Titan A.E.

Review #2386: Titan A.E.

Cast: 

Matt Damon (Cale Tucker; Alex D. Linz as Young Cale Tucker), Bill Pullman (Captain Joseph Korso), John Leguizamo (Gune), Nathan Lane (Preedex "Preed" Yoa), Janeane Garofalo (Stith), Drew Barrymore (Akima Kunimoto), Ron Perlman (Professor Sam Tucker), Tone Lōc (Tek), Jim Breuer (the Cook), Christopher Scarabosio (the Drej Queen), Jim Cummings (Chowquin), Charles Rocket (Firrikash/ Slave Trader Guard), and Ken Hudson Campbell (Po) Directed by Don Bluth (#1466 - The Secret of NIMH) and Gary Goldman.

Review: 

"A movie to me is about character, about how personalities come together, how they relate to each other and what the ramifications of that are." - Don Bluth

"I think it's the people. The crew has passion. They really want to make it work. They really want to learn more...that teaches me. My whole goal, besides trying to get more production value back into animation, was really to provide an environment like there was at Disney at one time, where you felt secure as an artist, filmmaker, contributor, animator." - Gary Goldman

On June 16, 2000, Titan A.E. basically was released into theaters and died a quick death. But time does heal some wounds, even if it remains the last current effort for its directors in Don Bluth and Gary Goldman. The two had met in 1972 when working at Walt Disney Productions with each at distinct stages of their animation careers: Bluth (seven years older) actually had been hired to work as an assistant animator at the Disney studio in Burbank and even did work for Sleeping Beauty (1959) but found the work "kind of boring" and jumped around to do various things that ranged from a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to local theater to studying English Literature to eventually returning to animation and, well, that led back to Disney. On the other hand, Goldman was a recent art school graduate that had been accepted to Disney's animation training program and encountered Bluth. Alongside John Pomeroy, the group shared similar ideas about animation and strived to make their own animated film (as an exercise, according to Bluth), with their first effort being Banjo the Woodpile Cat. I think you get it from there: NIMH was a big thing for the "it's not Disney" crowd and the first of a string of movies with varying levels of quality. Goldman moved from producing to co-directing with Bluth with All Dogs Go to Heaven (1989). Sure, there were misfires in their intertwined efforts (The Pebble and the Penguin [1995] was so miserable that the two wanted their names taken off it), but their efforts with Anastasia (1997), the first film for Fox Animation Studios, worked out. Coincidentally, during the time of the release of that film, the starting points for what became Titan A.E. started. "Planet Ice" was slated to be directed by Art Vitello, with November 1997 seeing concrete plans to make it animated rather than live action, complete with a voice cast all picked out (such as Bill Pullman, for example). They had a screenplay drafted up by Ben Edlund before John August came in months later to polish the dialogue and other select re-writes. The result of years of pre-production was $30 million sunk into a whole bunch of recording...and basically little to actually show for it. Where Bluth and Goldman came in is that 20th Century Fox, in need of getting a project going for the animated studio, asked the two to get involved, showing them the script. Despite their lack of expertise of sci-fi, they went with the move; incidentally, Joss Whedon was soon hired to finalize the script. It should be noted that Bluth and Goldman had $55 million and 19 months to get the stuff animated, one that saw them move the apparent focus of the film away from hardware to, well, character, which saw re-recording of certain dialogue (basically they wanted to aim for the family, right down to the teenagers rather than be a "Disney wannabee"). The result was five writers were given credit: the story was credited to Hans Bauer and Randall McCormick while Edlund, August, and Whedon were given credit for the screenplay.*

