Trick 'r Treat.

Review #2444: Trick 'r Treat.

Cast: 

Dylan Baker (Steven), Rochelle Aytes (Maria), Quinn Lord (Sam / Peeping Tommy), Lauren Lee Smith (Danielle), Moneca Delain (Janet), Tahmoh Penikett (Henry), Brett Kelly (Charlie), Britt McKillip (Macy), Isabelle Deluce (Sara), Jean-Luc Bilodeau (Schrader), Alberto Ghisi (Chip), Samm Todd (Rhonda), Anna Paquin (Laurie), Brian Cox (Mr. Kreeg; Gerald Paetz as young Kreeg), Leslie Bibb (Emma) Written and Directed by Michael Dougherty (#1227 - Godzilla: King of the Monsters, #1309 - Krampus)

Review: 

"Halloween is better than Christmas because it's all about self-expression. Everyone gets to dress up as a character. Even if they go to the store and buy one of those crappy pre-packaged costumes, they're still making a choice to dress up like an idiot, cut loose, and become something that they're not but is also indicative of their deeper personality. There's something so amazing in that. It's about purity, fun, and creativity."

Originally, Michael Dougherty created the character of Sam with his senior thesis film at New York University in "Season's Greetings" in 1996, doing so with hand-drawn animation over the course of seven months, specifically because he wanted to create a mascot for Halloween (a holiday he felt made life more magical than Christmas as a kid), noting that there was plenty of imagery but not "the one" - he landed on basically a small being with a sack. Eventually, the Columbus native wrote a first draft with Sam in 2001 but studios were not particularly interested in "old-fashioned" stuff like vampire, werewolves, and zombies (one thing that was different was that a graveyard was the setting for a story rather than a quarry). In the meantime, Dougherty devoted time to scriptwriting, contributing to X2 (2003) and Superman Returns (2006), which both were directed by Bryan Singer, who served as a producer on the film that started production in late 2006 and was shot over a few months. Doughtery aimed to get certain age groups for each story, whether that involves carving a pumpkin as a kid, heading out to trick-or-treat as a teenager, or being with hormones in your twenties...or being in your twilight years. Rather than having a traditional structure where the stories were separate, it was felt that the movie fit better when the stories were mixed in together, which is basically being inspired by Pulp Fiction. To put it mildly, Warner Bros. screwed this movie (one that was made for $12 million, mind you) over in every shape and form. It was first publicly screened on the festival circuit in 2007 but didn't get a real theatrical release, instead being released on DVD in 2009. Dougherty never got a straight answer as to why his movie was screwed over the way it was, but he had no bitter feelings over the making of the film, noting that because horror fans "don't like being told no", managed to boost the awareness of the film that apparently made it slip into the mainstream. Plans for a sequel have floated around for years but nothing has actively been in development.

Sure, it may not be Creepshow (1982) type of fun with spooky anthology fun, but it is at least enjoyable for most of what it aims for in the holiday spirit with some chuckles. Sure, it may not be the great Halloween thing ever (Halloween (1978) has won the argument year after year in quality, regardless of its gore because if you can't handle gore, you don't deserve it), but the enthusiasm for the holiday is clearly on display from Dougherty. So you get four (maybe five if you count the opening with Penikett/Bibb) stories that weave in with each other for varying effect. What comes first (as a whole story, technically) is Baker and the ever-lingering story of trying to deal with an unwilling captured body that probably feels the most macabre of the stories to come ahead; it helps that Baker can balance the line of chilling and amusing. You then get to see the next story involve a quartet of kids (McKillip/Ghisi/Bilodeau/Deluce and Todd) engage with a possible legend and dealing with the power of belief within legends and, well, fiction. The third one, and by that I mean one that has been here-and-there between Paquin and the trio of girls (Smith/Aytes/Delain) playing dressup while doing a Halloween shindig that has hang-ups more notable than being without a mate for the fire. Kinda funny, particularly with how the last story ended, anyway. The final segment involves Cox and directly seeing that mascot Sam and the mischief that arises in curmudgeons meeting the devoted, although I don't really know if Sam is really as much of a creature of mischief with the mix of whimsy and darkness as he is just kind of there. Maybe it is just me, but I do wish it was a tiny bit longer than the 82-minute runtime. It doesn't exactly take itself too seriously, but there is a part of me that believes the film doesn't bare enough fangs (despite having an R rating, it mostly cuts away in the body count) to really be as effective as it needs to be. As a whole, the quibbles I have with the movie don't detract from the fact that there is fun to be had in reminding oneself of the mischief that can be had on Halloween. It can be filled with candy, it could be filled with watching horror movies, it could be spent with friends*, or one of all/none of the above. It is a nice little movie that achieves most of what it wants to do, and I suppose that is more than enough for October.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Honestly, my one memory with a pumpkin is my dad putting some fireworks in one and exploding it on New Year's Eve 15+ years ago. Trick or treating was more of a thing I did with my mom with one exception in freshman year of high school. After that I pretty much gave up, but I argue horror movie marathons are just as fun.

Spider-Man 3.

Review #1779: Spider-Man 3.

Cast: 

Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson), James Franco (Harry Osborn / New Goblin), Thomas Haden Church (Flint Marko / Sandman), Topher Grace (Edward "Eddie" Brock Jr. / Venom), Bryce Dallas Howard (Gwen Stacy), James Cromwell (Captain George Stacy), Rosemary Harris (May Parker), J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), with Theresa Russell (Emma Marko), Dylan Baker (Dr. Curt Connors), Bill Nunn (Joseph 'Robbie' Robertson), Elizabeth Banks (Miss Brant), with Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn), and Cliff Robertson (Ben Parker) 

Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, #1495 - Darkman, #1695 - Spider-Man 2)

Review: 

"Where’s Peter Parker again in the second picture as a human being? He’s a kid in all these stories. They’re kind of coming of age stories and he learns aspects of growing up. Different life lessons in each of these films and often times, the comic books."

You know, it is entirely possible to make a third film of a trilogy that closes the narrative of its story with the right kind of balance and entertainment value that doesn't seem quite cluttered. Of course, doing so for a superhero trilogy is especially interesting to consider, if not for the fact that the expectations can sometimes reach grand heights. With this film, Sam Raimi was the first director to have helmed an entire superhero film trilogy. Spider-Man (2002), if you remember, was pretty well-made for the time and effort it took to get it on the screen, complete with a director that obviously had reverence for the source material that managed (for the most part) to generate warmly interesting entertainment. Spider-Man 2 (2004) continued that path while managing to be even better than its predecessor, both in its hero and villain story, and a third feature was immediately set for 2007. The story was done by Sam and Ivan Raimi, while Alvin Sargent (one of the writers of the second film) did the screenplay with the Raimis. Of course, it seems every sequel superhero film needs more than just one villain. With this one, there are three of them, distinct from the previous film (well, at least, if you count Harry as a villain in the second film). Raimi intended on just a story that was focused on the primary three folks from the first two films (Maguire, Dunst, Franco) and the Sandman (as played by Church). One of the producers suggested adding the character of Gwen Stacy, while Avi Arad (former president of Marvel and a fellow producer) suggested adding the character of Venom (introduced to the comics in 1984), with his argument being that the character had a strong appeal to fans (particularly since Raimi had made two features with his favorite villains); of course, before that happened, there had been plans to have the Vulture as one of the villains, so there is that. The film, while a hit with audiences, was the last Spider-Man film for five years, as plans for a fourth feature stalled because of Raimi's doubt over the viability of maintaining an intended release date of 2011 with a suitable script.

