Interstellar.

Review #2322: Interstellar.

Cast: 

Matthew McConaughey (Joseph "Coop" Cooper), Anne Hathaway (Dr. Amelia Brand), Jessica Chastain (Murphy "Murph" Cooper; Mackenzie Foy as 10-year-old Murph; Ellen Burstyn as elderly Murph), John Lithgow (Donald), Michael Caine (Professor John Brand), Casey Affleck (Tom Cooper; Timothée Chalamet as 15-year-old Tom), Wes Bentley (Doyle), Bill Irwin (TARS - voice and puppetry and CASE puppetry), Topher Grace (Getty), David Gyasi (Professor Romilly), and Matt Damon (Dr. Mann) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk , #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises, #1618 - Tenet, #2050 - Oppenheimer)

Review: 

“It’s been a really interesting challenge. When you say you’re making a family film, it has all these pejorative connotations that it’ll be somehow soft. But when I was a kid, these were family films in the best sense, and they were as edgy and incisive and challenging as anything else on the blockbuster spectrum. I wanted to bring that back in some way.”

Honestly, the best way to talk about a movie like this is to just go with it. In 2006, Kip Thorne (a theoretical physicist, writer, and future Nobel Prize winner) and Lynda Obst had come up with trying to work with each other again, having previously collaborated on Contact (1997), in which Thorne's study of wormhole space travel had been incorporated into the screenplay (as written by Carl Sagan, a close friend of Obst). Thorne had theories involving “warped space-time" that eventually found Jonathan Nolan assigned to write that outline into a narrative. When the original director in mind (Steven Spielberg) had other ideas in mind to work on, Christopher Nolan expressed interest to direct and to incorporate his own ideas for the screenplay (evidently, the first hour of the film, set in the not-too distant future with inspiration taken from the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s, is pretty true to the original screenplay while one particular shape for the climax came from C.Nolan). Thorne had set out two guidelines for the Nolans in having a film that wouldn't "violate established physical laws" while having wild speculations spring in some sort of science. He later wrote a book on his experiences as a consultant on the film (The Science of Interstellar). The effects by Double Negative had the use of digital projectors to go along with miniature effects from other collaborators for spacecraft (incidentally, that one famous image of an actual black hole came out in 2019). Released in November of 2014, Interstellar was a pretty fair success in its time, with probably the visual effects receiving the most praise (for its 10th anniversary, select theaters showed the film again in 70mm IMAX).

I do wonder if I would like this film better on a re-watch a few years down the line. In fact, the reputation of the film suggests that, well, for all the engineer and craftmanship, the mysteries really can have love as one of the ways forward. It is worthy spectacle and also a mash of human interest for 169 minutes. Time is the important factor in the great vacant reaches of spaces that ultimately lend one to the immeasurable pull of hope in the strange margins. The best way to go with the movie is to watch with as little to really know about it as possible, one in which you don't look for tricks but just try to absorb the film piece by piece. It does not leave one impatient to get to space because of the general commitment shown by Nolan and company to let things breathe in a place filled with blighted surroundings (consider this is a film where textbooks talk about the Apollo missions as one of waste and elaborate conspiracy). In a film with plenty of worthwhile effects, it also happens to be a movie with a worthwhile cast to support it all, since it basically is a fable of people who have to learn to look up again, ones who cannot just be caretakers or "stay" where they are. McConaughey has the calm sense to make it all work in maneuvering charm that is worth playing out for a journey beyond the stars. That first third (rough estimate) in the fields of a blighted world with him and the on-screen youth in Foy and Chalamet to go along with Lithgow make for an earthy quartet to balance out the inevitable when one is brought into the mix of Caine (reciting one particular poem) and the reasoned grace from Hathaway. Of course, the other key is in the latecomer in Damon to round out a look on human nature in all of its facets when confronted with danger, loneliness, love, or the space between (of course, Irwin is there too to convey the robot voice and puppetry to really round out the highlights, I didn't forget that). The enjoyment of the film is in layers, really, managing to walk the frontier tightrope (as one might say) in drawing a sci-fi epic in the eyes of a family and where that leads for meaningful stakes in what really matters most when it comes to the immeasurable qualities of survival. There are plenty of moments that one will find astounding, such as say, the tidal wave sequence or the manual docking sequence to go along with the eventual "clicking together" moment that rewards the curious with threading the needle in not just being a cop out for the sake of sweeping it all up. In totality, it is a pretty neat movie when viewed all the way through in execution in ways that can only be understood for those with the patience to six through such a worthwhile journey. I can't call it my favorite Nolan movie, but it is worthwhile enough to recommend on the best screen possible to absorb for all that it brings beyond the stars. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Welcome again to December 20, the anniversary day for Movie Night, which is now 14 years old. I apologize for the lengthy delay between reviews, I simply wanted to take some time off to refresh myself so that I close out 2024 by not "phoning it in". Surprise: today is a doubleheader day.

