Wolfen.

Review #1902: Wolfen.

Cast: 

Albert Finney (Detective Dewey Wilson), Diane Venora (Detective Rebecca Neff), Edward James Olmos (Eddie Holt), Gregory Hines (Coroner Whittington), Tom Noonan (Ferguson), Dick O'Neill (Captain Warren), Dehl Berti (Old Indian), Peter Michael Goetz (Ross), Reginald VelJohnson (Morgue Attendant), James Tolkan ("Baldy", The Medical Examiner), and Donald Symington (Lawyer) Directed by Michael Wadleigh.

Review: 

Sure, it is possible that there is no real big link between a film like this and ones such as The Howling (1981) and An American Werewolf in London (1981). But it is fun to talk about the one thing they do have in common: each are horror movies with killer wolves, with The Howling being released in March before Wolfen was released in July and American Werewolf in London was released in August. Wolfen was the least successful with audiences among the three, not making its $17 million budget back. The movie is an adaptation of The Wolfen, a 1978 novel by Whitley Strieber (a writer of thriller novels and a "non-fiction" book about being abducted...by non-human entities). David M. Eyre, Jr. and Michael Wadleigh were credited for both the screenplay and story while Eric Roth provided un-credited work. Apparently, the book and film share distinct differences, as the book had cops become the opening victims rather than a land developer (with wife and bodyguard in tow) and the climax is also different in how the lead characters handle the Wolfen. The film began shooting in 1979 for a targeted release in the fall of 1980, but delays would arise between Orion Pictures (the production company behind the film, which was distributed by Warner Bros.) and Wadleigh. It got to the point where the Directors Guild of America had a three-week hearing involving the rights of the director, who apparently had a first cut of four hours while complaining of having no budget reported to him (at least he was granted his choice of star with Finney, since Dustin Hoffman pestered him to try and get the role to no avail). The next cut was two hours and 29 minutes, but then the producers made an agreement to let Wadleigh shoot the remainder of things needed to be filmed before Richard Chew was sent to cut the film after Wadleigh was done and let go (John D. Hancock was sent to supervise the ADR sessions). This is how you get a final version of one hour and 54 minutes. This was the feature film debut of Wadleigh, who is best known for his work in documenting the 1969 Woodstock Music Festival, for which he and his crew shot for a documentary that was released in 1970 to great success. At any rate, this is the only non-documentary that Wadleigh has ever shot.

You can tell that this is a movie written to feel four hours long that got hacked into something that is a procedural movie with flashes of horror that ends up with varying results. Man, do I wish that I enjoyed this film more than I did, because honestly, it pales when compared to the aforementioned other wolf films. For one, this film isn't a "werewolf film", because the wolves here are a spirit that may or may not be gods, ones that have walked the Earth for many, many, many years, as explained by a group of Native Americans that exists to defend their territory. So, yes, there isn't a werewolf transformation here, since the concern is really more about looking at urban decay and procedure, since one is trying to guess how folks are being terrorized by something that severs certain body parts without just thinking it is terrorism, complete with nice shots of New York (such as the South Bronx). A good chunk of this is actually fairly interesting (having a thermographic visual for the Wolfen perspective is one), but at a certain point you really are just waiting for them to stop window-dressing and get to the point. Yes, it does keep itself in the realm of seriousness without ridicule, but it only marginally has the element of shock to keep things going. Sometimes you have to cut the cord, and I think this means that we have a film that is watchable but quite average. I think the cast is assembled nicely, because Finney does make a quality leader. He keeps a shaky but composted attitude about what goes on without making it look like it is beneath him. Venora was actually making her film debut with this film after graduating from Juilliard School and stage plays. She does okay here, quiet but serviceable in the procedural element...the chemistry between not so much, but it isn't too corny. Olmos practically chews on the camera in brooding charm, which proves quite compelling. Tap dancer-turned-actor Hines provides a bit of levity to the surroundings as well, making a useful rapport with Finney in minimal moments. Noonan is offbeat and quite watchable in little moments as well, while O'Neill plays the cop beat about how you would expect. I really did want to like the film more, because there is something to brood over with the idea of nature vs. greed, but I think the pacing is a bit uneven to hold things together enough to really make capable thrills. This isn't to say that I wanted an effects show, because the movie does do fine with the perspective shots alongside ones with wolves, but I think a little more "oomph" is required here to make it less like a procedural that just happened to break out into horror, particularly with a low-key ending (again, one that plays to the allure of what is allowed to lurk in the shadows rather than the book's idea about things) - decent for the film's mood but also just okay. I wonder how this would have worked as a four-hour cut or as a miniseries, where you can play out all of the things you want in trying to do a Bronx tale of people getting cut down by wolves that have humans as their prey. In fact, if you want to play semantics about better procedurals, Q, released the following year involving a winged serpent, handled its balance of procedural and creature elements with more reverence than this film (schlock or not, some things work better to others). At any rate, Wolfen is a decent film sandwiched in between other, better, movies involving creatures of the night, which may work out quite well for those who are interested in curiosity pieces among the years of horror.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Coco (2017).