At the time of its release, it was actually the most expensive movie ever made, having been made for $258 million. It also was the longest of the three films at 139 minutes. I'm sure it goes without saying that this isn't a great movie to close the series down by any means. But hey, it has nearly been fifteen years since this film has come out, and six (five live-action) further Spider-Man movies have followed in its wake. Honestly, the movie is okay (besides, making a third feature involving an inverted hero already happened once with Superman III (1983), which was worse). Sure, it has a few little moments that could be made fun of (scrutiny, mockery, or whatever), but as a whole it at least manages to have some entertaining moments along with perspective on redemption that at least makes for a solid average movie. But of course, a movie that had considerable hype just can't be average now, can it? Undeniably, the big problem is that it has just one too many villains to go along with not being able to land all of its sticking points by the time it all ends. It is a messy movie, one that tries to fill itself on spectacle and drama that try to maintain the balance set by the previous two features that makes a good case for why it was good to just cap the series with three films. Maguire and Dunst maintain the sincerity in their chemistry that made for two curious (and interesting) features, but it probably doesn't help that their fragmented story here is the only one among all the other loose webbing that sticks out. Seeing their web tangle and untangle itself is the endearing aspect of the series, pure and simple. In that sense, Maguire does what he can, moving onto the next step that comes in the full-fledged stages of being an adult: finding forgiveness along with dealing with the pitfalls of pride (i.e. normal Peter Parker and symbiote Peter). He is earnest enough to make things such as "dancing" work where it could have been really silly to sit through. Dunst does just as well with matching up with withered patience (since her next step is not so much ego as it is "having a life"), doing what is needed as everything basically comes full circle with these two to useful effect. 

Franco has the weird dilemma of being a key side of the villainous triangle while having a segmented part of his time spent with "amnesia"; besides, one of the resolutions presented (i.e. next time check the wounds) is incredibly convenient in all the weird ways. Haden Church (who by virtue of graduating from Harlingen High School gets "Valley credits" from me) seems to be drawing his character from films such as The Wolf Man (1941), which works to a degree. While I understand the changes made to the character from the original origin (one that I remember because I actually did read one of those stories distinctly as a kid), I think it basically ties the story (and to an extent, Haden Church) in a knot that is way, way too convenient. Grace, best known for his role on That 70s Show, which I freely admit to watching too much of for years...does not exactly fare as well. While he does make an interesting reflection upon Maguire, it is hard to escape the inevitable "Yes, but Venom..." when it comes to actually seeing him on screen. I'm not saying the role needs a "bodybuilder" type, but it just never clicks together all the way with Grace, who almost seems a step away from making a quip more than anything (the less said about the actual lead-in to Venom, the better). Besides, having another costumed character present that likes to put on and then take off their mask is a step too far (keep it on!). Howard and Cromwell are there for segments that work right until you start to remember they disappear by the time of the climax (Harris has what she needs in the usual patience expected from her role anyway, while Simmons is sorely lacking in time). 

The contrivances that come with trying to tie it all together aren't swayed so easily with its climax (which is fine). Simply put, the dilemma of figuring out what it means to be a hero suddenly with sins that only thought in black-and-white is an interesting one, but the movie seems too mired in trying to pack in as much as possible in its frenzied focusing that it nearly loses sight of what the films meant in the first place. They were interesting movies with earnest charm and atmosphere (case in point this film seems lacking with the folks in the actual city that the film sets its action) that made it the first important group of superhero films of the new 21st century. While it may not be a great closing film by any means, it pulls off just enough tricks that keep one's interest on the level without churning into a pit. In other words: being just okay might not be the best thing to say about a highly anticipated movie but time generally shows that a movie being fine works out in the end.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Amazing Spider-Man (2012). Must be a coincidence.

The Cell.

Review #1715: The Cell.

Cast: 

Jennifer Lopez (Dr. Catherine Deane), Vincent D'Onofrio (Carl Rudolph Stargher), Vince Vaughn (Special Agent Peter Novak), Jake Weber (Special Agent Gordon Ramsey), Dylan Baker (Henry West), Marianne Jean-Baptiste (Dr. Miriam Kent), Tara Subkoff (Julia Hickson), Catherine Sutherland (Anne Marie Vicksey), Colton James (Edward Baines), Musetta Vander (Ella Baines), Patrick Bauchau (Lucien Baines), James Gammon (Teddy Lee), Jake Thomas (Young Carl Rudolph Stargher), and Dean Norris (Cole) Directed by Tarsem Singh.

