MaXXXine.

Review #2227: MaXXXine.

Cast: 

Mia Goth (Maxine Minx), Elizabeth Debicki (Elizabeth Bender), Moses Sumney (Leon), Michelle Monaghan (Det. Williams), Bobby Cannavale (Det. Torres), Halsey (Tabby Martin), Lily Collins (Molly Bennett), Giancarlo Esposito (Teddy Knight, Esq.), Kevin Bacon (John Labat), and Simon Prast (Ernest Miller) Written and Directed by Ti West (#1893 - Pearl and #2133 - X)

Review: 

"My goal is to put you in the era and to put you in the aesthetics of that, so that way it feels end-to-end created."

X (2022) was a neat time for those who like films with a touch of familiar sleaze to go with their horror movies, one that was a "ballad of sex and violence". Pearl (2022) was, well, delightful in its bloody charm that I seem to mention either too much or not enough in charming horror features that included a teaser for "MaXXXine". As with the last two, West serves as both editor, co-producer and director/writer. The film (if you didn't already know) is set in 1985 around the time of The Night Stalker murders, who had a spree of murders and offenses in the state of Calfornia prior to his capture on August 31, 1985. Evidently, MaXXXine may not be the capstone of an "X trilogy" but instead just the third wheel of a well-oiled pastiche machine, which actually seems to be a compliment when it comes to worthwhile slasher fun that looks around at just how people get influenced by cinema (such as perhaps the kind of folks that can recite Hollywood Boulevard [1976] or The Day of the Locust [1975] when thinking about slime in the belly of the filmmaking beast). Or at least a film in the journey of self-actualization with an ending that happens to be a bit different than expected.

Sure, it is a glossy pastiche that is a notch below the last two films. But the enjoyment of the film for me makes it pretty easy because it seems pretty evident that when it comes to genres of film, horror is the easiest to spotlight and defend at the same time. B-movies and slasher films, when entertaining, still manage to get crap from people who either think horror is supposed to be "dignified" or wouldn't know entertainment if it bit them in the ass. People like to get spooked just as much as they like to absorb a film trying to play familiar dress up. This is a delightfully vapid and occasionally gruesome movie that I enjoyed most of the time that really does show just how cheap thrills really do provide worthwhile intervention when executed well enough. The driven nature of the main character was pretty unnerving in each of the previous two films, and while it may not be as prominent this time around, there are flashes of just how craven one really can be when driven to get the life they believe they deserve, even if it means stomping away (literally) at would-be saboteurs. Goth manages to maintain that strange sense of unnerving confidence that is alluring in all of its weird charm that straddles the craven line that comes in someone that really could be called an antihero in the best of ways. There are a few scenes that could stand as a highlight, but I think the one where she finds herself stuck in a chair with makeup all over spooks me the most (well, a stomping one might be spooky for others too, but staging terror is a matter of pride when it comes to horror). Being wrapped up in a murder mystery while others try to play A-values into a B-movie production makes for a few chuckles with Debicki or with Sumney (playing the other side of movie-connected folks, a man of the video store), but it is pretty evident that Bacon steals the show with such smarmy confidence befitting of his natural energy that comes out (accent and all). Monaghan and Cannavale provide familiar procedural chuckles that roll right in for my tastes because, well, familiarity always wins the day if it is committed. Eventually one sees where Esposito and Prast make for homely touches of where the film really will go within gruesome truths, particularly with the latter. The eventual reveal is probably not hard to see coming after a certain amount of time, but I appreciate the circular logic that comes in wanting to make a statement about the nature of Hollywood by making a film themselves. In the end, the intervention that arises for its climax (if you haven't seen it, it sounds like a dumb joke, but...) serves the film enough as a hodgepodge of gloss and blood for an engaging time that will surely make West's next idea a worthwhile one to look forward to.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Tenet.

Review #1618: Tenet.

Cast: 

John David Washington (the Protagonist), Robert Pattinson (Neil), Elizabeth Debicki (Katherine "Kat" Barton), Dimple Kapadia (Priya), Martin Donovan (Fay), Fiona Dourif (Wheeler), Yuri Kolokolnikov (Volkov), Himesh Patel (Mahir), Clémence Poésy (Barbara), Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Ives), Michael Caine (Sir Michael Crosby), Kenneth Branagh (Andrei Sator), and Denzil Smith (Sanjay) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk, and #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises)

Review: 
No question... the most ambitious film we’ve made. It’s a film of great ambition and great scale that takes a genre, namely the spy film, and tries to take it into some new territory, and tries to take the audience on a ride they might not have had before, and might not be expecting."