Review #1016: Coco.

Cast: 
Anthony Gonzalez (Miguel Rivera), Gael García Bernal (Héctor), Benjamin Bratt (Ernesto de la Cruz), Alanna Ubach (Mamá Imelda Rivera), Renée Victor (Abuelita Elena Rivera), Ana Ofelia Murguía (Mamá Coco Rivera), Edward James Olmos (Chicharrón), Alfonso Arau (Papá Julio Rivera), Selene Luna (Tía Rosita Rivera), Dyana Ortellí (Tía Victoria Rivera), Herbert Siguenza (Tío Felipe Rivera and Tío Oscar Rivera), Jaime Camil (Papá Enrique Rivera), Sofía Espinosa (Mamá Luisa Rivera), and Luis Valdez (Tío Berto Rivera) Directed by Lee Unkrich (#074 - Monsters, Inc, #155 - Finding Nemo, #382 - Toy Story 3, and #441 - Toy Story 2) and Adrian Molina.

Review: 
You are likely wondering if there was anything before or after the film. In this case, Olaf's Frozen Adventure, a 21-minute "short" played before the main feature. Long story short, it is a finely animated piece, but I don't see the point of playing this before Coco. Sure, it is a Disney production for a film released by Walt Disney Pictures, but this is something you would see as a television special, not on a big screen. Long story short, it doesn't detract from Coco, but it isn't really anything you absolutely need to see, unless of course you're a huge fan of Frozen. Hopefully you enjoy the following review.

I will admit that I had a fair amount of expectations from this film, likely because Pixar does have a fair (but not perfect) record with their movies, but also because it seemed particularly interesting. Admittedly, there are likely some comparisons that could be made to The Book of Life (2014), but there isn't much point in doing so in my view seeing as I hadn't seen the other film before this (one can likely search the web all they want for the comparisons they desire). In any case, Coco is a wonderful movie, achieving a great look with tremendous animation and a riveting story and cast of characters that surely makes for great entertainment for all audiences. Gonzalez does a fine job as the lead, never approaching the lines of annoyance or unlikeability, while also making his character fairly interesting to follow for the film, and he also does a fairly decent jobs for times when he sings as well. Bernal does a pretty commendable job, having some fine moments of amusements, but he also proves to be an interesting character to follow as well, with him and Gonzalez having pretty good chemistry together. Bratt is enjoyable to watch as well, having a fine amount of charisma that certainly seems believable. The rest of the cast is also fairly pretty good at their roles, each having at least one good moment throughout the film, most of the time having a pretty good effect. The animation is wonderful to watch, having a dazzling colorful effect at times that shows a good deal of creativity and imagination while not distracting one from the story itself. The movie has a fairly cohesive narrative that sticks well enough while also making sure to cover its bases splendidly. Although it has its amusing moments, the movie does manage to create some emotion without feeling fabricated nor overly sentimental. At 110 minutes, it feels like the right kind of run-time for a film like this, although some could find it to be a bit dragged in the beginning, but I'd say that the film is never boring on any level, whether on the eyes or for what the film wants to be about, saying some fairly interesting things about culture and family along with other things that should be watched and not spoiled in a review. This is an easy film for me to recommend because of the elements that make this a clear winner, from its animation to its heart.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Blade Runner 2049.

Review #997: Blade Runner 2049.

Cast: 
Ryan Gosling (K), Harrison Ford (Rick Deckard), Ana de Armas (Joi), Sylvia Hoeks (Luv), Robin Wright (Lt. Joshi), Mackenzie Davis (Mariette), Carla Juri (Dr. Ana Stelline), Lennie James (Mister Cotton), Dave Bautista (Sapper Morton), Jared Leto (Niander Wallace), Edward James Olmos (Gaff) Directed by Denis Villeneuve (#753 - Sicario)

Review: 
It has been over five years since I reviewed Blade Runner (#100, The Final Cut edition), and I will admit that I never actually thought a sequel would happen. Well, here we are with a sequel 35 years later (and 897 reviews after I did the original, which seems fitting). I even watched the original film hours later I saw this, mainly so I could process my thoughts for this film a bit better. In any case, that film still manages to hold up quite well, but I still never dreamed that there would ever be a follow up, because of how the film built itself, owing to its direction but also its screenplay by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples; I mention this due to Fancher returning to write the screenplay for this film (with Michael Green serving as co-writer).

Honestly, this was a pretty great movie. For fans of the original, I would say that it was worth the wait, and its shining achievement is in how it is not a retread of the first film, managing to utilize elements from it that make for a capably clever narrative. Like the original, it is a bleak, shocking kind of science fiction film, and it certainly is a movie made to tell a story with numerous threads to it, owing to the 163 minute run-time (which is probably the longest for a film I've seen in quite some time), but it never bored me as it earns every minute of its time, although it admittedly could take a while to really kick in. Roger Deakins, who had done the cinematography for Skyfall (#572), Sicario (#753), and Fargo (#765) (along with several other films) does a tremendous job in this film, utilizing light and shadow all throughout the movie with a wonderful touch. Gosling does a fine job, carrying the film with the right kind of tone and feel that you would expect. It isn't too much of a spoiler to say that it takes quite a while for Ford to show up but when he does it certainly seems like the best time for him to appear, with the film having built itself enough tension already. Ford also does a fine job, being quite useful for the narrative while also showing some emotional prowess; likely the best scene with him in it involves him and Leto, mainly because of the exchange that they have. de Armas does a fine job in a role that certainly is unique while also being fitting for a film all about it means to be human. Hoeks steals the show, being quite chilling and incredibly stealthy in her role. Wright also does a fine job in the time she has on screen, as does Davis and Juri. Leto has a few scenes that certainly come off as a bit strange...so of course it makes sense in the context of the film, which he pulls off pretty well. Even if I wanted to, it is hard to really talk much about the film's plot because of how it builds itself with imagination that certainly will leave the viewer with some sort of emotional response (and some questions) by the time the film gets to its end.

Watching this film is not so much an endurance as it is an experience (which I hope does not come off as sounding pretentious), and it is one that I would recommend for someone looking for a film that challenges you to follow every step it ventures to take with its tone and characters. Whether there is a sequel to this film or not, this is a movie that stands on its own as a fine piece of entertaining science fiction, doing what it sets out to do without any kind of restrictions or bounds. It isn't a perfect film, but it is definitely an exceptional one at least.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Green Hornet.

Review #451: The Green Hornet.

Cast
Seth Rogen (Britt Reid), Jay Chou (Kato), Christoph Waltz (Benjamin Chudnofsky), Cameron Diaz (Lenore "Casey" Case), David Harbour (District Attorney Frank Scanlon), Tom Wilkinson (James Reid), Edward James Olmos (Mike Axford), Jamie Harris (Popeye), Chad Coleman (Chili), and Edward Furlong (Tupper) Directed by Michel Gondry.

Review
This is one of those films I never had actually got to finishing twice. Around the end of the year (heh, big shock) when every test was done, our classes used to watch some films. The Green Hornet was one of them, though I never got to finish the film. Until now. Everytime I watched it, I had a few questions that popped in my head about the movie: So in the 1960's show, was Kato more useful than the Green Hornet? Was Kato always better in hero work than the Hornet? Why does it seem that the Green Hornet is eerily similar to Batman? And who is Seth Rogen? The answers to my questions are: There are none. Well, maybe one answer. The Green Hornet was created on radio in 1936, 3 years before Batman was, with comic books about the Hornet coming 4 years later, later spawning two serial films, a short 10 minute French film, and the short lived but memorable 1960's series with Bruce Lee and Van Williams. The history of the Green Hornet is probably more interesting than the film itself. What I mean is that Rogen doesn't provide too much to the table, he feels more like the comedy relief to Jay Chou than an actual hero. The Black Beauty is a beautiful looking car though, and the effects are halfway decent, though it can't make up for the mediocre acting and the mediocre story. This was meant to be a superhero comedy, but it feels more like a chore, and Waltz, while admirable in his attempts, can't liven the film enough. This would be a disappointment, but since I don't really know the Hornet, it's just a miss.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Blade Runner.

