, and one wonders if an imaginary friend will start to show up - incidentally, the second episode of that aforementioned show featured him playing a baseball player on the skids). Besides, the attempts to move along with the player-turned-manager plot in ways different from what one saw in the second movie might have felt more interesting with Tom Berenger. Bakula here just seems too reserved to really stick as a lead trying to shepherd this ensemble into anything. Bernsen probably has even less to do this time around when it comes to generating humor that sticks beyond sitcom stuff. Haysbert is playing for the laugh track like everyone else, and it proves just as disappointing as was the case last time, complete with him even putting a hood over his head as practice. Ishibashi is used here and there for silly gags that involve him stating dialogue that will either be translated to English, Japanese, or snarky guesses at what he is saying - the result is a performance blander than his appearance in the second one. Daggett has barely anything to do as a whole, with snippets providing no spark between her and Bakula through fault of the script and not her. Bruskotter probably play acts baseball better than he does with acting for laughs, which is technically an accomplishment. Goggins (in one of his first film roles before hitting it big with television in the 2000s) moves through the drawl of attempting confidence that sometimes can seem like a refreshing presence for a movie in need of one, but the traps of the story means that there isn't much tension to really draw interest. You might think that Bakula is the only television favorite to experience this weird feeling, but then one recognizes McGinley from Married...with Children (he also appeared in other shows, but we both know where favorites reside) shows up from time to time as the adversarial manager. He reflects the sitcom-level of filmmaking that happens here, for better or worse. The movie can't be taken seriously for a variety of reasons, but one can at least think that McGinley is at least trying to have some sort of fun with it, regardless of how goofy he seems, particularly since he is always shown with lush hair and no hat (this obviously gets used for a gag near the end, where he shakes his hair to prove it is real). Johnson and the others collect into obvious gags and quiet failure that play for the laugh track and nothing better. 100 minutes can not pass by soon enough when it comes to a limp movie filled with the bare minimum in meaningful baseball and even less in meaningful heart that prove that some movie ideas should just stay as ideas.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Mr. Peabody & Sherman.

Review #1125: Mr. Peabody & Sherman.

Cast: 
Ty Burrell (Mr. Peabody), Max Charles (Sherman), Ariel Winter (Penny Peterson), Stephen Colbert (Paul Peterson), Leslie Mann (Patty Peterson), Allison Janney (Edwina Grunion), Stephen Tobolowsky (Principal Purdy), Stanley Tucci (Leonardo da Vinci), Patrick Warburton (King Agamemnon), Zach Callison (King Tut), Dennis Haysbert (Judge), and Leila Birch (WABAC) Directed by Rob Minkoff (#073 - The Lion King and #746 - The Haunted Mansion)