What one knows and doesn't know about this film likely could make for a good discussion between friends. But, dear reader, are we really friends when looking upon the flow of time or just strangers in the night? I imagine that statement probably made about as much sense as Tenet ultimately does in the long run: figure it out later after the experience is over. Honestly, the curiosity to doing this film came about months after its release into theaters (you may or may not recognize that fact with all the other things that happened in the year) - there was buzz and other such talk, but it seemed right to just wait it out for release at home (a release on physical media, mind you, as I will fortify myself on the hill of physical releases and/or cinema releases in a pandemic-less world forever). While the script took six years for Nolan to develop, images and concepts for the film were there in his head over the past two decades. He wanted to make a spy film that captured the excitement of films like the James Bond features (for which he is a fan of) that would be like working from a memory rather than specifics. It does not contain as many visual effects shots as his other films like The Dark Knight Rises (2012), but the creativity in its execution with certain sequences can't be overlooked, including a sequence with a real plane being used for an explosion, and I am sure the inversion scenes will catch one for a loop.

So, after all that hubbub in the twilight, how is the overall film in entertainment? Oh, it is a fine movie. If one tries not to understand it but instead feel it, they hopefully will get a feeling of enjoyment rather than the worst-case scenario of frustration. It is likely a film that will require a second viewing not so much to try and absorb more of what it really is all about but more just to see how it resonates in its excitement and narrative decisions from viewing to viewing. But ask yourself: how many folks will go through the time of 150 minutes and decide to do it twice to try and improve upon fine spectacle? I imagine that I will do the film over again at some point in time, probably when I ever look back upon one of Nolan's other big-scale films involving science fiction in some way such as Interstellar (2014). In other words, some of it made sense, some of it will probably make sense another time, and the rest falls somewhere in between, one that will please those who desire a bit of cerebral interest while making the action folk have a bit of glaze in their eyes. Washington, a former high school/professional talent that found his first prominent role in the TV show Ballers (2015-19), certainly hits the mark when it comes to collected pace and on-the-go charm, which is required to make sure he isn't lost in the action pieces. Pattinson (having done quite a few smaller budget films over the past few years that received some notice) does well here, a worthy one of the time needed in following his instincts for a crisp and interesting performance to go right with Washington when needed (reportedly one of his inspirations was an attempt at trying to do an impersonation of author Christopher Hitchens). Debicki also does well with those moments of balance between calm and growing tension that makes a key effort in interest and grace. Branagh definitely seems to touch upon the "Bond villain" aspects a bit, right down to the attempt of a Russian accent and for what the film needs it goes alright in fatalistic interest. Others have their moments, such as an elusive Kapadia, but the real star proves to be in the staging of action, which for the most part is pretty good (sound mixing jokes aside, because the magic of subtitles makes me worry less), and I imagine that finding out more about the nature of those effects being created will be thought of just as much as folks who try to level out all the explanations about exactly how much Tenet makes/doesn't make sense. It is playing a game on us, and the way to win is to just sit back and not hurl at the ride. The opening opera sequence is quite a ram-shackling highlight, alongside a sequence that one gets to think about twice involving action. As a whole, it is a strange piece of ambitious entertainment, one that will strike at the heart of curiosity for those wanting something with a bit of thought placed into the trappings of action and sci-fi, although for others it will just seem opaque in the measure of its plot alongside other aspects; in short, one can call it the most intriguing film Nolan has ever made, or find it to be one of his lesser efforts - I find it to be right in the middle. If one needs a puzzle, sometimes one just needs to feel up to it to see how it all goes, and Tenet will certainly prove a curiosity for it.

Well, the year is up, and this happens to be the tenth review on New Year's Eve for Movie Night, which seems apt enough to mean covering a film from 2020 (a most quiet year for new releases when one focuses on everything else instead). Happy Holidays, and we will see each other again in 2021 for Season 11.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Widows (2018).

Review #1166: Widows.

Cast: 
Viola Davis (Veronica Rawlings), Michelle Rodriguez (Linda Perelli), Elizabeth Debicki (Alice Gunner), Cynthia Erivo (Belle), Colin Farrell (Jack Mulligan), Brian Tyree Henry (Jamal Manning), Daniel Kaluuya (Jatemme Manning), Jacki Weaver (Agnieska), Carrie Coon (Amanda Nunn), Robert Duvall (Tom Mulligan), Liam Neeson (Harry Rawlings), and Garret Dillahunt (Bash) Directed by Steve McQueen.

