The Italian Job (2003)

Review #2222: The Italian Job (2003)

Cast: 
Mark Wahlberg (Charlie Croker), Charlize Theron (Stella Bridger), Edward Norton (Steve Frazelli), Donald Sutherland (John Bridger), Jason Statham (Handsome Rob), Seth Green (Lyle), Mos Def (Gilligan "Left Ear"), Franky G (Wrench), Boris Lee Krutonog (Yevhen), and Aleksander Krupa (Mashkov) Directed by F. Gary Gray (#517 - Be Cool and #1806 - Friday)

Review: 

"The first line of my creative mission statement was the characters are first and everything else is second."

Nothing is immune to having a "remake" or re-whatever you want to call it. This is one that is apparently just "inspired" by it that naturally came out over three decades later. Well, if you can remake The Thomas Crown Affair (1968) and Ocean's 11 (1960- actually I take that back, that remake was better)...Apparently, the original writers brought up to try and do a script were Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (best known as the writers of the James Bond films from The World is Not Enough [1999] to No Time to Die [2021]). Apparently, it was a pretty faithful pitch to the original, but it was rejected. As such, Donna Powers and Wayne Powers (who had a bit of TV experience and also co-wrote the films Deep Blue Sea and Valentine to their, uh, credit) were then hired to come up with a script, which they did over the course of several drafts and exactly one viewing of the original film to get a sense of the tone. This was the fifth feature film for Gray, previously known for Friday (1995) and The Negotiator (1998). It is strange how worthy a movie can be in neat average qualities when having the weight of being called "The Italian Job" under it. It is a fairly made homage movie that strangely manages to reflect the defining qualities that defined the original in its own way: pretty sleek maneuvering for its climax (which it shares with the original), a distinct supporting cast, and a pretty standard lead presence. It takes a few elements of the original, namely in stealing some gold with Minis and having characters named "Croker" and "Bridger" and that's about it (well, there is a heist shown in the intro that takes place in Italy - Venice, to be exact).

It is a decent movie really, but you've probably seen plenty of these caper films to know where they are mostly going (, particularly since it ends up being longer than the original at 111 minutes. It has a collection of seasoned performances for an action film that plays by its rules of having its own mark as a film named "Italian Job" (as mostly set in Los Angeles) made in the era where one has fun trying to figure out what a special effect looks like (or stunt work, in other cases) rather than calling it blobby filler. At least Wahlberg has an equal when it comes to middling charisma in Norton, who nearly phones it in the whole way with the energy of someone literally forced to be cast in this film, although at least with Norton there is the idea of an adversarial weirdo. I wonder just how good Wahlberg was in Boogie Nights, because every other performance I've ever seen of him seems to remind me of an old B-movie (which, hey, those are respected, unless it is the Planet of the Apes remake). In other words: the people around Wahlberg are more interesting, whether that involves an old pro like Sutherland all the way down to comedy relief such as Green (as nicknamed "Napster", which by this time was already in the "revamp" stage of decayed names) or an effective Theron and Statham when it comes to credibility. The film is lightly funny, probably not as much as the original when it comes to that spry buildup, but it is solidly credible in every category anyway that it doesn't particularly matter. The eventual chase sequence is pretty well handled, all things considered, managing to utilize the city streets (to go with tunnels and a helicopter) to worthwhile execution that doesn't leave one with a sinking feeling of misplaced interest. In the end, being a notch below the original is a compliment here for a movie that is generally entertaining in the aspects that matter most when it comes to useful action and the charm to make it bounce for the right angle needed.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Hunger Games.

Review #2170: The Hunger Games.

Cast: 

Jennifer Lawrence (Katniss Everdeen), Josh Hutcherson (Peeta Mellark), Liam Hemsworth (Gale Hawthorne), Woody Harrelson (Haymitch Abernathy), Elizabeth Banks (Effie Trinket), Lenny Kravitz (Cinna), Stanley Tucci (Caesar Flickerman), Donald Sutherland (President Coriolanus Snow), Wes Bentley (Seneca Crane), Toby Jones (Claudius Templesmith), Alexander Ludwig (Cato), Isabelle Fuhrman (Clove), Amandla Stenberg (Rue), and Jacqueline Emerson (Foxface) Directed by Gary Ross.

Review: 

"There were so many conversations with Suzanne that it’s hard to narrow down to a single thing. One thing I found fascinating was how steeped she was in Roman history and how much of this came from the Roman arena and how she was informed by that. She was exploring how a culture devolves into spectacle and Rome was her starting point. I found that really interesting."

Sure, franchises do leave a tight space for directors to make their presence known. But some are different from others, as with the case for the first film of what became a four-film franchise, with this first one being directed by Gary Ross. Ross had studied at Penn University with a major in English, where he became active in student theater. He was interested in writing as a career for a long time, but he became interested in being a director during this time, which included dropping out of Penn after three years in 1977. He soon became a consultant with speechwriting in two different presidential campaigns. In 1988, he and Anne Spielberg (his neighbor) wrote the screenplay for what became Big, which resulted in an Academy Award nomination. His first script as a primary writer was Dave in 1993 (which resulted in a second Oscar nomination). A couple of script collaborations later, his first film as a director was Pleasantville in 1998, which was followed by Seabiscuit (2003). Ross was attracted to the idea of doing a film of the Hunger Games book because his children liked it, which led him to read it quickly. Ross ended up not doing any of the subsequent Hunger Games films (released in 2013, 2014, 2015) due to the tough schedule that resulted in directing and writing, with him doing the latter with Suzanne Collins and Billy Ray; Francis Lawrence did the latter three films.