Goldman stated prior to release that "about 87% of the film is some form of CGI", and perhaps ironically, the visual effects and one certain animated sequence was done by Blue Sky Studios, who would begin production of their first animated film Ice Age the same month that this film was released. Apparently, midway though production is when Fox basically was ready to give up on 2D animation and just focus on 3D ventures, and by June of 2000, over 250 animated staff members at Fox were laid off. Just to twist the knife a bit further, the same week that this movie came out, Fantasia 2000 (1999) by Disney was finally being shown in regular theaters**. Sure, a race against time in fetching one big thing that might as well be a shaggy way to do an ark story is a bit shaky. But it is a neat ride for those who want to buy what it is selling for a movie that has an astounding look within a cobbled-together story. The 94-minute runtime somehow manages the weird effect of breezing by certain aspects (read: familiar tropes) but taking its sweet time to really make sense on other parts. In an age now where certain people seem to believe that any damn animated movie seems up to "re-made" for live action, Titan A.E. is good proof that some stuff really should stay in animation without the risk of being turned into potential slop, one that inspires awe with unwieldy adventure. Forget being generic, it seems like fresh air with its enthusiasm. The rag-tag group of voices are fairly decent, mainly because it isn't merely just picking big names for the hell of it, with Pullman in particular being pretty suitable as a rogue to go along with Damon's wavering sense of humanity (or whatever you want to call it, but burrowing hope seemed silly). The rest of the cast is fairly decent in parts, mainly with adding some levity (Lane comes to mind), which works out when having the bare minimum in characterization for Barrymore to work with. I like its general action and general mood of making sure one wants to take a look at what they are seeing beyond having mild attention (the rock soundtrack might help in that regard). The ice rings sequence is probably the key standout sequence for showing both the potential of understanding why some films just are destined for animation along with having interesting tension to really keep things drawing along. The movie may not always go along smoothly beyond some of the usual expected stuff, namely with a villain that is more interesting to look at than their actual motives, but if you are vibing with what the movie is showing in its atmosphere of trying to scrape along beyond refugees on the food chain, it will be a pretty good time anyway. Underrated and under-looked in its time, Titan A.E. deserves a cult audience willing to stick up for spry adventures in animation.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Hell of a writer's room. Edlund is best known for creating The Tick, Bauer wrote Anaconda, August wrote for a handful of Tim Burton movies, and Whedon, well, he went from co-writing Toy Story to something called Firefly... 

**For whatever reason, Fantasia 2000 had *months* of IMAX showings and concert hall screenings before you could just see the damn thing in a normal theater. Go figure, that movie didn't make too much money. The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle was released on June 30, 2000 and had live action and animation to the tune of barely any money. You know what animated movie did make money that June? Chicken Run, which was released on June 23, 2000 by Aardman Features. Funny.

Redux: Batman Forever.

Redux #217: Batman Forever.

Cast: 

Val Kilmer (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Tommy Lee Jones (Harvey Dent / Two-Face), Jim Carrey (Edward Nygma / The Riddler), Nicole Kidman (Dr. Chase Meridian), Chris O'Donnell (Dick Grayson / Robin), Michael Gough (Alfred Pennyworth), Pat Hingle (James Gordon), George Wallace (The Mayor), Drew Barrymore (Sugar), Debi Mazar (Spice), Ed Begley Jr. (Fred Stickley), with Ofer Samra (Harvey's Thug), Elizabeth Sanders (Gossip Gerty), and René Auberjonois (Dr. Burton) Directed by Joel Schumacher (#197 - Phone Booth)

Review: 

"I have often been criticized for objectifying men and women sexually in my films. I have yet to find out what the bad part of that is."