Review: 
In a world where any kind of show or segment can be adapted into a show, I suppose it only makes sense that this exists. This is an adaptation of "Peabody's Improbable History", created by Ted Key that appeared as a segment on The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends from 1959 to 1960. It is also the 28th film from Dreamworks Animation, which seems to want to churn out as many products of entertainment as it pleases, which can certainly lead to some interesting things - for better or for worse. The best thing I can say about this film is that it will get the job done in terms of entertainment for its target audience, for better or worse. There is a certain charm that the movie has with its jokes, having an eccentric nature that combines with some engaging animation to carry the movie more often than not. Burrell does a fine job, being fairly clever and interesting to watch while generating a fair share of amusement. Charles does fine, having a spunky boyish nature that plays well with Burrell in the history segments, with the family segments playing off okay. Winter does okay with what she's given, but her character generally comes off as annoying and self-serving, and her chemistry with the other two is more irritating than dynamic; with her first scene (involving her calling Sherman a dog), you'd think she was actually playing an adversary. She lightens up slightly, but not entirely to make a winning trio. The only other person with significant screen-time is Janney, playing a bureaucrat that is an unwanted presence each time she pops up, not generating any sort of laughs, representing the time when the movie slows itself down to try and create conflict. There are three main timelines covered in the film, with a varying consistency that don't plod too much, with the Troy marginally being the best one with its energy, with Warburton helping out in that regard. Nothing says "history lesson" like puns and goofy portrayals of history, reminding me a bit of History of the World, Part I (1981), albeit with attempts to connect the plot together. The story, written by Craig Wright (writer for shows such Six Feet Under) is usually up to task. The time travel story does weave itself a bit complex, but it proves workable without being too cliched. However, the film's problem is its elements besides time travel. Perhaps there wasn't a way to make a film without introducing a third to go with the main duo, but then I remember that Back to the Future (1985) and the Bill and Ted films worked out just fine with weaving its time travel and humor with its duo. The whimsicalness can only go so far when the emotional arc tries to wedge itself in, for better or worse. The climax is okay, but its shoehorned parts about the nature of the duo's relationship (in an attempt to establish "heart", I suppose) border on cringing the audience. When the movie wants to have zany fun and not try to go through the motions of predictability, it is engaging and worth a fine time, making for a solidly average but serviceable movie. At 92 minutes, it won't torture its audience, working as decent fare for families and anybody looking for a decent time to travel with.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Major League II

Review #444: Major League II.

Cast
Charlie Sheen (Rick "Wild Thing" Vaughn), Tom Berenger (Jake Taylor), Corbin Bernsen (Roger Dorn), Dennis Haysbert (Pedro Cerrano), James Gammon (Lou Brown), Omar Epps (Willie Mays Hayes), Bob Uecker (Harry Doyle), David Keith (Jack Parkman), Takaaki Ishibashi (Isuro Tanaka), Margaret Whitton (Rachel Phelps), Eric Bruskotter (Rube Baker), Alison Doody (Rebecca Flannery), Michelle Burke (Nikki Reese), and Randy Quaid (Unnamed Fan) Directed by David S. Ward (#426 - Major League)

Review
Major League had its shares of laughs, and while it could've been better, it was a good comedy, arguably a classic. Five years, they made a sequel. This isn't as good. It feels like a rehash at times, and while it does have its moments, it's an okay comedy, as it eventually seems to win down in the same way the first film went, but at least this film doesn't get too sappy, which I guess helps...sort of. The film even retains the same "villain" from the first film, though I do wonder if she would've been allowed to own the team again, what with her deliberately trying to sabotage the team last season and all but oh well. The actors do fine, and Omar Epps does an okay job replacing Wesley Snipes from the last film, not too bad. It's an okay film, having some laughs, but not rising above the first film, inspiring more comparisons to the first film than praise for it. But hey, at least Cleveland got to win something, and that's always nice to see I suppose. I love the fact I've reached 444 reviews, and on my first day back at school. Countdown to 450 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Wreck-It Ralph.

Review #386: Wreck-It Ralph.

Cast
John C. Reilly (Wreck-It Ralph), Sarah Silverman (Vanellope von Schweetz), Jack McBrayer (Fix-It Felix, Jr), Jane Lynch (Jean Calhoun), Alan Tudyk (King Candy), Mindy Kaling (Taffyta Muttonfudge), Joe Lo Truglio (Markowsk), Ed O'Neill (Mr. Litwak), Dennis Haysbert (General Hologram), Adam Carolla (Wynnche), and Horatio Sanz (Duncan) Directed by Rich Moore.

Review
Wreck-It Ralph has an interesting enough premise and it uses it extremely well and has a heck of a time while doing it. The cast works out really well, especially John C. Reilly and Sarah Silverman (two actors I thought I'd never utter in the same sentence), who pair off really well. The same could also go with Jack McBrayer and Jane Lynch, which also meshes well. The animation looks great not just for looking nice but because it manages to keep focus on what it has (either its pixels or the lush animation), and it works well. It sets itself up nicely for a sequel, which I honestly hope happens. Well done...Disney.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.