I do remember reading the trilogy of books (released in 2008, 2009, and 2010) when I was in 8th/9th grade, but for whatever reason, it never really dawned on me to actually see the films, even as a teenager. I do vaguely remember the first-person perspective of the books from its lead character of Katniss, even if the gore of that first book is toned down here to fit a PG-13 rating (remember that 24 teenagers walk in only to see all but the "lucky" get mowed down). Televised games of people kicking ass is as old as The Running Man, or Battle Royale, or wrestling, complete with narratives to go with the whole thing. The procession of 142 minutes makes for a decent if not somewhat lengthy experience in trying to stand out as a potential "franchise for the youths". The result is fine, but I find myself wondering if there is something lacking in a film that maneuvers a majority of the beats required in action and decadence. It shakes (literally) and moves on the strength of Lawrence. Only the best can make such a selfless action hero that was once described as a "futuristic Theseus" work the way she does in worthy timing. You can see the ideas of hope in this one person that is driven to survive not just for themselves but for others (such as the similar dynamics that come between Katniss / her sister and Katniss / Rue). That realization of hero-to-symbol is especially helped when seeing her with Hutcherson that eventually serves as more than just theatrics. One does see the cynical heart within Harrelson, even if it begs for more guilt than on the side, at least when compared to the plastic pomp of Banks or that soothing sinister nature of Sutherland that lurks in moments (apparently, he wrote a letter when expressing interest to be in the film) or the theatricality that comes with Tucci in doses. I'm not sure exactly how, but there is something lacking in the dreariness of the spectacle that hinders it from being more than just efficient. It isn't like the film bugs me on a "shaky cam" level or with its effects, that much is true. It yearns to be a striking film with the idea that people are watching youths killing each other for sport, but it only scratches the surface of that shock and awe. In short, it is efficient entertainment that sets a stage for looking further for what could lurk further within this rendition of bread and circuses when routine is thrown for a shock.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up, wait, don't laugh: Michael Moore's Canadian Bacon.

Cold Mountain.

Review #1536: Cold Mountain.

Cast: 
Jude Law (William "W. P." Inman), Nicole Kidman (Ada Monroe), Renée Zellweger (Ruby Thewes), Eileen Atkins (Maddy), Brendan Gleeson (Stobrod Thewes), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Reverend Solomon Veasey), Natalie Portman (Sara), Giovanni Ribisi (Junior), Donald Sutherland (Reverend Monroe), Ray Winstone (Teague), Kathy Baker (Sally Swanger), James Gammon (Esco Swanger), Charlie Hunnam (Bosie), Jack White (Georgia), and Ethan Suplee (Pangle) Written and Directed by Anthony Minghella.

Review: 
"I had never thought of myself as a director and found out that I was not. I am a writer who was able to direct the films that I write."

Writers matter to a good film, particularly ones that happen to direct it as well. Minghella had aspirations of playing music prior to going to the University of Hull, playing in a couple of bands at keyboard that credited writing songs as a precursor to writing plays (once stating that he saw his early plays as "being a format for music"). His first film came at the age of 24 that was filmed in his native Isle of Wight in under three weeks with A Little Like Drowning (1978). His studies in drama led to graduation from there before attempting to study for a doctoral thesis (with his big influence as a writer being Samuel Beckett) alongside lecturing at the school for a few years. He moved himself to writing for television for the BBC and ITV alongside doing his own plays and adaptations by the 1980s, which did receive notice, although it was Truly, Madly, Deeply (1990) that proved important, since it went from being made initially for television to being given a theatrical release that resulted in praise. His time spent adapting The English Patient to film in 1996 resulted in tremendous audience and critical favor. Before his untimely death in 2008, Minghella directed seven features while also serving as producer for several other films and doing work on the board for the British Film Institute.

This was Minghella's sixth feature film, and it is an adaptation of the 1997 novel of the same name by Charles Frazier, who loosely based it off the service of William P. Inman, a member of the 25th Infantry Regiment in North Carolina that Frazier has stated is his great-grand uncle. There have been quite a few war romance films that try to carry a torrid romance into an odyssey where the time spent together is just more lasting than the segments involving war (with the despair of said war being right there as well). This is basically right in the middle of quality in terms of epics, handling itself well in style and occasional moments of inspiration that cloud over its expected glacial pace and decent splitting of narratives that is best suited for seeing its supporting characters from time to time in the fields of North Carolina (or more specifically, Romania) for 154 minutes. I wish I liked the film enough to really call it good, but I at least get why it could prove more satisfying for those who seek it out. Law does just fine with a capable element of conviction in keeping level with evoking some level of quiet range that handles courtship and war just fine. Kidman, handling the other storyline of a film that needs to handle yearning alongside farm trouble, does just alright in tender care for drama that basically works out decent chemistry with Law in that we do generally await to see what happens next. Zellweger however proves the most interesting in generating a resourceful performance that shows some humor alongside resilience despite only showing up in the movie an hour into obviously dire proceedings. Gleeson provides a warm presence to otherwise dour times, while Hoffman and Portman make momentary appearances and do fine with they need to run with, while others such as Winstone seem really lacking in time needed. Honestly, while I do note the fact that there are quite a few films that can utilize two-and-a-half-hours for well effect and the fair performances here, I just only see a decent movie that seems a bit cold to me in being anything other than just careful in treading the waters of what you might already know about brutal wars and romances that are just too much for anyone to stay put and so on and so forth. It reminds me of what a good copy of a lost painting done from fairly accurate recollection - on the surface it looks nice and could probably pass for a classic, but if you look at it a little bit more you just might see it as just fine. In any case, it sweeps the board with fair flourish that will entertain those looking for what it yearns to show in passion and style that will win admirers in the art of patience or for its particular brand of telling said story more than those who don't find it as well-meaning.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

M*A*S*H.

Review #1433: M*A*S*H.

Cast: 
Donald Sutherland (Hawkeye Pierce), Elliott Gould (Trapper John McIntyre), Tom Skerritt (Duke Forrest), Sally Kellerman (Maj. Margaret 'Hot Lips' O'Houlihan), Robert Duvall (Maj. Frank Burns), Roger Bowen (Lt. Col. Henry Blake), Rene Auberjonois (Father John Mulcahy), David Arkin (Sgt. Major Vollmer), Jo Ann Pflug (Lt. 'Dish'), John Schuck (Walter "The Painless Pole" Waldowski) Gary Burghoff (Cpl. 'Radar' O'Reilly), and Fred Williamson (Dr. Oliver "Spearchucker" Jones) Directed by Robert Altman (#900 - Nashville)

Review: 
"I equate this work more with painting than with theater or literature. Stories don't interest me. Basically, I'm more interested in behavior. I don't direct, I watch. I have to be thrilled if I expect the audience to be thrilled. Because what I really want to see from an actor is something I've never seen before, so I can't tell them what it is. I try to encourage actors not to take turns. To deal with conversation as conversation. I mean, that's what the job is, I think. It's to make a comfort area so that an actor can go beyond what he thought he could do."

The 1970s were an interesting time try and push the envelope with films, so it only makes sense to cover one that its director described one that didn't get released but instead escaped. Robert Altman was the right man at the right time to have a breakthrough through directing a film as transgressive as this one. Altman had a long and strange path to this film, with his first writing credit being a co-story effort on Bodyguard (1948). In the next few years, he would direct industrial films for the Calvin Company in his native Kansas City before getting a chance to direct with The Delinquents (1957), an independent hit. It led to Altman having plenty of chances to direct for television, which he would do for over a decade that helped him hone his craft in making things on budget. Altman returned to feature directing with Countdown (1968) and That Cold Day in the Park (1969), although neither had been particularly successful. When it came time to do a film version of MASH: A Novel About Three Army Doctors, several directors rejected the chance, but Altman was the one who ultimately agreed to do it. The 1968 novel had been written by Richard Hooker [Hiester Richard Hornberger Jr], who had served in the Korean War for the 8055 Mobile Army Surgical Hospital that was based on his dramatic and comedic experiences there. The film's success would inspire a broadly popular television series two years later that would match the success of this film. Ironically enough, Altman was not fond of the book or the show, describing the book as "just terrible" and the series as an "antithesis of what we were trying to do", while Hooker also disliked the show. To add on to this, screenwriter Ring Lardner Jr, who had disowned the film for its deviation from his script, would win an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay. Altman, knowing that 20th Century Fox was focusing their attention on their bigger budgeted war films (Patton and Tora! Tora! Tora!), aspired to make his film under budget and without too much trouble so he could sneak through without too much interference from the studio.

The film has quirks to it that would become trademarks of Altman's films over the following three decades, such as overlapping dialogue, an ensemble cast, and improvised performances, which ultimately prove forthright in making a chaotic and irreverent classic. There is a mix of familiar and new actors present, such as Sutherland (who would have a breakthrough in his career starting with films such as these), Gould (who rose to prominence in his previous role in Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice), and Duvall (man of stage, television and occasional film who would become a bigger presence in this decade), while others were fairly fresh in film, such as Skerritt and Kellerman (both having breakthroughs after plenty of prior television work), or Bowen, Auberjonois and others (such as Bud Cort) making their first appearances in film. Each of these actors have their part to play in making this satire come alive with plenty to say and do, most of which resulting in an effective dark comedy. Sutherland does well with such mischief that is balanced from the seriousness of the horrors of war on the operating table that makes for inspired anarchy with his counterpart in Gould, who never seem to be out of step with each other in driving humor through situations without needing to hit one over the head too many times. Skerritt accompanies the action at times with steady timing, while Kellerman and Duvall both make for formidable balances (and targets) of authority to poke around with (although admittedly the film is much rougher on the former in terms of crudeness of jokes). Bowen and Auberjonois step in at times to round out the cast with straight-laced dignity (or at the very least the appearance of it), while others do fine with brief moments (such as a quietly sardonic Burghoff). On the whole, this is a fine film wrapped in cynicism, right down to the title song "Suicide is Painless" from Johnny Mandel and Mike Altman (Robert's 14-year old son), which was mandated by the elder Altman to be "the stupidest song ever written." The film packs a caustic punch for 116 minutes involving the nature of war and the people who have to make the most of it in their own way. It manages to pull through without too many crude stumbles after a half century because of a game cast and capable direction from Altman in making an apt film to mark the beginning of a new decade and new perspective for film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Dr. Terror's House of Horrors.

Review #1419: Dr. Terror's House of Horrors.

Cast: 
Peter Cushing (Dr. Schreck)

"Werewolf" segment": Neil McCallum (Jim Dawson, Ursula Howells (Mrs. Deirdre Biddulph), Peter Madden (Caleb), Katy Wild (Valda), and Edward Underdown (Tod) 

"Creeping Vine" segment: Ann Bell (Ann Rogers), Bernard Lee (Hopkins), Alan Freeman (Bill Rogers), Jeremy Kemp (Jerry Drake), and Sarah Nicholls (Carol Rogers)

"Voodoo" segment: Roy Castle (Biff Bailey), Kenny Lynch (Sammy Coin), Harold Lang (Roy Shine), Christopher Carlos (Vrim), and Thomas Baptiste (Dambala)

"Disembodied Hand" segment: Christopher Lee (Franklyn Marsh), Michael Gough (Eric Landor), Isla Blair (Pretty girl), Judy Cornwell (Nurse), and Hedger Wallace (Surgeon)

"Vampire" segment: Donald Sutherland (Dr. Bob Carroll), Max Adrian (Dr. Blake), Jennifer Jayne (Nicolle Carroll), and Al Mulock (Detective)

Directed by Freddie Francis (#854 - They Came from Beyond Space, #856 - The Evil of Frankenstein, #860 - Dracula Has Risen from the Grave, #1145 - Tales from the Crypt)

Review: 
"As far back as I can ever remember, without really knowing it I wanted to be an actor. I was always dressing up, you know, playing pretend, putting on mothers hats and things. I'm sure Freud would have something to say about that. It was very much in my blood."