Review: 

"The thing about this film is it’s an opera, and there is no such thing as a subtle opera.”

Sure, there are no easy solutions to making a 21st century movie that exceeds the clichés expected from horror or science fiction. At least one knows that there won't be a hampering when it comes to trying to include certain kinds of imagery or attempts at imagination when it comes to trying to show the mind of a killer. Of course, one has to borrow from the traditions of the past by casting singers-turned-actors and trying to crib from better movies while trying to ride hard on imagery and a few decent side performances, complete with costume design from the person who brought you Bram Stoker's Dracula (complete with that same red suit from eight years prior, which looks just as silly as it did back then). Now, that isn't too fair to a director in their debut feature (released 21 years ago). Tarsem Singh actually started as a music video director, doing so for a handful of bands and commercial brands before he got his chance to direct; in two decades, he has directed four further films, although this is obviously the one that stands out for most folks, one where he reportedly aimed for a film like "opera" rather than just a movie about a serial killer. This was the first feature script of Mark Protosevich, who utilized his fascination with serial killers to go with an interest into seeing into one's dreams (while noting stuff like Dreamscape (1984) in that familiarity discussion); while he noted that it could have had more classic suspense, he still appreciated the final result as one that provokes a strong response of both praise and disdain.

Does one desire style over substance? Well, you will get plenty of that here, since one is basically watching a brazen take of The Silence of the Lambs (1991) but with less subtlety (a guy who likes to torture the victim while with a dog that partakes in perverted things? Gee, I wonder...) and horror that is basically a step behind stuff like Seven (1995). Honestly, if you take out most of the attempts at style, this might have been a step away from being something to really make fun of. One probably wonders where the horror and sci-fi merge, well, someone just happens to learn about some new cool secret technology involving virtual reality. Given that a child psychologist can use the technology and fail in the art of navigating a lost child beyond the (music video) dreamscape, one wonders just how they are going to do with a serial killer. Actually, I don't have to guess, because she can't even do it on her own, which is where one needs more of Vaughn (because I guess anyone can just put on the suit and have the cloth put over the head or whatever). The strange thing is that the imagery doesn't really seem to sway me one way or the other when it comes to the side of praise or disdain, since it tries to go hand in hand with generating sympathy for the person having their mind probed...but as the saying goes, all one is doing is putting lipstick on a pig. The makeup looks nice, but watching one long music video with the bare minimum of story only works if I really care about what is going on here, and I've seen movies like that (Tommy (1975)), and they had more tricks up their sleeve.  Simply put, Lopez is not the one to hold a movie like this, one that desires a more interesting presence (again, not to bring up Lambs again, but a Jodie Foster equivalent wouldn't be a bad start) that can goes beyond seeming quizzically confused, complete with elaborate costuming. The dynamic between her and the kid version of the killer is flimsy and ultimately lacking in moral weight, mostly because she mishandles her part of the climax to where one might as well watch dinner theater instead. Incidentally, D'Onofrio is quite interesting here. Really the killer always seems to be more interesting than the hunter in these films, and he seems to draw out the most curious moments that work for the film, one with an aura of creeping presence without seeming like a cliche. Vaughn probably touches upon the usual expectations of the type of role seen in these films, but I respect his commitment to taking a serious role. He certainly seems more right at home with an off kilter agent than Lopez does, that is for sure, mostly because he actually treats the scifi stuff with the reserved charm that comes from not caring about exposition/music video imagery (the rest are fairly disposable, and wasting Gammon for just two scenes has to be a crime). For a movie that fiddles around near two hours with an eye for imagery, I found it very middling in terms of actual interest generated when it came to staying power in what it showed (i.e. one is thinking of better movies when watching a mediocre one). One might as well shove jagged keys in the face with how off kilter everything is, since the narrative doesnt hold too much water beyond a few contrivances that go down the river when it comes to the climax that has a share of predictability (gee, will the victim in a box of water really drown?) even with the whole sequence of Lopez bringing the killer into her world. If I dont really buy into what the movie is selling me, than the imagery isnt going to sway me all that much. As a whole, it has a look that surely will please those in the mood for what it has to show, but the rest of its foundation is a shaky, unwieldy, and overall disappointing mess that could have certainly been worse. Sometimes you can get by with effects and a few (but not all) good support from the cast, but this is not one of those times. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Spider-Man 2.

Review #1695: Spider-Man 2.

Cast: 

Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson), James Franco (Harry Osborn), Alfred Molina (Otto Octavius / Doctor Octopus), Rosemary Harris (May Parker), J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), Donna Murphy (Rosalie Octavius), Daniel Gillies (John Jameson), Dylan Baker (Dr. Curt Connors), Bill Nunn (Robbie Robertson), Elizabeth Banks (Betty Brant), Elya Baskin (Mr. Ditkovitch), Mageina Tovah (Ursula), Ted Raimi (Hoffman), with Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn), and Cliff Robertson (Ben Parker) 

Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, #1495 - Darkman)

Review: 

“I just tried to get even more in touch with the things that I loved about Stan Lee’s great character Spider-Man, and a lot of writers throughout the 40 years at Marvel have contributed to Spider-Man. All the things that I loved about all of their stories, I tried to really get deeper into and connect on a deeper level with the actors, and make it more about the characters and their interaction with one another. I tried to get to the core of what I loved even more.”

It must be amazing to think of an era where superhero movies did not in fact rule the Earth, really. But the dawn of the 21st century shows that they merely lurking in the shadows of entertainment, when you think about it. There is not a long line to get from something like this film to Iron Man (2008) when it comes to adaptation of something from the world of Marvel Comics, much less when it comes to movies beyond just an one-off. Spider-Man (2002) was the sixth feature film adapted from a Marvel character (as created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko in 1962), coming off the heels of previous works such as Blade (1998) and X-Men (2000), which like this film came from years and years of development (among quite a few scripts); naturally, this film follows along the sequel line among those aforementioned movies (Blade II, X2), and it likely stands as one of the best superhero sequels of its time. It is interesting to note that the first film actually had the character of Doctor Octopus as a secondary villain before Raimi dropped him in order to focus more on the dynamic between the title character and the villain. At the helm for the screenplay was Alvin Sargent (near the end of a lengthy career of writing, which included un-credited work on the first film) while the story came from Michael Chabon, Alfred Gough, and Miles Millar (the latter two are mostly known for their development of the show Smallville; obviously, the movie is a hodgepodge of ideas from each writer - Chabon's proposed script apparently had a love triangle involving Doctor Octopus). 