Review #100: Blade Runner.

Cast
Harrison Ford (Rick Deckard), Rutger Hauer (Roy Batty), Sean Young (Rachael), Edward James Olmos (Gaff), M. Emmet Walsh (Harry Bryant), Daryl Hannah (Pris Stratton), William Sanderson (J. F. Sebastian), Brion James (Leon Kowalski), Joe Turkel (Dr. Eldon Tyrell), Joanna Cassidy (Zhora Salome), James Hong (Hannibal Chew), and Morgan Paull (Dave Holden) Directed by Ridley Scott.

Review: 
Welcome fellow viewers redirected to this review due to clicking the link from the review of the sequel, Blade Runner 2049. There have been some edits made to make it feel a bit more natural, as opposed to how it was back in 2012. The original review will be included on the bottom of this edit (in italics) for anyone curious to see the differences.

This is a film that is different from other 1980s entertainment flicks (such as The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Aliens), in that it is a neo-noir that is certainly mysterious and alluring at the same time due to its visuals while also being an incredibly entertaining science-fiction film. The version that I watched is The Final Cut (with a 117 minute run-time), which Scott had complete artistic and editorial control, as opposed to the original release cut, which had voice-overs by Ford. In any case, he seems to just blend into this environment as well as one would expect from him that lends itself to making for a useful experience. The rest of the cast is also commendable, such as Hauer, particularly near the climax. The visuals are good, with fine cinematography by Jordan Cronenweth that certainly spans itself all over the film. It may not seem as fast as other films of its time, but it definitely resonates with you on numerous levels, whether emotional or intellectual. This is a classic that certainly stands out from other science-fiction or neo-noir movies, having a distinct style and influence that still stands today. The story is adapted from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, by Phillip K. Dick, who has had numerous stories of his adapted into movies (such as Next, Paycheck, The Adjustment Bureau, Total Recall, and Minority Report). This film has been changed from the original 1982 version (that was forced on Scott by the studio), and that's a good thing as this version is more of Scott's vision that shows how good a director he is.

This is a film that is different from other 80s flicks (Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Aliens) as it relies on it's visual side and undertones to speak a story and not just action or...voiceovers (The version I was watching is The Final Cut) Anyway, the acting is good, especially from Harrison Ford. He really blends in, as he tries to do something different from previous films. I won't remember him as much as I do Han Solo or Indiana Jones, but I at least will remember him as an alright character. The visuals are good, with good cinematography all over the film. This is a classic that why it may not be exact and like every other film, it is still a good film. This film has lasted just about 30 years, and like Tron it has gotten better with age. The story is adapted from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, by Phillip K. Dick, who has made many books that have been adapted into films (Next, Paycheck, The Adjustment Bureau, Total Recall, and Minority Report) This film has been changed from the original version, and that's a good thing as this version is more of Scott's vision that shows how good a director he is. And so this ends the 100th Review. I thank all who have read these reviews, and I hope for 100 more.

And so this ends the 100th Review. I thank all who have read these reviews, and I hope for 100 more.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Selena.

Review #051: Selena.

Cast
Jennifer Lopez (Selena Quintanilla-Pérez), Jackie Guerra (Suzette Quintanilla), Constance Marie (Marcella Quintanilla), Alexandra Meneses (Sara), Jon Seda (Chris Pérez), Edward James Olmos (Abraham Quintanilla Jr), and Jacob Vargas (A.B. Quintanilla) Directed by Gregory Nava.

Review
This film is about Selena (obviously), the famous singer who brought Tejano music to a new high. The film introduces you to her life from when she and her family performed when she was 10, to her sucess, her secret marriage, all the way until her tragic death on March 31, 1995. The acting is good, especiallly from Lopez in her breakout role. This film is a good biopic about the singer who will always be remembered, Selena (again, obviously).

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 Stars.