The Exorcist: Believer.

Review #2099: The Exorcist: Believer.

Cast: 

Leslie Odom Jr (Victor Fielding), Ann Dowd (Ann), Jennifer Nettles (Miranda), Norbert Leo Butz (Tony), Lidya Jewett (Angela Fielding), Olivia Marcum (Katherine), Ellen Burstyn (Chris MacNeil), Okwui Okpokwasili (Dr. Beehibe), Raphael Sbarge (Don Revans), and Danny McCarthy (Stuart) Directed by David Gordon Green (#1151 - Halloween (2018), #1752 - Halloween Kills, and #1906 - Halloween Ends)

Review: 

In the beginning was The Exorcist (1973), and the directorial word was with William Friedkin and the written word was William Peter Blatty. As you probably already know, the novel came about because of a story that Blatty heard about a teenager that had suffered possession from the Devil before undergoing an exorcism. To put it mildly, it was one hell of a good time in atmospheric quality that was made by a craftsman with striking belief in what they were doing when it came to suspense and the "mystery of faith, the mystery of goodness, that mystery which is inexplicable, but it's there." For better or worse, no other film with the Exorcist label has come even close to following it as a sequel or even a prequel. The 1977 sequel was made by someone who vehemently rejected doing the original, while Blatty's 1990 feature was meddled by executives for the ending. Exorcist: The Beginning (2004) and Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005) is a tale for another time to pick apart. Anyway. One wonders if you thought this was going to be a good film even with hearing that it would apparently be the first of three new Exorcist films. I believed that there was a flicker of hope, because Green did manage to make one successful Halloween film that seemed like the best of the shovel-load of the previous sequels. Of course, he made two inferior films immediately after (Ends was so frustrating that I wrote two thousand words about it), but I had my hope for even the most basic average quality. In theory, a new Exorcist film could have opened the door for trying to blow the doors off all of those other films about exorcisms and possessions that have followed in the wake of the original. Maybe there was something useful to say as the 50th anniversary of the original film was this year, even with the passing of William Friedkin. The screenplay was done by Peter Sattler and David Gordon Green, while the story was done by Scott Teems, Danny McBride, and David Gordon Green.

Congratulations, we have the worst Exorcist sequel since Exorcist II: The Heretic. I would say that Gordon Green should be ashamed of himself for making such a mediocre movie, but I am not sure if he actually would have shame at the idea of making yet another hack sequel to a horror franchise. One detects the belief of trying to play both tribute and one-upper when it comes to Believer, which goes from mildly bland in its first half to a climax that is somehow less scary than a homeless man talking to you about Christ while smelling of alcohol. Friedkin never saw the sequels, but I think his statement about them proves doubly correct here, what Believer does in its "attempt to do is to defrock the story and to send the thing up.” When it comes to acting, it reminds of a bland family drama. It mildly involves the viewer, because the initial setup (after a snoozer prologue) is two children that wind up going missing before turning up with burns on the feet and a strange affliction. There is no sense of tension with these actors, even with Odom trying his best to deliver a performance of someone of challenged faith. You might wonder where Burstyn comes in to play as the one returning actor from the original (well, not the only one...), and oh look, a main character of a previous film being found to have written a book on their previous experience, haven't seen that before. I imagine the paycheck was great for such a shallow role that lasts all of a couple of minutes, because it surely proves that even Academy Award winning actresses can flail in films that don't give them a useful role just like everyone else (such as say, Linda Blair from the second one). It is amusing that the film does fine with its effects but finds nothing when it comes to sacrifice or suspense. Why should we care about what happens in this film with these people when it doesn't have the fortitude to do anything to challenge the perception that this is just a worthless retread? One would have better ethical dilemmas when debating whether to donate $1 or $5 to their receipt than what they see here. Unlike the do-gooders that bloated words about the 1973 film having an R rating rather than an X rating, there won't be a soul here that even care that this is R-rated, because the teens and adults have seen better.