"Making films has never just been a job to me, it is my life. I have some interests outside of acting - I sing and I've written books, for instance - but acting is what keeps me going, it's what I do, it gives life purpose."

Horror, particularly horror in a decade of expanding tastes like the 1960s, can come in any kind of package. Anthology is a particular interesting manner in telling stories revolving around something creepy that can be linked together by either a theme, a character or a framing device. There have been plenty of anthology films in numerous genres, but one key anthology film that helped inspire this was Dead of Night (1945), a British production that producer Milton Subotsky liked enough to feel inspired to do his own multi-story film. He had started his work in television, but soon moved to films such as Rock, Rock, Rock (1956) and The City of the Dead (1960), which he produced with Max Rosenberg. In 1962, they would form Amicus Productions, a British company led by the American producers and writer that lasted until 1977. They specialized primarily in horror over the years that would have a share of name actors alongside young and old actors in the cast, particularly when it came to their anthologies. This was the first of seven anthology films they would do over a span of nine years, with those including Torture Garden (1967), The House That Dripped Blood (1970), Asylum (1972), Tales from the Crypt (1972), The Vault of Horror (1973) and From Beyond the Grave (1974). This was filmed in a span of less than three months from Freddie Francis, who had a career of over four decades in both directing and cinematographer that was known for his work on British horror films while winning two Academy Awards for the latter.

Honestly, the parts that are really interesting are the scenes inside the train with Cushing and the main five, since he tries on a beard and an German accent that stand out from the curious others. This isn't surprising to me at this point, because he had a perfectionist and dignified attitude that served him well in six decades of film, stage, television and radio, treating every role with seriousness that he felt his audience would like. One can have a soft spot for British horror when it is done right and Cushing always seems to end up fitting in to most of the right ones. Accompanying him is fellow British actor and friend Lee, who had a career just as versatile and long (nearly seven decades! This includes a singing career before turning 90!) with a distinctive voice that for a change is not playing someone villainous but merely just pompous, which he breezes by without trouble. McCallum and Freeman aren't exactly as well-known in presence (the former being an actor of stage and television and the latter being a disc jockey and radio personality), but they are least serviceable to starting the film with decent leads in their respective stories. Castle, a dancer/singer/comedian comes off with the lesser of the five stories and suffers for it. Sutherland, a Canadian actor doing British roles in film and TV before hitting it big later in this decade, makes for a composed turn in his third career role, fresh in looking for more beyond horror fare.

The segments each have a focus on something you've likely seen in a horror film before, whether that means a supernatural beast or a killer plant/hand or voodoo, and they generally range from average to slightly above average. In this sense, the Lee story involving a hand that follows him around is my personal favorite of the bunch, since it also features Gough for a time (making fun of an art critic, no less) in a segment that has a silly looking effect but enjoyment value regardless. I would say that the werewolf story is a notch below that, having a bit of interest in its coffin hidden in a fake wall that leads to a somewhat played out ending. The vine story also has a silly-looking effect, particularly since it doesn't have much of an ending (regardless of the resolution for the film, which is just as odd), although at least it is nice to see Bernard Lee play his type of authority role and utilize a pipe for safety. The vampire tale is fair, although it probably suffers from having a small time to build a story from the most, complete with the final twist in the knife with its last line (as is the case with the wolf and hand story). The voodoo is the lesser of all the tales (although none are actually terrible), mostly because of how hokey it is in generating actual suspense (copying a tune and getting followed for it, what a twist), but at least none of these tales manage to bore the senses or hold for too long. In the long run, this is a fair package of horror that utilizes its familiar trappings of its genre and stars to useful effect, and it is a serviceable film for its era to pick up on a day for curiosity.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Ad Astra.

Review #1277: Ad Astra.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (Major Roy McBride), Tommy Lee Jones (H. Clifford McBride), Ruth Negga (Helen Lantos), Liv Tyler (Eve McBride), Donald Sutherland (Colonel Pruitt), John Ortiz (General Rivas), Greg Bryk (Chip Garnes), Loren Dean (Donald Stanford), John Finn (General Stroud), and Kimberly Elise (Lorraine Deavers) Directed by James Gray.

Review: 
Admittedly, the interest for this film was fairly mild, with tinges of interest revolving around the approach of making a hostile space sci-fi movie, which one could probably see resembling Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. If the film is at least halfway accurate to reality with regards to space, that also helps too. Really though, one film I did see some parallels with was First Man (2018) with its focus on a closed off astronaut who holds in his fear for an important mission. Then again, that film didn't have a lead that voiced over several parts of the film, wonderful shots of other planets, killer baboons, or moon pirates. Really, with all that in mind, this likely could have been one of the most interesting space adventure films to come out in the past few years (this said for someone who hadn't encountered Interstellar first). It sure turned out to be an unbelievable movie - one that is so unbelievably average to the point of frustration. This feels like a film that needed another re-draft (for a film co-written by its director alongside Ethan Gross), and this is for something that reportedly had re-shoots that drove its budget higher than the initial $80 million - but does one need to know the budget to care about a movie? No, but it sure helps to make a movie that looks good and entertains just as well too.

There are highlights to be found here, such as the opening sequence involving a free fall to Earth. It is quite mesmerizing, seeing someone fall and fall to the Earth, even if you know that they will come out of it in at least one piece. The lunar rover scene with pirates on the Moon (or in other words, star pirates) is pretty captivating, interesting to view through the lens of space. The film also does have plenty of wonderful shots of other worlds, including when it finally encounters Neptune and its lovely rings. It just so happens that the film nearly collapses with the parts besides the ones I just mentioned. The loneliness of space sure seems like an interesting concept to go with, a better concept would be to make one that has two consistent halves to it. It does roll just fine for its first half in setting up its one useful lead and getting to Mars, but it sure does seem to seem less steady after that point. The baboon fight beforehand should've proved a worry already, but it barely even inspires a concern that our hero (I guess) will come out of it alive. By the time the film trudges to its climax, its attempts at inspiring some sort of spark of hope through an undeniably bleak and cynical foundation comes off as an utter joke. This is a film that makes cracks at having restaurants on the Moon with pricey blankets for the flight over there. It also seems to have shock for its main character that he won't get to go from Mars to Neptune to actually confront his kooky father (take your pick on how he reacts to that). Pick one tone and stick with it, especially since it probably could have just shown some actual moments around the locations it wants to go. But no, one really needs to see the plight of the sad lone space man again and again. The benefit is that a less competent director might have made these seem downright maudlin as opposed to mildly sobering. You know what did better as a one-man space film? Moon (2009), which actually knew where to go with its main character and his own crisis within the human element for a sci-fi film.