Review: 
I admit that this film came as a surprise on my radar, being something that fell right into the middle of November (right before Thanksgiving) with a bit of buzz but certainly one that probably would've benefited from being released in a different (and less busy) month, although at least it isn't one of those films that fall under limited releases. In any case, I was surprised to hear that Widows is based off a British prime-time television crime drama of the same name (written and created by Lynda La Plante), which aired as a six-part series each in 1983 and 1985 (along with a sequel series named She's Out in 1995). The show was remade previously in 2002, although the main plot dealt with theft of a painting. In any case, the film (with a screenplay from McQueen and Gillian Flynn) takes bits and pieces from the show while mixing in a political aspect (in this case, a robbery during a debate) that certainly make this film seem busy for its 129 minute run-time. Whether or not the film is fine entertainment relies on how much you invest into these characters and its buildup into its heist. For me, I thought the film worked just enough to make for some fine entertainment, having the right amount of capable thrills and a few moments of grimness and character moments to make for a solid winner. Davis pulls in a capable performance, showing strength in regard to what her character must go through with sudden events with a capability that makes her interesting to follow along with, whether when dealing with loss or dealing with having to set up a heist. Rodriguez is fine, but Debicki stands out quite well as the third arm of the heist, being charming and entertaining to follow along with as well. Erivo, the last arm of the team, does pretty fine with her time on screen, not having as much to say but doing her role without too much of a hitch. Farrell is effective in his plot-line, showing charisma alongside ooze in the fiber of his virtues, particularly when played off with his power broker on-screen father in Duvall, who plays his brief time to play it with such rude effectiveness. Henry also showcases his own degree of ambition that plays off fine, particularly when he and Farrell share a scene together involving an election for alderman. Kaluuya plays his ruthless enforcer role fairly effectively. Neeson is decent for his brief time on-screen. It has a fine deal of twists and action sequences that make for some entertaining execution, building up its characters and respective plot with a fair bit of juggling that makes for consistent (if not gradual) enjoyment. The film works better more often than not when dealing with the widows than the parts involving the election, although at least the two parts do feel natural enough to not seem too much like two different movies. I wonder how the film would have gone with a different length - would it have served better with a trim or lengthening in run-time? In any case, the movie serves its purpose of entertainment well with a fairly dynamic cast and a good amount of execution in the right places to make it something worth checking out.

Welcome to December. I meant to have this written prior to my birthday on the 1st, but time had to be spent to make sure that at least one review was done before November ended. Hopefully there will be a good amount of reviews to go around for the final month of the year, which is shaping up to have just as many (if not a bit more than) reviews as the year before.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

Review #932: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

Cast:
Chris Pratt (Peter Quill / Star-Lord), Zoe Saldaña (Gamora), Dave Bautista (Drax the Destroyer), Vin Diesel (Baby Groot), Bradley Cooper (Rocket), Michael Rooker (Yondu Udonta), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Pom Klementieff (Mantis), Elizabeth Debicki (Ayesha), Chris Sullivan (Taserface), Sean Gunn (Kraglin), Sylvester Stallone (Stakar Ogord), and Kurt Russell (Ego) Directed by James Gunn (#626 -  Guardians of the Galaxy)

Review:
With reviews like these, I generally try to avoid making it about the experience I had around watching the movie in a theater on opening week, mainly because I fear that it may come off as irritating to you fellow readers. But I do admit that the Marvel films (after nine years and 15 films) are generally entertaining along with being well crafted, whether watched alone or with others by me (with the latter applying this time around). The first Guardians of the Galaxy was a fun enjoyable time that had its shares of amusement and thrills, which definitely hit the right spot for me (I'm just surprised it was released three years ago). In any case, this is a fairly enjoyable sequel, and while it doesn't quite rise to the level of the first film, it still works just enough without just being a rehash. The story decides to split the characters up until around the climax (while thankfully not hinting at them breaking up or anything), and I think it helps in letting the film breathe a bit with the characters it tries to feature along with the action. The main group of heroes are all pretty well in their roles; Baby Groot is a neat highlight. Pratt does a fine job, having good chemistry with Saldana and Russell. Cooper and Bautista also do fine jobs. Rooker (a fairly neat standout in the first film) gets a more significant kind of role this time around, and he does a good job with that advantage, being quite fun to watch. Russell is naturally entertaining, and he does a fine job at delivering the gravitas one would expect playing a living planet as a character. Klementieff is also pretty good at playing a slightly naive but easily likable character that has some neat scenes with Bautista. The rest of the cast (such as Gillian and Gunn) are also pretty fine at the roles they play. There is certainly a degree of emotional depth this time around (reminding me of The Empire Strikes Back, at least in some part) that more often than not manages to hit the mark and not bog the movie down, especially when the movie has a great spectacle of effects and action to back itself up nicely at 136 minutes. Take it for what it is: Good ol' fun, with Gunn delivering a fun flick once again.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.