You might wonder why I feel a 5 is necessary for this film. Well, I wanted to be fair and take a nap before debating the merits of calling it either "not quite good enough in mediocrity" or "not even mediocre enough to maybe recommend". Every compliment I could give the film seems like a back-handed one when thinking back to other better films one could watch in 2023 or in their archives. So what if the film looks decent to view? So what if the actors don't detract the quality in acting? So what, so what, so what, this film is crap. At least crap like Blood of Dracula (1957) have the excuse of rushing through production to entertain audiences as their reason to be fast and cheap, but this is a multi-million-dollar budgeted film that serves as yet another violation of not understanding why the original film was as powerful and entertaining as it was. The original was made by a believer that knew how serious it was to treat its story with dignity to go with useful effects that managed to even make a medical procedure seem frightening to view. This film is made by people who should know better but only seem to make a case for people like me to call them hacks, pure and simple. I cannot imagine seeing another one of these in the theater, but heaven (or hell) knows horror films are always ripe for surprise. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Oh look, a 2023 horror film that doesn't suck: Saw X.

Redux: The Exorcist.

Redux #037: The Exorcist.

Cast: 

Ellen Burstyn (Chris MacNeil), Max von Sydow (Father Lankester Merrin), Lee J. Cobb (Lieutenant William F. Kinderman), Kitty Winn (Sharon Spencer), Jack MacGowran (Burke Dennings), Jason Miller (Father / Dr. Damien Karras, S.J.), Linda Blair (Regan MacNeil; Eileen Dietz as stand-in), Father William O'Malley (Father Joseph Dyer), Barton Heyman (Dr. Samuel Klein), Peter Masterson (Dr. Barringer), with Rudolf Schündler (Karl, House Servant), and Mercedes McCambridge (The Voice of Pazuzu) Directed by William Friedkin.

Review: 

From my review on April 22, 2011: 

To be honest, I found this film to be a little underwhelming. The first hour is just talking, and building up to the Exorcism. It finally comes, and we do see the scariness in the Devil. I felt underwhelmed for the first half, but the second half helped. The acting is decent, with some scare from Regan and special effects that hold up to this day.

"When [William Peter Blatty] wrote this book he knew that I had a background in documentary films as well, and he wanted the story to be filmed as realistically as possible, and so did I. We did not want to make a scary horror film or a fantasy film. At that time as well as today, the public knows very little about exorcism, little to nothing. Everything that is known about it is sensationalized in the public, and certainly the film I made contributed to that; there is no question about it. Because people regarded it as a horror film. But I made the film as a believer." - William Friedkin.

Admittedly, there are a handful of reasons one could do to look back upon The Exorcist in 2023. For one thing, the film (released in late December) is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. Another thing is that 2023 is also the beckoning of a new "Exorcist film", specifically one that is serving as the first of a new trilogy that follows just the original film, complete with a returning cast member from before that makes its premiere on the very first Friday of October. Another is the fact that it seems appropriate to look back upon the career of its director William Friedkin, who passed away in August. But for me, I think the best reason of all is the fact that Movie Night's very first review of a film in the horror genre way back over a decade ago, was this very film. Granted, it wasn't the first horror film I ever saw, because in addition to those R-rated action films, I watched a few horror films before I was even 15, as one might do, but it certainly was a big film that one can hold up within the horror genre...and I guess I really set it up so highly in my head that it only seemed good enough for an 8/10 rating. The quantity and quality of the review is obvious, so here is a chance to re-write that wrong. The film is adapted from William Peter Blatty's 1971 novel of the same name, which was inspired by events that had allegedly been occurred in 1949 with a boy named only "Roland Doe". Blatty had heard about it when studying at Georgetown University (studying in English, which he also did for a master's degree at George Washington University), but what set him on the path to write it was seeing the film adaptation of Ira Levin's novel in Rosemary's Baby (1968), which pleased him right until the ending involving the resolution of the unborn child. Once a comic novelist and a screenwriter for comedies, the resulting success of the novel was tremendous, to put it lightly, and he got his wish to have William Friedkin serve as director with the success of The French Connection (1972). Friedkin was raised in the Jewish faith, but he found himself more welcoming of the teachings of Jesus as a declared agnostic. As such, when it came to influences, one film cited was Carl Theodor Dreyer's Ordet (1955). As such, Friedkin hired actual priests to appear in the film along with serve as technical advisors. Over four decades later, he would direct a documentary titled The Devil and Father Amorth (2017), which featured Father Gabriele Amorth, an exorcist for the Diocese of Rome that had mentioned Friedkin's film in his first book (An Exorcist Tells His Story). Friedkin worked closely with Blatty on the screenplay (the latter served as both screenwriter and producer). Blatty would write two further novels involving faith with The Ninth Configuration (1978) and Legion (1983), for which the latter served as the sequel to the aforementioned Exorcist; Blatty spearheaded the film adaptations of both novels as director in 1980 for Configuration and 1990 for the now retitled Exorcist III. Forty years after publishing the novel, Blatty did a revising of the novel that added a new chapter.