Nobody delivers a terrible performance, but they sure look constrained by what the script requires, especially a criminally wasted Jones. His scraggly beard and weary nature beg for more to do than this. Oh sure, Pitt looks to be gnawing at the idea of a literal one-man show where you can see his stoic nature to space travel and accompanying voiceover over being alone just fine. One can only take so much before wanting to just find something else to view alongside him, especially since nearly every other character is hopelessly incompetent or a shadow. Jones may be wasted, but Tyler and Sutherland make their own captivating contention for being underused. You could take Tyler out of the film and barely anything would feel different. Sutherland only seems to be there just to spew plot points before his 20 minutes are up. Maybe I am being a bit too harsh on these folks, or perhaps this is exactly the kind of film that deserves better and should do better. Mediocre movies can be tiresome, high-priced ones that can't live up to their own premise without nearly poisoning its own foundations with a big d'oh are especially tiresome. On the whole, Ad Astra does deliver on some of its promises when it comes to spectacle and a decent one-man show from Pitt. It proceeds to bewilder and frustrate for two hours by being as ridiculously self-serious as it wants with such amusement that it almost becomes parody. Perhaps a re-watch could give a bit of clarity and understanding to what makes this film tick, but one could just re-watch other better sci-fi films of its ilk instead. On a ranking scale, it would get a C, but since I use numbers, I suppose it averages out to being one to recommend, if only by slim margins. It is watchable, if not one to grumble at sometimes.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Space Cowboys.

Review #1252: Space Cowboys.

Cast: 
Clint Eastwood (Frank Corvin), Tommy Lee Jones (William "Hawk" Hawkins), Donald Sutherland (Jerry O'Neill), James Garner ("Tank" Sullivan), Marcia Gay Harden (Sara Holland), William Devane (Flight Director Eugene "Gene" Davis), Loren Dean (Ethan Glance), Courtney B. Vance (Roger Hines), James Cromwell (Bob Gerson), Rade Šerbedžija (General Vostov), and Barbara Babcock (Barbara Corvin) Directed by Clint Eastwood.

Review: 
This is one of those films that exists to deliver adventure for a certain kind of audience that surely is interested in seeing some entertainment without any rough challenges and a few visual winners. It runs at 130 minutes, but it sure seems to want to be familiar with predictable leanings that its main core four actors are up to making seem fun to sit with. After all, if John Glenn (fighter/test pilot turned astronaut turned U.S Senator) could be sent into outer space at the ripe age of 77, why not send four old pilots (with Garner being the oldest at 72 on release) into space to fix a secret satellite? Even the challenge of getting these folks up to speed with training (in 30 days, no less - for which publicity for this mission only comes in two weeks before launch) doesn't really seem to faze anybody in the film, especially not the audience. It does fall in the lines of a popcorn movie in that if you really wanted to poke a few jabs in its logic (the idea of sending an astronaut with terminal cancer comes to mind), you could, but I was at least entertained enough with what I saw to make this a winner by the margins, primarily because of its cast and effects. At least one cannot fault Eastwood for taking the script from Ken Kaufman-Howard Klausner and rolling with giving the film a bit of light charm in its journey without too many roaring bumps, essentially being the kind of film you could probably watch with your dad or mom and have a good time with (I remember my dad having interest in plenty of Eastwood films, nearly all of which in the bunch qualified as adventures like this), with even a Jay Leno cameo fitting the bill for what one could expect. It has a yearning for what was that certainly has aged a bit (particularly with the end of the Space Shuttle program) but will linger just fine with those who seek it. The effects-work from Industrial Light & Magic is well done as one could expect, capturing the essence of space and the moments that require some wonder and delivers pretty well, where one isn't taken out of the film and its shots of the shuttle or satellite in space because something seems too off-putting or ridiculous. As one would hope, it is the interactions between the core four that drive the film as forward as it wants, particularly when it is between Eastwood and Jones. Eastwood certainly is wiry enough to headline a last hurrah routine with a degree of persistence that only could come out in a mild adventure driven by Eastwood on both sides of the camera. Jones is just as wiry with plenty of rough charm that certainly gets its chance to come out plenty, whether when old wounds open up about who ruined whose shot at going to space or when doing some stunt piloting for an eager birthday man. Sutherland and Garner are both warm and engaging as the other useful cogs in this fairly oiled machine, fitting with what is needed just as one can hope. Harden, Devane, and Cromwell fill the other piece of the pie just fine, doing what needs to be done to further the film (whether it be exposition or occasional character moments with the main four) without bumps on the way. Dean and Vance are okay, but they feel a bit sidetracked when it comes to making any sort of comparison of the old guard (Air Force pilots) and the new type of astronauts, which might have been a bit interesting to go with. In the long run, what we have here is a film that aims for a tolerable standard blend of reality and movie-magic that will certainly feel par for the course in its execution but at least please its crowd just well enough to make things worth it, where the time goes by without too much waste to speak of.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.

Review #1217: Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.

Cast: 
Ming-Na Wen (Doctor Aki Ross), Alec Baldwin (Captain Gray Edwards), Ving Rhames (Ryan), Steve Buscemi (Neil), Peri Gilpin (Jane), Donald Sutherland (Dr. Sid), James Woods (General Hein), Keith David (Council Member #1), Jean Simmons (Council Member #2), and Matt McKenzie (Major Elliot) Directed by Hironobu Sakaguchi and Motonori Sakakibara.

Review: 
Perhaps this movie is like the tale of Icarus. However, instead of daring to fly near the sun on illustrious wings of feathers, this is a film that dares to soar as the first photo-realistic computer-animated feature film, made over the course of four years with a budget of $137 million (with at least half the budget being spent on marketing from Columbia Pictures and construction in Hawaii of a studio for Square Pictures, whose demise rose from the eventual failure of the film at the box office). Final Fantasy (created by Hironobu Sakaguchi) is a series of fantasy role playing video games, with each installment being stand-alone tales that have recurring elements in terms of game mechanics, with fifteen main titles being released since 1987. Undeniably, it is easy to give praise to the ambition that the makers of this film had towards delivering something that would inspire curiosity and interest, although it seems more for the animation than the actual story in any case. It just can't help itself being a visual spectacle even after two decades of age (although it may take a bit of time to get used to its type of flair), at least. The spirit aspect feels a bit too hokey to really make for a compelling story, with the twist involving their true nature (with a name like Phantoms, take one guess) not making as much an impact. It feels too clumsy with trying to handle its characters, particularly with its main character, who never comes into focus as someone to really follow along with.

That's not to say I didn't like the performances of the cast, who each do their parts just fine. Wen does okay with what she is given, even if her chemistry with Baldwin (probably the most practical performer here) reads more like an audio-book than something befitting a movie, especially a science-fiction one. Rhames, Buscemi and Gilpin all do okay, providing little moments of amusement until they aren't needed by the plot. Sutherland fills the wise old shoes of his character without much trouble (ponder on the whole Gaia theory stuff as you wish, however), and Woods is finely tuned to play with a good deal of ham to his performance, which work out okay, even if his motivations feel a bit too underplayed to really resonate. The writing can't quite make them feel like people to gel with, as if I am watching one long cut-scene with no way to break free. The story was done by Sakaguchi, while having a screenplay from Al Reinert (writer of films such as For All Mankind and Apollo 13) and Jeff Vintar (co-writer of I, Robot). The parts involving the Gaia only serve to make the film seem more deeply rooted than it really is, with a climax that feels too patched up to have an impact. It isn't so much a junk food type of sci-fi movie as it is just an off-brand piece of candy that looks nice but is a bit stale in all the wrong places to really sit right. With a run-time of 106 minutes, it will prove fine for the eyes to sit with while resonating less with its aims that at drag a cobbled assortment of sci-fi gobbledygook across the line without being a complete success. I didn't feel that it was a waste of my time, but I did feel disappointed that it wasn't worth it just enough. I do find science fiction movies to be a fun thing to sit through, but I couldn't find this one to be just as fitting of praise as others that dared to show a different kind of reality or look.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978).

Review #1132: Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Cast: 
Donald Sutherland (Dr. Matthew Bennell), Brooke Adams (Elizabeth Driscoll), Leonard Nimoy (Dr. David Kibner), Jeff Goldblum (Jack Bellicec), Veronica Cartwright (Nancy Bellicec), and Art Hindle (Dr. Geoffrey Howell) Directed by Philip Kaufman (#892 - The Right Stuff)

Review: 
It would only make sense for a science fiction novel such as Jack Finney's The Body Snatchers to have multiple adaptations into film. With Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), there was an intent to make a competent and intelligent horror sci-fi thriller, with a consistent message on the nature of conformity and autonomy for the time it was made, being made on a budget of less than half of a million dollars (with the budget for this film being roughly three million). Studio heads butted heads with director Don Siegel over the nature of the ending and other aspects that you might say conformed to the standards of the time - for better or worse. I enjoyed the film for its elements mentioned above, but I can't say I'm too surprised that a remake was released 22 years later. If you have an interesting idea to update the story and make something watchable out of it, naturally you should try to make that into a film. It is easy to say that this film represents the decade it was made in, updating itself in its structure and tone that makes for a gloomy but reasonably intelligent experience. It certainly amps up the effects and implications involved with conspiracy and paranoia, especially considering the setting being San Francisco instead of the small-town setting from the earlier film and the novel. It comes off as a brilliant decision that highlights how easy conformity can spread and not have many people notice, where a person can lose themselves in a big town and all the complexities that can go with it - such as self-help psychiatrists for example. If you thought a small town could lead to a threat like pod people encircling everyone quickly, a city will certainly make it seem quicker to conform.  

In that regard, Sutherland does pretty well in the main role, handling the situations thrown at him capably enough that makes him someone worth watching. It's hard to who exactly is the better lead, but I do find myself leaning a bit towards Kevin McCarthy, particularly when he makes an appearance in one scene. Perhaps it is the style that the film used to dictate its story and the way that McCarthy rolls with it that proves the difference. In any case, the scene with him is certainly a shocking surprise, resembling the scene from the original. Whether it is just a homage or a continuation of the events of the original (doubtful) is up to you, although it should be noted that the director of the original film (Siegel) also appears in the film as a cab driver. Adams is fine, having a range of concern and will that makes her watchable alongside Sutherland, and they have a decent amount of chemistry together. Nimoy is interesting to watch, skeptical and calculating that works to the film's advantage, particularly near the last third. Goldblum is quirky as one can be, showing the neurosis of his character without becoming annoying or too offbeat when shown with the other characters. Cartwright is okay, but she doesn't particularly stand out as well as the others in any substantial way, especially when compared to the other four. There is a helpless feeling of terror and conspiracy all-throughout the film, alongside moment of horror, such as the scene with the pods trying to form duplicates of the group, showing the details of the process pretty satisfyingly (through the effects-work by Russel Hessey and Dell Rheaume). The opening sequence involving the pods coming through space and coming to Earth on a dreary day is also a pretty interesting one. A good share of the credit for the film's good moments goes to Kaufman and screenwriter W. D. Richter (who later directed The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension) in making something that stands out in its own way.

The sound and music certainly help the film stick out in its own way, helping deliver striking moments of chills. Ben Burtt contributed Special Sound Effects for the film, while the film score was composed by jazz composer Denny Zeitlin, his only film score. Michael Chapman, cinematographer for films such as Taxi Driver (1976), does well at giving the film a panicked look, with occasional different angled shots that have their varying level of suspense. The length of the film certainly stands out, for better or worse. The original lasted 80 minutes, while this one lasts 115 minutes. The film doesn't border on boring, but it certainly has times where the length nearly becomes an anchor that could've been trimmed just a bit. It seems to linger a bit too much at times, but the climax is a pretty memorable one, having a fitting cold fear to it that works for the intent made by Kaufman. On the whole, I enjoyed the film for the most part due to it managing to justify its existence in terms of its narrative and most of its choices of style and casting. There are some who list it as one of the best film remakes ever. It isn't my favorite remake (The Thing (1982), which also has its share of paranoia, comes to mind), but I can say that this is a pretty good case for when a remake can go right. Instead of trying to just be different for the sake of difference or being an outright copy, a remake can stand-out for what it can cover in story and characters and make fine entertainment like this movie.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Hi. I decided to revise the image for the review. Here's the original image of review:

Beerfest.

Review #1122: Beerfest.

Cast: 
Jay Chandrasekhar (Barry Badrinath), Kevin Heffernan (Phil "Landfill" Krundle / Gil "Landfill" Krundle), Steve Lemme (Steve "Fink" Finkelstein), Paul Soter (Jan Wolfhouse), Erik Stolhanske (Todd Wolfhouse / Young Baron Ludwig), Nat Faxon (Rolf), Will Forte (Otto), Ralf Möller (Hammacher), Mo'Nique (Cherry), Eric Christian Olsen (Gunther), Jürgen Prochnow (Baron Wolfgang von Wolfhausen), Cloris Leachman (Great Gam Gam Wolfhouse), Donald Sutherland (Johann von Wolfhaus), Blanchard Ryan (Krista Krundle), and Gunter Schlierkamp (Schlemmer) Directed by Jay Chandrasekhar (#1121 - Super Troopers)

Review: 
Beerfest is the fourth film from Broken Lizard, released two years after Club Dread (2004), with the inspiration for this movie being a chugging contest at a beer garden in Australia that the group had. Admittedly, this is a film that does have the standards of a mediocre sports movie, just piled with a bunch of gags throughout an 110 minute run-time. The main five do manage to create a fair bit of laughs, for the most part. Soter and Stolhanske serve as the leads for the bare story that accompanies the film, each doing okay with what's given. Chandrasekhar carries this character of talented pathetic nature with competence. Heffernan is fairly entertaining at times. Lemme does okay, although some of the gags with him prove a bit too obvious. Leachman provides some warmth for brief but welcome times. The other members of the cast have their moments of amusement, although nothing too particularly greatly funny. The adversaries (highlighted by Forte) do prove serviceable, silly in their toughness that can be appreciated. For me, I felt that while the first third worked fine with its setups, the other parts come off a bit sluggish, with the pacing not working particularly well with what probably could've been a shorter experience. By the time it gets to the climax with its competition, it's more of a stagger than a sprint. The competition is fine, having a fair amount of amusement (and things you'd expect) that make it fairly worth it, I suppose, and it ends neatly enough without being too forced. Thinking back to Super Troopers (which was seven minutes shorter) reminded me that while it wasn't always a consistent film to go with, it seemed to gel better with its gags and pace that seemed a bit less tiring overall. For people looking for something wild and silly, this may prove up your alley well enough, particularly if you are in the right flavor/mood for something like this. For me, I thought it was an okay venture, but it isn't consistent enough to really think of it as a clearheaded winner.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Animal House.

Review #1114: Animal House.

Cast: 
John Belushi (John "Bluto" Blutarsky), Tim Matheson (Eric "Otter" Stratton), John Vernon (Dean Vernon Wormer), Peter Riegert (Donald "Boon" Schoenstein), Thomas Hulce (Lawrence "Pinto" Kroger), Stephen Furst (Kent "Flounder" Dorfman), Bruce McGill (Daniel Simpson "D-Day" Day), James Widdoes (Robert Hoover), Douglas Kenney (Stork), James Daughton (Gregory "Greg" Marmalard), Mark Metcalf (Douglas C. Neidermeyer), Kevin Bacon (Chip Diller), Verna Bloom (Marion Wormer), Donald Sutherland (Professor Dave Jennings), Karen Allen (Katy), Sarah Holcomb (Clorette DePasto), DeWayne Jessie (Otis Day), Mary Louise Weller (Mandy Pepperidge), Martha Smith (Barbara Sue "Babs" Jansen), and Cesare Danova (Mayor Carmine DePasto) Directed by John Landis (#328 - Trading Places, #410 - Coming to America, and #513 - Spies Like Us)

Review: 
Fellow readers, the following review has a bit of history involving the production intermixed with the normal parts you would see in a normal review - whether you read it or not is up to you, but I feel it is necessary to have it alongside the review (located in the second paragraph) for context. Thank you and enjoy. 

On July 28, 1978, Animal House premiered in theaters, the brain child of its three writers, Chris Miller, Douglas Kenney, and Harold Ramis. Each were involved in some capacity with National Lampoon prior to the creation of the film. Miller was one of the writing talents for the magazine, and it was his own experiences in the Alpha Delta Phi fraternity at Dartmouth College being an inspiration for the film. Kenney (a graduate of Harvard University) was one of the co-founders of the magazine (alongside Henry Beard and Robert Hoffman), with contributions including the satirical short story Bored of the Rings (alongside Beard) and being involved in editing capacity in the magazine from 1970 to 1976. Ramis had starred (along with Belushi) in the comedy radio show The National Lampoon Radio Hour. He utilized ideas from a treatment he had written (named "Freshman Year") that had been based off his experiences at Washington University in St. Louis. The director with the task of directing a project was John Landis, whose work on The Kentucky Fried Movie (1977) helped get him the job for this movie. It was Landis that assisted with casting certain actors, wanting unknowns and character actors for the parts, such as originally wanting Jack Webb (of Dragnet fame) to play the Dean, although the rejection by Webb led to Vernon being approached for the role. The movie was shot in 32 days in Eugene, Oregon (the location for the University of Oregon) on a budget of just $2 million.

With all of the praise (or occasional criticism) and history one could read on this film, it's amusing to list all that for something that is an energetic and unapologetic piece of comedy that never relents on its assault of humor in its 109 minute run-time, most of all coming from Belushi, who manages to generate numerous laughs from his expressions that balance the fine line between noise and overbearing, reminding me in some way of silent film comedians. Incidentally, Landis told Belushi to play the character as a mix between Harpo Marx and the Cookie Monster. The result certainly seems to be a success, with some of his lines falling into memorability, such as the toga sequence for example or the scene near the climax. Matheson is also a fine highlight, showcasing a fair degree of charm to along with a share of amusement. Vernon proves entertaining at being the adversarial straight man to everything that goes on, playing to the rules that you would expect each time he is on screen. Riegert proves fairly refreshing, and his scenes with Allen (who along with Bacon was making their film debut) have their share of charm. Hulce and Furst don't have too much time, but they each make for a few laughs at times. Other members of the main amusement group such as McGill and Widdoes also prove effective with their time on screen. Daughton and Metcalf prove to effect contrasts with the other members. Other highlights include Sutherland and Bloom, who prove to be cool delights in their respective time on screen. It has an episodic nature to its narrative, but it is an interesting experience to go through in part because it never really lets go of just having fun with the gags and lines that it throws at the audience, including some fun music, with highlights being "Louie Louie" from Richard Berry and "Shout" by Otis Day and the Knights (which has its own scene for great effect). There are numerous highlights, and it would be a shame to spoil the fun for the viewer, but one particular favorite part of mine is the cafeteria sequence, ending in the messy way you might expect with help from Belushi. There is a pitch and execution to everything that goes on that makes this one of the most enjoyable comedies to watch to this very day.

The film was a huge success at the box office, making over $100 million while being one of the top ten grossing films of 1978 (alongside other films such as Superman). A year later, the major three networks all tried to make their own sitcoms inspired from the film, such as Delta House on ABC, which retained some of the cast such as Vernon and Furst. However, the raunchy humor (along with other things) did not make the transition to television, and fights with the network doomed the show after 13 episodes. The attempt by CBS (named Co-ed Fever) lasted one episode before cancellation. NBC's attempt with Brothers and Sisters also proved unsuccessful. You can see the influence the film has had with raunchy coming-of-age films, such as Porky's and American Pie - with varying quality. In any case, Animal House is a film best enjoyed through watchful eyes and ears for each semblance of unfettered amusement that still endures after four decades since its release.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Dirty Dozen.

Review #1014: The Dirty Dozen.

Cast: 
Lee Marvin (Maj. John Reisman), Ernest Borgnine (Maj. Gen. Sam Worden), Charles Bronson (Joseph Wladislaw), Jim Brown (Robert T. Jefferson), John Cassavetes (Victor R. Franko), Richard Jaeckel (Sgt. Clyde Bowren), George Kennedy (Maj. Max Armbruster), Trini Lopez (Pedro Jiminez), Ralph Meeker (Capt. Stuart Kinder), Robert Ryan (Col. Everett Dasher Breed), Telly Savalas (Archer J. Maggott), Donald Sutherland (Vernon L. Pinkley), Clint Walker (Samson Posey), Robert Webber (Brig. Gen. James Denton), Tom Busby (Milo Vladek), Ben Carruthers (S. Glenn Gilpin), Stuart Cooper (Roscoe Lever), Robert Phillips (Cpl. Morgan), Colin Maitland (Seth K. Sawyer), and Al Mancini (Tassos R. Bravos) Directed by Robert Aldrich (#105 - What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? and #778 - The Longest Yard)

Review: 
Admittedly, war films are not exactly my preference when it comes to what I try to watch for films, but from time to time there can be ones that pique my interest, and this is certainly one that garnered a look. The movie is based on the novel of the same name by E. M. Nathanson, which was inspired by a real-life group called the "Filthy Thirteen". The film has a big cast (as the title suggests) along with a considerable length of 150 minutes, not so much due to the action but the training of the group, although the last parts of the film contains plenty of action. It is evident to say that of the twelve members, six stand out the clearest: Bronson, Brown, Cassavetes, Savalas, Sutherland, and Walker. They have distinct characteristics that they apply well to their roles that just clicks. Marvin is fairly entertaining, having a great sense of gravitas, which could also apply to Borgnine. My favorites of the group are Brown and Sutherland, the former due to him being easily watchable and the latter due to his charm. The film has its share of amusing moments along with its scenes of fellowship with these hard-edged (but watchable) people. I especially like the sequence with Marvin and Sutherland in which the latter has to help fool a general. The war game part is also fairly commendable in its execution as well. Admittedly, the cast is perhaps a bit old to be playing soldiers (the youngest of the group is Cooper and Maitland, both born in 1942 for a film released in 1967), but it isn't too much of a detraction. It's not a movie that relies heavily on a big spectacle action scene, in part because the film isn't meant to be like that. The last sequence (with the château) is a fairly thrilling sequence, but it is one that you can also dwell on due to the characters that we have watched prior to that point. It's a gritty movie that has its shares of bleakness, but it is a well-paced and well thought-out film. Whether the film achieves its goals or not, it is at the very least a fine piece of entertainment.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.