Most superhero sequels generally tend to raise the stakes by adding villains to the pile for the hero to fight that make the challenge seem tighter (i.e. more than one villain, which was present in more than a few superhero films beyond the Marvel line, such as with the Batman series). And yet, here we are with a movie that has quite a controlled focus with consistent stakes and drama that improves on the original without being as hamstrung by the little things as had been the case with the original Spider-Man (which was a pretty decent effort from a director who clearly appreciates the material). It carries itself with enough weight in responsibility to deliver entertainment with meaningful power and meaningful moments to see and hear. Of course it isn't just an effects show, even though one can be impressed by the crew of John Dykstra, Scott Stokdyk, Anthony LaMolinara and John Frazier (among others) when it comes to the tentacles for its villain that prove a blend of computer effects with puppetry (alongside a harness of course) that definitely serves an improvement when compared to the sequences involving the Green Goblin from before. Maguire (who was nearly replaced by Jake Gyllenhaal because of a near-serious back injury) leads the cast with worthy presence once again, maintaining the sincerity and vulnerability depicted before without seeming generic in his charm or being overshadowed by others too much (heroes get overshadowed by the villain in a handful of films anyway). Dunst matches well with snappy chemistry that balances scenes spent either with Maguire or Gillies.  Franco works with the gradual moments with bitter righteousness that still seems like a worried child when it comes to obsession and taking the mantle his father held (which I guess works pretty well in its little imitation of Hamlet, but seeing Dafoe again is a worthy bonus). Molina proves a worthy adversary, one struck by fate that is quite sardonic in his menace that draws you in from the very first moment with him on screen (at least if you compare him with his scenes spent with Murphy with his time with the AI arms); in other words, he makes for a fun villain that improves upon the dynamic seen between the lead and the adversary from before in terms of showing the nature of power and responsibility. Closing out the cast is a few brief-scene wonders from before with the bright nurturer in Harris and the wonderful blustering comic relief in Simmons. At any rate, the film proves efficient at 127 minutes in balancing its spectacle with effective characterization that draws upon the comics without being beholden to too much cheese or being a show for overdrawn spectacle - Raimi honed his craft with the hero film in Darkman and he has merely improved upon the human aspects of what makes a thrilling and poignant movie that happens to have folks in costumes that builds on the curiosity left by its predecessor while setting its own stage for another adventure without too much trouble.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Planes, Trains and Automobiles.

Review #879: Planes, Trains and Automobiles.

Cast:
Steve Martin (Neal Page), John Candy (Del Griffith), Laila Robins (Susan Page), Michael McKean (State Trooper), Kevin Bacon (Taxi Racer), Dylan Baker (Owen), Olivia Burnette (Marti Page), and Larry Hankin (Doobie) Directed by John Hughes (#046 - The Breakfast Club, #207 - Ferris Bueller's Day Off, #249 - Sixteen Candles, and #643 - Uncle Buck)

Review:
When it comes to great buddy films and great holiday films, this one will likely spring to mind. Martin and Candy are a great duo, in part because of how easy they seem to portray their roles, along with having some wonderful chemistry. But like other good comedies, there is also a good edge of drama as well, with a great sense of realness and charm within itself. Sure, there are good funny scenes (such as when the two learn about being robbed), but there are also good dramatic scenes, such at the motel and even near the end as well. The story structure is a familiar one, but it is executed in a fresh manner. The timing is excellent, with gags and secondary characters that serve their purposes well. It uses its scenery (mostly with snow) nicely, where everything seems real and looks real too. It's not a movie with mere caricatures, as both are equally likable in their own way, contributing their own kinds of emotion that makes for a film filled with depth. In short, this is a fine film that keeps itself in check, with Martin and Candy providing for many highlights that make for an excellent film.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues.

Review #693: Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues.

Cast
Will Ferrell (Ron Burgundy), Steve Carell (Brick Tamland), Paul Rudd (Brian Fantana), David Koechner (Champ Kind), Christina Applegate (Veronica Corningstone), Dylan Baker (Freddie Shapp), Meagan Good (Linda Jackson), James Marsden (Jack Lime), Kristen Wiig (Chani Lastnamé), and Judah Nelson (Walter Burgundy) Directed by Adam McKay (#526 - Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy)

Review
Admittedly, nine years is a weird gap between films, especially for a comedy. But hey, nobody's perfect. But was is it worth it? I guess so. It's not a disappointment but in terms of fun, the first wins out. It is a likable movie, and it does flow well with itself, which are all nice little strengths, though again it nearly suffers from comparisons to the first. The movie doesn't really have much of a flaw to it, though the cameos at the end of the movie, while somewhat entertaining, almost seem too indulgent. The movie seems to be a little more injected with drama and while it is admirable to have, it's not really helping the movie all that much. It is fun to see the cast once again, and I guess it wouldn't be awful if a third movie was made. So all in all, take the movie for what it is and consider the fact this isn't a bad way to spend your time, so that's that.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.