The original cut of the film lasted 122 minutes after Warner Bros. suggested cuts in order to fit more screenings, which Friedkin did. However, in 2000, a "The Version You've Never Seen" version was released that features a handful of cut sequences from before, most notably with the final scene that seems more in line with the book, which results in a runtime of 132 minutes. The mysteries that matter most to the film, true to Friedkin's word, are ones of faith, goodness, and the one of inexplicability. It is is a carefully built film on intense scale that is best enjoyed with great patience. Calling it the first of anything in horror is perhaps a too bit lofty to use, because of previous great horror films such as Psycho (1960), but I'm sure you can see the importance of a film like this beyond just calling it a film about possession, because it is a film of sacrifice and finding one's faith. The power of that comes with the cast to hold up such tremendous production values, for which I'm sure you would already guess. There were a variety of actors considered for key roles in terms of the desires of Warner Bros., such as asking Audrey Hepburn first about the leading role (she declined, as did a few others) or the late switching of Stacy Keach for Jason Miller (playwright of That Championship Season). Both Burstyn and Miller were big on doing these roles (the former was quoted as believing it to be destiny to play the role and the latter, who had studied for the priesthood, felt that he was Karras). Friedkin got his way with the casting of both actors and the rest eventually fell into place, which even included a critic of the book in O'Malley. Each of the core cast succeed in drawing a film of dread within atmosphere that is homed in realism as much as one can expect when seeing vomit or a cerebral angiography or whatever strikes a nerve in the realm of anxiety, moral or otherwise. The film is as much Miller's film as it is one of Burstyn & Blair when it comes to the driving point because of how he draws you with such intensity that comes from a great array of guilt and wavering spirit. Don't get me wrong though, Burstyn and Blair do just as well, with the former's sense of fear for her loved one shining through with the scattered innocence/corruption of Blair providing great terror. True, there is a certain voice quality in dubbing that can only come from an Academy Award winner in McCambridge and a minimal use of a double for intense scenes, but I think you know what I mean when I say that Blair went through the whirlwind and survived with a useful performance. Von Sydow and Cobb provide grizzled support that you greet for those familiar with those actors or voices (the former in aged makeup, of course). It is a film that builds in the terror of what enfold before you get to that exorcism, and it probably stands to reason that any film since this one involving exorcisms or possession has considerable ground to cover when it comes to trying to play distinct from this one. None have probably stokes half of the controversy that comes with its tone of haunting qualities or religious fervor, for better or worse. The sacrifice made at the end, now combined with the revised ending, makes it all the more involving as a film fit for its age and genre, a useful lesson for horror through and through.

In the end, what is about The Exorcist that makes it endure so vividly in reputation? There are a variety of factors, but the most important is that Friedkin and company had the faith required to craft a film as straight to the line as they wished to do that struck a nerve within the viewer of the time that works just as well now because it respected its viewer with patience and craftsmanship to make for a worthy unsettling time. It is probably hard to figure just which Friedkin film ranks among his best, but it is perhaps The Exorcist that endures most when it comes to the realm of looking forward to the season of horror or perhaps the time to look upon one's faith, and that is perhaps worth more than anything in the material sense.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Well, the clock is soon to strike 12 on October, so why not get a head start? October will be quite the showcase to show a wide variety of horror films from the past such as The Monster to the current year within The Exorcist: Believer. We shall see how many films get a spotlight here and what finds its way for the first week of November.