This wasn't the first Batman movie to follow Batman Returns (1992), remember. Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993), was the big-screen spinoff of Batman: The Animated Series, and I think we all know that it was a pretty good movie. And yet, here we are with the next live-action Batman movie with Batman Forever. You have to remember that Joel Schumacher wanted to make a Batman movie that wanted to look into the growing fear of the crusade started by Batman, and he happened to be a fan of the comics as a child. In fact, this is the first Batman movie to show the origin of Bruce Wayne stumbling onto what would become the Batcave. Basically, he wanted to possibly adapt Frank Miller's Batman: Year One comic to the screen, but Warner Bros. rejected this idea, which is where Keaton decided to leave the main role. The design of Gotham would be packed more with statues and neon that seems more akin to the 1950s style of Batman rather than Tim Burton's Batman (Burton was relegated to producer). But Schumacher apparently really did want to make a darker movie, reportedly doing a three-hour cut. He also found inspiration to cast Kilmer (favored by the studio as opposed to casting William Baldwin) as Batman when he saw Tombstone (1993). Husband-and-wife duo Lee Batchler and Janet Scott Batchler were tasked to write the story for the film, although Akiva Goldsman (writer on the script for Schumacher's The Client (1994)) would be brought in to do re-writes. Reportedly, Schumacher did in fact shoot scenes for a version of the movie that would have made the film run considerably longer than its two-hour run-time that had a test screening, but it is unknown if the footage for any kind of "Schumacher Cut" could be cobbled together for anyone to see (I would naturally be in favor of the idea).

Honestly, while I can see why the director would wanted to try and maintain some of the dark elements from the previous two movies, I can appreciate what managed to come out from a comic book's comic book movie. Schumacher wants a world with black lights, pastel colors and rave lighting that makes a curious studio product, and it actually managed to grow on me from the nine year difference since I saw it. In other words, if you can't beat doing the Burton look, why not just go for a different kind of distinct look? I think it does just fine in that regard, keeping Gotham in the spotlight of distinct staging that one even sees a knockoff Statue of Liberty for a brief scene. Apparently Kilmer found the movie packed with "kitschiness". He isn't particularly wrong, but it is interesting to look back at the movie in the past and present tense, particularly with what was to come from Schumacher and company two years later. Kilmer takes the lessened reclusive approach to the dual act of the main role, to moderate interest. Granted, he won't be considered better than the previous approach by Keaton, but he basically tries to pull a cheap James Bond impersonation that kind of works in a weird sort of way where folks either want to love him or be him while he tries a bit of dry deadpan alongside a bit of psychological profiling about why he just can't quit being a man dressed as a bat. Kidman seems seeped right in for camp with the offbeat attempts at building chemistry with Kilmer, which only work on a marginal level (i.e. around the level of what you saw from Kim Basinger matched with Keaton in the '89 Batman, only with Kidman being the loony one). I had forgotten to mention that Marlon Wayans was the name considered for the role of Robin when Batman Returns thought of having the character in mind. It did not work out, but at least the idea of Robin being in one of the films was retained, seemingly influenced by the other incarnations of the Robin character (such as Tim Drake). O'Donnell is only marginally useful in the movie, reminding one that the Burt Ward interpretation matched the lead star with striking effectiveness in general timing that O'Donnell (playing a "teenager" while in his twenties) wishes he could do rather than the mediocrity presented here.

It is probably amusing to see Jones and Carrey trying to play villains together, since the former apparently hated the latter because he could not "sanction his buffoonery". Jones had previously worked with Schumacher on The Client, and the director had him tabbed as the first choice. Warner Bros. had to pay out their contract with Billy Dee Williams (cast as Harvey Dent for the 1989 Batman movie) just to get Jones, and I honestly can't see what was such a good idea about doing this. Jones isn't terrible in this movie as it just happens to be a misguided approach to material that seems a bit ripped from Jack Nicholson's Joker from 1989. One needs a better introduction to the character of Dent rather than just have him thrust upon you for the opening action sequence...kind of like having that courtroom scene (shown on TV as exposition) but expanded rather than just being there for a minute (hence the deleted scenes, with one apparently showing how he had escaped from an asylum). The suit he wears begs for the grotesque, but he instead is plastered there like a rabid dog trying to move around with three good legs. Jones is a fine actor well worth talking about, but this isn't exactly one of his shining achievements. Carrey wasn't even the second name thought to be up for the Riddler, since Robin Williams and Steve Martin each turned it down. At any rate, the success of Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (1994) helped attract Schumacher to casting Carrey. He is the star of the show, which works out for some general interest when it comes to seeing someone try to flaunt their intellectual superiority in a brain drain scheme. He has managed to cultivate some of the charm brought out by Frank Gorshin's portrayal of the villain in the 1960s version while still maintaining his own distinct habits to useful results (some might say too useful if one finds the movie as a Jim Carrey movie rather than a Batman movie). 

In total, the plot cohesion is roughly the same as the other two movies, albeit with more of a James Bond type of villain plot involving guys taking people's IQ with a device to get smarter just to get back at rejection. Besides, the deduction to finally put it together on the identity of the Riddler (M-R-E, get it, because it's a mystery?) is not as hard of a leap as when it was done in the 1960s.  The idea to tie a hero's motivation for revenge because the character just happened to kill their parent? Are we talking about Batman (1989) or this movie? The only difference is that the lead hero isn't going around potentially leading henchmen to their doom. In this sense, I appreciated it more in its offbeat manner that is a weird product of its time in the same sense that '89 Batman swept people in its own brand of Batmania. Sure, that movie didn't have anything as...striking as having the Batman costume feature codpieces and rubber tips, but I think you understand what I mean when I say that the movie managed to turn a corner with me. It may be loud and it may sometimes be dumb, but there is something striking about its off-center style that proves a curiosity in the right places to succeed more so than when it strikes out. It won't please everyone that follows the caped crusader in film/television, but it ekes out as a suitable winner in my mind.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Altered States.

Review #1754: Altered States.

Cast: 

William Hurt (Dr. Eddie Jessup), Blair Brown (Emily Jessup), Bob Balaban (Arthur Rosenberg), Charles Haid (Mason Parrish), Thaao Penghlis (Eduardo Echeverria), Drew Barrymore (Margaret Jessup), Megan Jeffers (Grace Jessup), Dori Brenner (Sylvia Rosenberg), Peter Brandon (Alan Hobart), George Gaynes (Dr. Wissenschaft), and Jack Murdock (Hector Orteco) Directed by Ken Russell (#687 - Tommy)

Review: 

Well, as the saying goes...sometimes you just have to see it to believe it. This seems doubly true when looking at the output that came from the divergent creation of its director in Ken Russell and its writer in Paddy Chayefsky. But let us get back to the beginning, specifically in 1978. By this point in time, he was a screenwriter that had won three Academy Awards for his screenplays (Marty (1955), The Hospital (1971), Network (1976)). He had his inspiration to write a novel from a conversation he had with his friends Bob Fosse and Herb Gardner, who apparently wanted to make a monster movie in the guise of reality because King Kong (1976) was being made at the time. A three-page treatment eventually turned into a novel, with research being inspired by the work of John C. Lilly, best known for his work within isolation tanks (his work with dolphins inspired the book and su subsequent film The Day of the Dolphin (1973), incidentally). The book was a fair seller, and so it originally fell to Columbia Pictures (later Warner Bros. because of the rising budget) to try and make a film, with Arthur Penn tapped to direct. However, disagreements with Chayefsky led to him leaving the project. Apparently, when it finally came time for ask Russell, he was the 27th choice to be approached. He was picked because of his visual approach (remember that while he was the director of acclaimed films like Tommy (1975) and Women in Love (1969), he was also known for controversial works like The Devils (1971) and failures like Valentino (1977)). Keep in mind that Russell would have to film the script as written, since Chayefsky had full control. It would not go well. 

It was the last script from Chayefsky to be produced, as he died from a heart attack the following year at the age of 58, and he would be credited as "Sidney Aaron" (referring to his actual first and middle names). Russell would obviously defend the film from Chayefsky and his criticisms, stating that he had done "great justice" to the script without many modification, albeit without shooting or lighting the film the way he wanted; as quoted by Russell, "He would make suggestions, and I would listen courteously, and then disagree." (the producer of the film stated that Russell was fair with Chayefsky until filming began, while Russell related an experience of said producer asking the writer how he spelled "benign" and received "W.I.C.K.E.D" as a response). In other words, when you combine two highly-opinionated people who like to tell a story with their vision...you get something like this. The film made $19 million on a $14 million budget, although it would take Russell four years for his next project (for which he would remain busy as he had done in the previous decade).

The one horror (or science fiction, one would argue) work that Altered States seems to draw upon the most would be The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde; you might consider it more sci-fi than horror, but screw it, this is a movie about a guy who looks for the true self that ends up turning into a creature and all sorts of things that could result losing all of oneself, that seems suitably fair for horror. Of course, the funny thing is that one can see both sides of the argument for how the material was handled because of how much of a curiosity it ultimately proves to be in its off-kilter execution of trying to find the scope of man within interesting imagery (as done by Bran Ferren) and a particular way of handling dialogue (which with a different acting style could have really reached further pretentiousness). Curious folks might wonder how this falls even slightly into horror when the dialogue wants to go a row over the nature of just what man is or something like that, complete with imagery that harkens to what one might see in a trip with certain substances...then a caveman comes into the picture to go with primordial goop. Heightened performances from a handful of the folks present only goes to show that sometimes one really can make a weird studio movie and get away with it, particularly with all the discussion that comes from trying to reach some sort of ecstasy. Trust me, you have to go with what you hear, no matter how weirdly laced it all seems. With 103 minutes to use, Russell handles the material that comes from having to strive for semi-serious sci-fi mumbo jumbo laced with "trip" material likely the best way one could have done, provoking interest more than stone-cold confusion (one can respect the writer for his contribution to screenwriting while also trying to hold back terming it as massively esoteric). It should be mentioned that this was the feature film debut of Hurt, who actually handles the material fairly well, all things considered. It could have been one of those roles that could have made for amusement on the weirdo joke circuit (imagery or not), but he keeps things right where they need to be in terms of confidence that makes this pursuit go right. Brown does fair here, possessed with material that would have become hammy with less matched folks or perhaps folks who like to watch weirdo imagery to go with pseudo-legit lines about love and the human experience. Balaban is fairly casual with what is seen here, but I find more interest with Haid and his approach to hearing such weird material as the semi-skeptic (at least in terms of someone who isn't on the magic mushroom train). The ending will certainly hit differently depending on the perspective of the one who watches it, if only because it has to stick to Chayefsky's intent of making (in overall sense) a love story. Whether it accomplishes that in a climax with a bunch of (not nearly as timeless) effects is up to you to go with; I shook my hands and went with it, if only because the only other conclusion would have been too darkly amusing to contemplate actually seeing on screen. As a whole, the movie balances the tightrope between passable mumbo jumbo scifi horror and wacko mumbo jumbo scifi horror, but it is at least always watchable when it needs to be, serving as a strange concoction of vision and heightened tone that you won't quite forget for quite a while.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Ring Two.

Freddy Got Fingered.

Review #1604: Freddy Got Fingered.

Cast:
Tom Green (Gordon Brody), Rip Torn (Jim Brody), Marisa Coughlan (Betty Menger), Eddie Kaye Thomas (Freddy Brody), Harland Williams (Darren), Anthony Michael Hall (Dave Davidson), Julie Hagerty (Julie Brody), Drew Barrymore (Davidson's receptionist), Shaquille O'Neal (Himself), Jackson Davies (Mr. Malloy), and Connor Widdows (Andy Malloy) Directed by Tom Green.

Review:
"It’s just so often that I’ll do an interview and people say, “Oh yeah, Tom Green, the guy who made the worst movie ever made!” Meanwhile, I can't go to an English-speaking city in the world without people shouting at me, "Daddy, would you like some sausage?" Doesn't matter what city I am in the world, people will be shouting out lines from the movie at me."

Life is too short to go through a film that could either be thought of (a gross-out turkey or a secret classic. It has been nineteen years since the release of this feature, likely the most prominent ever done by director, writer, and star Tom Green, since this is the first and so far only effort in the first two categories by him. The Canadian native was born in Pembroke, Ontario, and he had studied TV broadcasting at Algonquin College while doing side work in stand-up comedy from a young age, inspired by comedians such as David Letterman and George Carlin alongside shows such as Candid Camera and Saturday Night Live. In 1994, he helped create a sketch variety comedy show with The Tom Green Show, which aired for six years with three separate networks in Rogers Television 22, The Comedy Network, and MTV He is notable for his shock humor and pranks (such as one in planking that he claims to have invented) alongside his other career in rap and talk show host (which went from being from his own house to an studio). This film was written by him and Derek Harvie, who also worked on Green's show. I state that there was an argument as secret classic only because there were (and still are) a few arguments about the film as some sort of favorite in transgressive comedy or even a "Dadist" work (Chris Rock has it as one of his favorites, for example). Sure, the film might not have been a major success with its $14 million budget, but Green has argued that it did better than it was given credit for, owing to its DVD sales alongside his theory that the box office figures were lower because people (of a certain age) simply snuck into his film after they had bought tickets for Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles, which was released one week earlier that made double the money of this film. I would say it sounds like a reeky conspiracy theory, but now we're just comparing apples to oranges with a film that would probably use it for comedy if it could. In order to gently lower oneself into the film, I started with the so-called "PG version", which supposedly is the film cut down with a silly voice to three minutes. After all, Green has admitted to have put scenes in the film that would "make boring people leave." When it comes to beating a dead deer, one takes the cake here.

I first expressed interest in doing this film a year or so ago because of its obvious reputation if only to counteract some of the films I would see with friends at times (such as stuff like Sex Drive) to perhaps make them (or myself) mad. After all, if you can't make someone mad, what's the point? Clearly, this question might not sit as well with other audiences. So, how does one approach it? Simple: you watch it, and you either like it or don't. It is quite possible that the reaction to this film can mirror the one done to horror films at times, particularly with its attempts at shock with certain scenes that revolve from a hospital room to others involving animals or cheese. Of course, the whole film really goes on how one views its main actor for an 87-minute feature. Personally, I felt that he both made a curious feature that also wasted my time. Perhaps it is my lack of familiarity with the material from his TV stuff like on MTV (which I never really watched in the first place), but I didn't exactly have a bad time with Beavis and Butt-Head Do America (based on a show that has since died and soon to be revived twice...or three times) - that was based on two numbskulls that nevertheless made a good time. For me, it's just a silly movie that isn't nearly as good or as bad as it has purported itself to be, serving as a reminder of how much one can reach those who like to have ridiculous humor, those that want something more, and those who simply don't care. I did have moments where I giggled, but some of that really involved someone alongside Green. Supposedly, Gene Wilder and Jerry Stiller were considered for the role before Torn got it, but each thought it was offensive. In any case, I am glad to see Torn, because he turns out to be my favorite part of the film. Torn, a native Texan actor of film and television for over five decades, is no stranger to eccentric highlights in his career and life, so seeing him get to pummel Green is probably like if I watched Maidstone (1970, the film where director and noted wife-stabber Norman Mailer got hit in the head with a hammer and then bit Torn's ear) for real, such as when he drags those sausages out from the roof and then promptly wrecks a half-pipe with glee. If Green is meant to represent the ridiculous and wild side that can come from daring to dream against the usual, Torn is that voice that responds in kind, which I can't help but appreciate in all of its gruffness. Coughlan is okay, in the sense that no one could make these gags involving trying to stoke enjoyment and interest in rocket-powered wheelchairs really that much better or all-too worse. Thomas is there for a brief time as the supposed straight man before he disappears to the surprise of no one. Time is spent with Williams with pain gags, while Hall and Hagerty have puddles of moments. Oodles of cameo moments occur with Barrymore and O'Neal that obviously won't be their most humiliating appearance. Oh, but how's the movie? I think if one goes by the ratio of enjoyment to minutes spent, it is a narrow loss, one that is sometimes funny despite its tinges of obnoxiousness for what can be construed by fans and detractors alike as either ahead of its time or just a weird gross time. You have to view the film with a little balance, because if you really go by the first ten minutes, or by the first fifty minutes...yea, just don't get mad about it too quickly. It's a weird, gross film, but it will fit exactly into the perception of whoever happens to watch it, regardless of if it deserves a second watch or not.

This concludes Turkey Week. I am glad to have done eight films in seven days, even if it likely could have been even more grander. But a week it was, eh? I didn't intend to do it, but back-to-back-to-back thousand word reviews? I think it is evident that another edition of Turkey Week for 2021 is in order, but I also think there should be weeks dedicated to other interests as well, so one should stay tuned for any new points of interest. If you have any suggestions for things to cover for stinkers or other things in mind, you are always free to speak your mind - have a happy holidays, folks.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars

Movie Night: E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial.

Review #573: E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial.

Cast
Henry Thomas (Elliott), Pat Welsh (E.T.), Robert MacNaughton (Michael), Drew Barrymore (Gertie), Dee Wallace (Mary), Peter Coyote (Keys), K. C. Martel (Greg), Sean Frye (Steve), and C. Thomas Howell (Tyler) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express)

Review
It's only fitting that I review this on my day off, E.T. is essentially a child's greatest fantasy come to life. It feels like if Spielberg bought the candy store that he went to as a kid and then made his own kind of candy. The movie feels like a time capsule back to the 80s (the Yoda costume, the same looking houses, playing RPG's...okay maybe it's not that old, Sesame Street...okay you could argue that's also a 70s/90s/00s flashback, faking sickness with a lamp - wouldn't be as easy to fake in this day and age), but also a trip back to youth itself, it makes anyone who watches it feel like a kid again. There are memorable moments such as when Gertie meets E.T., or most notably when E.T. and Elliott fly together on a bike. It seems that the kids are the only sensible ones in this movie, which I guess makes sense given the theme of this movie, which to me is all about friendship, about the bond of a kid and his alien. The effects on E.T. are good, it's not just some prop (Such as the ripoff Mac and Me), it's more than that. This is an emotional movie that pulls many punches and also pulls many parts of fun. I recommend this for everyone, as this is one of the better science fiction movies to watch and have fun with. Just don't play the video game based on this movie. For your own safety.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Scream.

Review #558: Scream.

Cast

Neve Campbell (Sidney Prescott), David Arquette (Dewey Riley), Courteney Cox (Gale Weathers), Matthew Lillard (Stuart), Skeet Ulrich (Billy), Rose McGowan (Tatum), Jamie Kennedy (Randy), Henry Winkler (Himbry), Roger Jackson (Phone Voice), and Drew Barrymore (Casey Becker) Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street)

Review

Scream essentially gave new life to the horror genre, with a self aware nature and much success that would lead to three sequels. But enough about the history, let's get to the film itself. The actors are all fun to watch (my favorite to watch is Henry Winkler, who while having only a small cameo, manages to make me laugh. There's a scene where Winkler's character is playing with a Ghostface mask he confiscated, acting like the killer, silly faces and all, which is pretty amusing to me), and Neve Campbell certainly does a great job, especially at the end. Drew Barrymore (who I know for co-hosting TCM's The Essentials, which she does a good job co-hosting, BTW.) may be just an extended cameo, but her scene (the opening scene, rather) is a really memorable scene because it's more than just the intro to a horror film. I like how the movie ends, it's kind of clever and I like how the motive isn't precisely revealed, it leaves you guessing (Or you could just go onto IMDb forums and find answers for yourself, but that's another story), and Craven does an excellent job directing (Especially the horror, which is pretty good, not overblown in blood, a bit subtle), this is a good movie to watch.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.