The Last Picture Show.

Review #1000: The Last Picture Show.

Cast: 
Timothy Bottoms (Sonny Crawford), Jeff Bridges (Duane Jackson), Cybill Shepherd (Jacy Farrow), Ben Johnson (Sam the Lion), Cloris Leachman (Ruth Popper), Ellen Burstyn (Lois Farrow), Eileen Brennan (Genevieve), Clu Gulager (Abilene), Sam Bottoms (Billy), Randy Quaid (Lester Marlow), Gary Brockette (Bobby Sheen), Sharon Taggart (Charlene Duggs), Barc Doyle (Joe Bob Blanton), Bill Thurman (Coach Mr. Popper), Jessie Lee Fulton (Miss Mosey), Joe Heathcock (Town Sheriff), John Hillerman (English Teacher), and Frank Marshall (Tommy Logan) Directed by Peter Bogdanovich.

Review: 
Here it is. The big one. I hope to satisfy you folks with the review of this film, which I had been longing to do for quite some time, so what better way than now? It also happens to be a film set and shot in my home state of Texas. Enjoy the show.

It sometimes feels hard to explain the benefits or the highlights of the town you live in, especially if you live in a small city. What does it have that another city doesn't have? Is there much to having civic pride? Based on the 1966 novel of the same name by Larry McMurtry, The Last Picture Show is an interesting look into what makes up a dying little town such as this, and the characters that live in it. Bottoms and Bridges are a fairly effective duo, each having an interesting quality to them that stands out, such as Bottoms' eyes and Bridges' charm, and they both do tremendous jobs that stick out in a cavalcade of stand-out performances. Shepherd (in her debut role) does a spirited job, managing to be interesting along with alluring. Near the halfway point of the film, Johnson's character reminisces about the time spent in a prairie, and the way that he talks about old memories seem like something you could hear from someone in your neck of the woods if you gave a listen. He doesn't have too many lines (in fact he is in the film for nine minutes), but it is the way that he expresses them that makes him an enduring figure in the film, as if he was the soul of the town. Leachman also pulls a capable job, particularly during the climax. The rest of the cast stick out in their own little ways. This film was nominated for six Academy Awards, with Johnson and Leachman winning for supporting roles. These are characters worth watching because these are characters that we can see with fair honesty. They don't suddenly become comic characters for no reason, nor do they become melodramatic, and that serves to be a key highlight and something worth striving for in film today. Is it a bleak film? At times it is, but it also manages to be moving along with enduring, and Bogdanovich is the one responsible for making a movie as put together and complete as this one is.

The city's flatness and empty nature is perfectly captured by the cinematography by Robert Surtees, in part because of how he arranges the shots; the fact that it is shot in black-and-white (decided by Bogdanovich through a conversation with Orson Welles) also helps in showing this town (and its people) with a certain aesthetic that proves fitting for the movie. Everything from the music (with songs from artists such as Hank Williams) to even the clip of the "last picture show" (from the ending of Red River) is planned out in an effective manner. The film proved to be a success upon release, and a Special Edition Director's cut was released in 1992 that added seven minutes to the run-time (making it 127 minutes) that adds a bit to the film's stature. It's a coming-of-age film, but it also is an honest movie that never seems to break its mood nor its intentions. This is a movie worth watching in part because of how it captures the essence of the time it portrays along with its town that seem fresh even after over 40 years since its release.

I just wanted to give a word of thanks to any and all viewers of Movie Night over the past one thousand reviews. It has been a pleasure doing so many reviews in nearly seven years, and I will be the first to say that they have improved in quality over time - but having at least a few people read them (and share appreciation on occasion) feels nice. I do not know what is in store for the next batch of reviews, but I hope that you will enjoy them. Thank you. 

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Attached is a compilation of various celebratory landmarks over the past few years, from the 50th all the way to now. Enjoy: