Disclosure Day.

Review #2547: Disclosure Day.

Cast: 

Emily Blunt (Margaret Fairchild; Delaney Cuthbert as young Margaret), Josh O'Connor (Dr. Daniel Kellner; Tyler Renaud as young Daniel), Colin Firth (Noah Scanlon), Eve Hewson (Jane Blankenship), Colman Domingo (Hugo Wakefield), Wyatt Russell (Jackson), Henry Lloyd-Hughes (Casper Boyd), Elizabeth Marvel (Sister Maura), Hettienne Park (Serena), Tommy Martinez (Dave Santiago), Gabby Beans (Angela Childs), Jeremy Shamos (Claypool), Brandon Wilson (Nathan Twinning), Priyanka Kedia (Grace Zhao), Elliot Villar (Diaz), Noah Robbins (Munsey), and Michael Gaston (General Dobbs)

Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168-#170, #302, #351, #480, #563, #573,  #642, #958, #1068, #1305, #1478, #1520, #1528, #1560, #1843, #2000 - Duel), #2026 - Twilight Zone: The Movie) 

Review

"At the core of Disclosure Day is the question: Where has all our empathy gone? Would an actual disclosure day reunite what's divided, or begin to repair what's broken in this siphoning away of empathy? And I think that was the personal link for me. There's more focus in this story on human connection than even the eventual and hopeful connection between an off-world civilization and the human species."

For a movie with such a clunky title (no, I don't care that there was already a movie called "Disclosure" in the 1990s), it sure is interesting to hear how many people apparently went to see it in its first week, mainly because I chose to not see much of the marketing for the film, particularly with its trailer. It's been a while since I saw a Spielberg movie in theaters, mainly because I don't remember what I was doing when West Side Story [2021]* or The Fabelmans [2022] (but I do remember seeing Ready Player One [2018]), but the curiosity was bubbling since the first rumblings of a "UFO film" came around in 2024. One inspiration listed was a New York Times article ("Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program") about a program exploring space phenomena without identification (okay you've got "unidentified anomalous phenomena" and "unidentified flying object", what sounds better?); Spielberg wrote a story outline over two months in 2023. We've had a few things related to the disclosure movement* or conspiracies dictated about say, Roswell, ranging from the light fare such as getting a body from there in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) or the 2002 miniseries Taken (as executive produced by Spielberg) to, well, documentaries such as The Age of Disclosure (2025), which had presented former government officials and disclosure movement people with varying claims and arguments and, well, little physical evidence. David Koepp wrote the screenplay (reportedly doing over 40 drafts). Recently, there was a de-classification of UFO-related files, but, well, there was nothing about it as interesting as was present in the movie, so that's certainly a thing to say.

What you get with this movie is a thriller about trying to have people listen to one another. Sure, the "disclosure" looms heavily throughout the movie, but what is most important is the danger of fearing what one doesn't know. It takes a handful of big swings for the ideas of faith over fear, interest in beings that aren't just ourselves, and, well, washing away the established order of things as perhaps not the only supreme being in the universe* which might be nice for those who, say, liked a film like Signs [2000] (speaking of movies where t. It is a thriller of illumination (essentially by stating one is not an idol, but an instrument, whether in understanding or in math) that gradually assembles the pieces together for a fairly satisfying movie, although I'm not sure exactly how it will sit with me in the years to come and I can certainly understand where others might not anoint it as highly. It takes its swings of wonder and doesn't yearn to answer every nibbling question, for better or worse; Spielberg himself has said it is not a "holistic review of the entire history of the UFO phenomenon". Blunt commands the film with a fairly entertaining performance, managing to evoke plenty of curiosity and humor in the fractured world she finds herself part of beyond is seen and unseen, particularly since her and Russell have decent timing together for a time. O'Connor is merely fine, but he never really gets into his own as a character when him and Blunt actually meet (to say nothing of one scene in particular involving the big reveal). Domingo provides a bit of serenity to counteract the real veteran presence in Firth, who is delightfully malevolent that underlies a yin-and-yang of people who see the status quo and the place of any potential wild card element differently (whether seeing it as one for control or one for co-existence), which is neatly interesting to see in how each play it. It's a strangely bloodless journey to get through, but the sense of wonder is inviting for those who have the patience for the inevitable meshing of empathy and numbers. Basically, it's a fable about if the world actually had some more idealism rather than the cynic slop that pervades our lives in such loud fashion that the only real way to pay attention probably would be to just listen.

Admittedly, it rests heavily on the idea that seeing is believing in a world that actively sees plenty of videos and images filled with despair (and then of course there is AI slop, which is disgusting, full stop). Would we tune out a theoretical creature from a different world than ours like people do when trying to tune out the rhetoric of hatred of others (or, alternatively, watching alternative media; my caveat is that if the film involved trying to distribute top-secret stuff on the Internet, people would've just said it was being cribbed from Glass [2019]). To say nothing of the news anchor in the climax, which actually took me out of the movie more than the CG for the animals (which I can at least defend as, well, something that is meant to be a bit off-kilter). In some ways, you could call this an extended version of say, an X-Files episode (at least it's not trying to rip off one of the lamer "mythology" ones?). It is a goofy and naive film all about getting people all tuned in on one thing, for better or worse. But even with the little quibbles*, you still have a solid movie worth looking into, one that is a finely tuned thriller in assembling its pieces where it wants to go for a film built on the milage of understanding more than anything.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Okay, with West Side Story, I just thought it sounded like a waste of time to remake a beloved movie. Especially with Ansel Elgort as the lead.

*David Wilcock is, sorry, was, a hack and should've been thrown out of serious discussion years ago. Seeing his face on a Wikipedia article and clicking it just to find a hack is actually kind of annoying. Anyways.

*I would basically call myself agnostic, mainly because it seems illogical to fully deny the divine even if I am not the kind of person interested in church. To say nothing of the cringe nature of religion/atheism in certain circles online.

*One spoiler, if you like highlighting. The abduction scene is probably so heavy-handed that of course people equate it to molestation or Mysterious Skin [2004], which involved two boys being affected by a certain event that sees them lead different lives in young adulthood, with one being into alien abductions. My take? Nah. I just don't see it. If anything, it's just an overgrown fulfillment fantasy that we see over and over with powers that just happens to involve alien rocks. Besides, it's a friggin fable, not Dateline.

The Wolfman (2010).

Review #2449: The Wolfman (2010).

Cast: 

Benicio del Toro (Lawrence Talbot / The Wolfman; Mario Marin-Borquez as Young Lawrence Talbot), Anthony Hopkins (Sir John Talbot / Wolfman), Emily Blunt (Gwen Conliffe), Hugo Weaving (Inspector Francis Aberline), Geraldine Chaplin (Maleva), Art Malik (Singh), Antony Sher (Dr. Hoenneger), David Schofield (Constable Nye), David Sterne (Kirk), and Simon Merrells (Ben Talbot; Asa Butterfield as Young Ben Talbot) Directed by Joe Johnston (#060 - Captain America: The First Avenger, #322 - Jumanji, #2023 - Jurassic Park III)

Review:

"We wanted to make it period but we didn’t want to go back to the period of the original, 1941. I wanted it to be very much a vision of Edward Gorey’s London, which is Victorian London. There’s nothing more gothic and shadowy and horrifying than that. They had already decided on that when I came on so it wasn’t my choice, but I thought it was the perfect period to go to. It’s all about the darkness. "

Well, the remake comes for every horror movie at some point. You might remember that George Waggner's The Wolf Man (1941) had been written by Curt Siodmak to a general success at the hands of Lon Chaney Jr as a star. Sure, the follow-ups with Chaney weren't so much direct sequels as basically shuffling chairs, but it did at least take a few decades to try and revamp the werewolf for a Universal horror movie, at least if one doesn't count stuff like The Monster Squad (1987) or Van Helsing (2004). Plans were first announced in 2006, and at least they got the star they wanted with Benicio del Toro from the jump. Mark Romanek was tapped to direct the movie by 2007 that saw him involved with pre-production (such as hiring Rick Heinrichs for production design to go along with location scouting)..he was out by 2008. Joe Johnston was hired to direct the film in February 2008, a couple of weeks before the film was to be shot in England, and he stated later that he took the job due to having a "cash flow problem"*. Rick Baker and makeup effects supervisor Dave Elsey won the film's only notch of mainstream praise for the makeup, although they were locked out of doing the transformation sequences, which was done in CG. While Andrew Kevin Walker wrote the initial screenplay, Johnston hired David Self to provide re-writes. The movie was delayed over and over again for release, going from late 2008 to early 2009 to, well February 2010. Made for a budget of over $100 million, the movie was not a success at the time, with the then-president of Universal Studios (Ronald Meyer) calling the movie "crappy" and among the worst movies they ever made (of course he thought Babe: Pig in the City (1998) belonged in the same category, so take those words with a grain of salt). For the DVD release, an "unrated director's cut" was included by Johnston, which added 17 minutes to the runtime that had been deleted so audiences "would get to the first Wolfman transformation sooner", which most notably had Max von Sydow and the origins of the silver cane-sword. 15 years later, Universal did a "reboot" with Wolf Man (2025). For the purposes of this review, I covered the uncut movie.

There are varying story beats in each film, as in both movies the Talbots are reunited to bury a newly deceased brother and both movies involve a climax of father and son confronting one another. Of course the older film used fortune tellers and even a spell to get to where it is, but there you go. Honestly, I get why some wouldn't be particularly big on the movie, but...I kind of liked it. Sure, you get the Gothic sensibilities of murky colors and period stuff (set in the final years of the 19th century in jolly ol' Victorian England) to go with CG effects, but it is a neat little romp that gave me what I was hoping for: a charmer. You can't exactly top John Landis' An American Werewolf in London (1981) or even Joe Dante's The Howling (1981), but you can still have a bit of fun anyway. It is a bit cut and dry with what to expect from a werewolf movie, what with the big thing about full moons, having one's clothes still wearable even after being a wolf (okay that was in the 1940s movie too), and naturally: not really going too hard about a woman falling for a man with big fur (okay I don't care about the last part, but maybe there are werewolf movies where people care about romance). But, really, how much "tension" do you need in a movie where you know there's going to be R-rated wolf-tearing? Johnson may have done the movie strictly for the money, but I think he did fine with the situation presented in making a useful thrill ride. Del Toro does a reasonable job with the material provided, managing to balance the tightrope of man and monster for decent tragedy that isn't making one just think back to Chaney. Hopkins chews the scenery up in hearty conviction to make the family drama of the food chain (and who merits being on top) a fashionable one to watch. Sure, they might overshadow Blunt, who tries her best to sell why anyone would in fact cling around to the situation presented that is sometimes believable (I suppose anyone can fall for those stuck in a situation they can't control). Weaving plays a character with a name inspired by the actual chief inspector Frederick Abberline, a prominent figure in the investigation of Jack the Ripper in 1888. He doesn't get much to really do but is at least fashionable for the eventual climax. In general, the movie rests on building to hairy mayhem and a few fashionable Gothic sensibilities that I was generally on board with. It never really kicks into high gear, but it satisfies most of the boxes one would hope to see in wolves and action, complete with finding a way to have two wolves face each other in good ol' fashioned hokum. Quality wise, it probably is a smidge about The Curse of the Werewolf (1961) for wolf movies and in general is about on par in the "amp up old monsters" category with The Mummy (1999). As a whole, The Wolfman is a fine remake, doing most of what you would hope to accomplish with taking a familiar focus and giving it some fresh air that may be worth looking into beyond calling it a missed opportunity.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Apparently it was four/three weeks of prep time. Cinematographer Shelly Johnson stated that he had two weeks of prep time here: The American Society of Cinematographers | Bad Moon Rising: The…

The Fall Guy.

Review #2207: The Fall Guy.

Cast: 

Ryan Gosling (Colt Seavers), Emily Blunt (Jody Moreno), Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Tom Ryder), Winston Duke (Dan Tucker), Hannah Waddingham (Gail Meyer), Teresa Palmer (Iggy Starr), and Stephanie Hsu (Alma Milan) Directed by David Leitch (#905 - John Wick, #978 - Atomic Blonde, #1087 - Deadpool 2)

Review: 

Sure, one may know that there was once a television series called The Fall Guy. But it is fun to do a brief history lesson anyway, so screw it; airing from 1981 to 1986, the show was originally created by Glen A. Larson (the same guy behind such television shows such as the original Battlestar Galactica) that had Lee Majors as the star involving a stuntman that moonlighted as a bounty hunter, with Douglas Barr and Heather Thomas as supporting presences. But the screenplay for this film (as done by Drew Pearce, who previously co-worked on the script of Leitch's Hobbs & Shaw [2019]) isn't really a straight-show adaptation as it is a film in the tradition of loose TV adaptations such as say, Mission: Impossible (1996). Of course, this is the kind of thing that can be interesting to encounter beyond just going for the cynical angle. In the land of adapting various shows or the toy next to oneself for a film, development for trying to make said movie had been in stasis for over ten years before eventually there were rumblings of "unnamed stuntman film" being worked on by David Leitch (who had been a stuntman for a decade before becoming involved in second unit work and eventually films such as Confessions of an Action Star [2005] and John Wick [2014]) to go with Ryan Gosling as star around the 2020s. Apparently, it was Gosling and Blunt who took inspiration from Leitch and his producer wife when it came to their romantic chemistry together.

Really this is more of a case of a charming romcom that happens to be an action film just as well for 126 minutes. It doesn't take too long to find the film as being fairly accomplished in charm that would be right at home to go along the shelf with Hooper (1978) when it comes to charm that I appreciate greatly in making one appreciate the very nature that comes to making movie magic, albeit without being as much of a "good ol' boy" type of arrangement. You get both a playful film with cannon rolls by a car and a few action sequences that doesn't seem to just be a CG screen plaything (or a deepfake, as they say). Gosling pulls off a tremendous performance in the delicate art of refreshing charm seemingly without having to make that much effort to do so. He has a breezy state to him that seems to just coast onto whatever type of encounter is thrust upon him (the narration delivered by him at times is give-or-take when it comes to things, but I go with it), and it seems to work best when paired with Blunt because of how they interact with each other that feels real. Predictable or not, it is the kind of comfort one likes to see in films that aren't necessarily just straight action films, and I'd rather have a familiar charmer anytime. Blunt apparently took her inspiration from people she had met such as Greta Gerwig when it came to playing a would-be director that handles her role with consistent grace and tenacity, probably best represented by a scene in which she utilizes the "script" to make a conversation with a recently reunited Gosling on the set that is the kind of neat chuckle to absorb. The movie utilizes a carefully crafted ensemble of a few good presences that go right down to Taylor-Johnson and his amusing daft nature that works best for the climax to go with a tremendously amusing Waddingham crafted for those who love to believe that suckers really are born every minute. Duke makes an entertaining presence to go alongside Gosling as the film gets going. The movie maneuvers itself well to achieving the shot and chaser for entertaining action that does show a few laughs to make a fun routine time without dragging itself to being too hip in awareness or self-seriously dry. As a whole, I like its approach with some worthwhile practical stunts to go with clear energy shown for the craft of filmmaking that is fit for any era but seemingly more so now more than ever because it is a feature made straight for the love of seeing people kicking other people in the ass on an ideally large screen (home or otherwise).

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars. 

Oppenheimer.

Review #2050: Oppenheimer.

Cast: 

Cillian Murphy (J. Robert Oppenheimer), Emily Blunt (Katherine "Kitty" Oppenheimer), Matt Damon (Leslie Groves), Robert Downey Jr (Lewis Strauss), Florence Pugh (Jean Tatlock), Josh Hartnett (Ernest Lawrence), Casey Affleck (Boris Pash), Rami Malek (David Hill), Kenneth Branagh (Niels Bohr), Benny Safdie (Edward Teller), Dylan Arnold (Frank Oppenheimer), Gustaf Skarsgård (Hans Bethe), David Krumholtz (Isidor Isaac Rabi), Matthew Modine (Vannevar Bush), David Dastmalchian (William L. Borden), Tom Conti (Albert Einstein), Michael Angarano (Robert Serber), Jack Quaid (Richard Feynman), Josh Peck (Kenneth Bainbridge), Olivia Thirlby (Lilli Hornig), Dane DeHaan (Kenneth Nichols), Danny Deferrari (Enrico Fermi), Alden Ehrenreich (Senate aide), Jefferson Hall (Haakon Chevalier), and Jason Clarke (Roger Robb) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk , #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises, and #1618 - Tenet)

Review: 

“I’m always pushing various things forward, but this is one where a lot of different planets aligned. Los Alamos, this place that will always live in history or infamy, was first a place where Oppenheimer and his brother loved to go camping. Suddenly, like a bolt from the blue, I’m looking at the most personal possible connection between a character and a massive change to the world that couldn’t be undone.” - Christopher Nolan

There is no way to state how damn good the film is besides saying it is a really great achievement that should be seen. Blah blah Barbie, you could see that any time in the next couple of weeks but consider Oppenheimer as early as one could possibly do. No really, see it as quickly as you can, the three-hour runtime is worth the time presented, and I am sure you will be rewarded by the experience that makes for a fascinating biopic. The story of J. Robert Oppenheimer has been argued to be one of a modern tragedy, and this film proves that very point by the time it even has built two-thirds of the scope required of three hours of breathtaking film. Lord do I wish it was easy to just say what I mean in less than a handful of paragraphs, but if one can say roughly over 900 words for a film involving humans and dolls, clearly one has to make sure to put in the hours to articulate the importance of watching a film (specifically Nolan, who wrote the screenplay) that took its inspiration from the 2005 biography of the famed Oppenheimer in American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin (incidentally, some of the subjects interviewed by Sherwin had been featured in The Day After Trinity, such as Haakon Chevalier). Oppenheimer is seen in various places besides Los Alamos in New Mexico, of course, such as his time as professor at thee University of California, Berkeley and his time spent after the war at the Institute for Advanced Study, while one other moment in history is seen under the cloud of Oppenheimer with the 1959 confirmation hearing of Lewis Strauss for the Secretary of Commerce, after having taken office via a recess appointment the previous year (the film obviously doesn't have time to mention everyone, but the scuttling of the confirmation had help from Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, whose disagreements with Strauss drove him to drive such an effort, complete with an ally in fellow Senator and committee member dealing with commerce in Gale W. McGee). You can thank the efforts of folks such as J. David Wargo and James Woods (both executive producers) for getting this film to the finish line, since plans for doing one based on the book had muddled for over a decade; the only film to feature Oppenheimer in a prominent role was Fat Man and Little Boy (as played by Dwight Shultz for a film released in 1989), which absolutely nobody remembers fondly, at least when compared to say, the 1980 BBC TV serial Oppenheimer, which had Sam Waterston as star. Nolan has stated the purpose of having scenes in black-and-white is meant to present an objective view of the story of Oppenheimer from the point of view of the one most seen in these scenes with Strauss.

Oppenheimer the man is presented in all of his epic qualities of contradiction of brilliance. He is the namesake for both a process and approximation in science (with collaboration with other scientists, naturally) that is also wracked in paradoxes that make the heart of the film. Pride really does come before the fall, especially for someone who was under constant surveillance by the FBI before and after the war. The man is presented as a man with qualities and flaws apparent to all of us, a man of brilliance, a man of guilt, a man of womanizers, a man fit to argue as one of great tragedy. There are so many performances in this film that one can't mention every single person that portray these figures (some of whom only appear for a time such as Gary Oldman as President Harry Truman or James Remar as Henry Stimson). It is easy to state however, that Murphy and Downey Jr rein in the best performances of the whole film, with each of their stories being told in such compelling detail. Murphy has the weight of the title role on his shoulders, but he handles it with such clear conviction that one sees him as Oppenheimer with perfect efficiency that makes it so one never sees an actor playing a man but just the man and all of his qualities thrust upon us, and it takes a most exceptional person to give the role justice with such persuasive power. We live in a world created by Oppenheimer's actions and we feel it firmly with his performance. Downey Jr is practically the mirror of Oppenheimer when it comes to how he handles being cast into the light of his own hearing. All great villains believe themselves to be in the right, ones who believe that power stays in the shadows because only amateurs chase the sun, and Downey Jr plays this with such devastating power that is conniving and breathtaking in the time he is on screen. His arrogance is breathtaking in the greatest of ways possible, one filled with pique that is accompanied in moments with Ehrenreich for fascinating interaction. Murphy and Downey Jr clearly deserve all the recognition they have gotten for this film already and I am sure they will endure in the years to come. Of course, the rest of the performers are magnificent as well in conveying the players to destruction necessary, mostly in the case of Damon and Blunt. The clash of hard-driving practicality in Damon clashes with the philosophical Murphy for such riveting tension and even more riveting in the respect you see between the two that comes out because of how effective it all is played out. Blunt and her own contradictions make for a worthy pairing with Murphy, one with razor-sharp timing and unwavering confidence that goes well when you consider how Murphy is presented with Pugh on the other side of feminine curiosity (which in of itself is useful to watch). You get the point about these performers, they are useful in all the ways that matter without distraction, which is bookended by Conti but also sees people such as Hartnett and Safdie shine too.

Nothing is more exhilarating than seeing Lewis Strauss not become a member of a cabinet. Nah, just kidding (fun fact: he was the first person not confirmed for a cabinet seat by the US Senate since 1925 - never let it be said that Movie Night does not try to deliver "education" beyond rambling), because the buildup to the Trinity test is one for the ages. The buildup to the bomb and the accompanying music by Ludwig Göransson is absolutely worth the price of admission, complete with the moment itself in its beautiful destructive quality (the film was done with minimal computer-generated imagery). Of course, other sequences such as expressing certain scientific aspects (remember that the real Oppenheimer made contributions to various theories such as black holes) is a reminder that seeing this film on the biggest screen possible really can be a rewarding time for all involved. The guilt is crushing in all of the ways that matter when it comes to the level of involvement one has in forming a bomb and seeing it go away from your hands or seeing the results of it. Of course, since the film includes the noted scene of President Truman mocking Oppenheimer of just who has "blood on their hands", the fascination will endure further in discussion of ethics and beyond. Far from just a biopic that goes from point A to point B, the film flourishes from the very get-go and never lets up in conveying the wonder that comes in seeing the Manhattan Project meet its destiny that intertwine with the destinies of both Oppenheimer and Strauss with their hearings. God do I love this film, and I can't say enough about just how brilliant it is or how devilishly well-timed it is to make the three hours pass by without a single complaint. It serves as both an informative feature of the time and also a warning to the danger that comes with living in a world that Nolan believes is one shaped by Oppenheimer, whether we like it or not.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

A Quiet Place Part II.

Review #1683: A Quiet Place Part II.

Cast: 

Emily Blunt (Evelyn Abbott), Cillian Murphy (Emmett), Millicent Simmonds (Regan Abbott), Noah Jupe (Marcus Abbott), Djimon Hounsou (Man On Island), John Krasinski (Lee Abbott), and Scoot McNairy (Marina Man) Directed by John Krasinski (#1073 - A Quiet Place)

Review: 

Honestly, I don't really think much about a sequel to a modern movie. Really, think about this for a second here from a guy who still likes to look upon what interesting movie can sit on the shelf for the next time being. I had to wonder just how weird that might seem from looking in my archives about the ratio of original to "adaptation" in the films I saw in the last big year for movies in the theater: 2019. That year saw 31 movies seen mostly in theater-form but ended up having just half that was actually based on original material. Ah but one really wants to think about the year before that with 2018, and that is how we get to A Quiet Place, which was one of the few original ideas to really sit on my "conventional" radar, and it might have actually been the best horror flick I saw that year (with a year for Hereditary and Halloween, the argument could be a tough one for each). It shouldn't be forgotten that the original script had been done by Bryan Woods and Scott Beck, for which John Krasinski (who had two comedy-dramas to his credit with Brief Interviews with Hideous Men (2009) and The Hollars (2016), incidentally) had read that script and found it appealing; he would end up enlisted by Paramount Pictures to re-write the script and direct the movie. A Quiet Place ended up as an interesting movie because it wasn't quite a gimmick movie that one might think of it (besides, there are quite a few movies that don't have much dialogue if one wants to spur their memory, such as All is Lost (2013)). Sure, the creatures are ones that rely on sound to stalk their prey (with a loud bustling modern world, good luck), but it was also a deep family movie. With the success of the film, rumblings for a sequel did not take too long to bubble to the surface, for which Krasinski would write and direct that had its premiere on March 8 of 2020 that was meant to be released into theaters twelve days after that, two years after the original release (the reason for this recap is mostly for my memory, but also because I can re-iterate my one pet peeve for any horror movie that is released in the spring. Simply put, get your horror priorities in the fall where it belongs, but 2020 has some stretching grounds). Fourteen months later, here we are with a sequel.

Did I mention my surprise about a sequel? Honestly, does every horror movie need a follow-up movie? I remember the ending of the first movie just fine, one that had a character with a weapon ready to aim at the creature, having figured out what one figures out in a time of silence and hearing aids. It might be a good omen or a mild harbinger that the opening scene involves a brief glimpse into what the world was before the noise-monsters came, and Krasinski certainly does well with setting the stage for what was and what is to come within the family angle and the key addition of Murphy to the cast. It reminds me of the dubious question one has when it comes to seeing it in a big theater or not, in that a movie depending on folks getting away unheard is best seen in a big screen but without paying too much attention to too much crowd noise (such as...popcorn?). But hey, one can watch movies with subtitles from around the world, so why stop now? I think most of this paragraph is trying to hide the easiest point: it just isn't as good as the first film. It is not so much that it isn't scarier than before, or even so much because the acting isn't as good, because on a technical level it works pretty good. But really, think hard about this: it has the same problem in rhythm of continuation that seems comparable to Halloween II (1981). Roll with me on this for a moment. Both movies take off right from where the last one ended with the bare hint of a follow-up, and both find themselves with a narrative that splits the characters up, and both probably try to one-up the level of terror from before a bit too much (sure, one movie has a needle jabbed into a sensitive spot, but this movie has someone get their foot into a bear trap, so am I really pulling your goat too much?). Ah, but here's the problem: At least Halloween II didn't feel like it was begging for more at the end, and it seemed to have more stakes involved with its climax for the characters left at the end (I doubt that A Quiet Place will turn into a movieblob of a franchise like Halloween, but apparently a spin-off is in development). Weird twists may reign true with the older movie, but at least I appreciate its schlock factor more so than a movie that could be thought of as half-hearted with actually being a sequel. With a run-time of 97 minutes, one can wonder exactly how A Quiet Place Part II will do with the passage of time, or at least when considered in the context of the wait that befell it when really the best way to describe it is just "okay". It's an okay movie, filled with a decent cast and some level of terror within the idea of monsters that will just charge and destroy your world like that...and maybe there is still some room for folks to eke out a living. But hey, let's start with the cast and go from there. Murphy certainly plays it exactly to the bone for what is needed in a bleary movie that hints at cynicism, and it is refreshing to see him there and be paired with Simmons. In that regard, Simmons continues well with her performance (done mostly in American Sign Language, as one remembers from before), which serves for a fairly useful time, showing a bit more maturity that is expected - the dynamic between them is almost engaging enough to carry the film. Alas, one doesn't find as much engaging balance on the other side, because Blunt manages an okay performance that can't quite react to the terror as well this time around. Let me put it this way: monsters seem to lose a bit of their effectiveness the more you see them in a sequel, so one has to find a way to make the stakes and drama count, or they will end up seeming as concerned as being in Jaws 2 (1978). Jupe's best scene involves him having a visceral scream after being bear-trapped, really. Hounsou and McNairy make momentary impressions on the coin of societies made after the disaster that relates to water (get it, because the creatures not only are blind but can't swim). They are okay, but inevitability always seems to strike at the points you think will happen but not as many times as possible. Think about it: each movie has six actors (Krasinski is technically seven, but can you count a flashback?), and this doesn't even count the baby (don't get me started on babies in horror movies). I feel that the first film did a better job in handling the bleakness of trying to hold together as a family in a nightmare better than a film that doesn't do much with the idea of trying to expand beyond that, and the climax only seems to serve as a hard nudge for another movie (sure, it closes the narratives similarly, but...), and in general I feel that the movie only has moved narrowly in trying to maintain the scares of creatures that rely on you not talking. It might not fall into the realm of gimmick-making, that is for sure. Inevitability is a tough thing to accept, but the film ultimately proves that it can be okay to be average enough if the attention is built enough to hold it for the masses, for better or worse. If you really want to know what happens when you pull the covers all the way through the bed for the monster, you could do okay here, but just don't be disappointed at where that goes from there.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Edge of Tomorrow.

Review #1569: Edge of Tomorrow.

Cast:

Tom Cruise (Major William Cage), Emily Blunt (Sergeant Rita Vrataski), Bill Paxton (Master Sergeant Farell), Brendan Gleeson (General Brigham), Noah Taylor (Dr. Noah Carter), Jonas Armstrong (Skinner), Tony Way (Kimmel), Kick Gurry (Griff), Charlotte Riley (Nance), Franz Drameh (Ford), Dragomir Mrsic (Kuntz), and Masayoshi Haneda (Takeda) Directed by Doug Liman (#1064 - Jumper (2008) and #1256 - Mr. & Mrs. Smith)

Review:

"I never want to repeat myself. I can’t imagine anything else as upsetting as realizing I’m redoing something I did before. For some reason, when it comes to film, I’m very good at not repeating myself. Even though in the rest of my life, I’m constantly repeating my mistakes."

It is a strange thing to note this as one of Doug Liman's best features, since he has made a steady career for himself over nearly three decades of work, primarily in action or comedy. The son of a painter and a lawyer, Liman found himself interested in film at a young age, which led to study at the International Center of Photography and Brown University before studying at the University of Southern California and their school of Cinematic Arts. He started with small-scale features that resulted in notice such as Swingers (1996) before moving on to bigger budgets with The Bourne Identity (2002) and other various features. The film is adapted from a Japanese sci-fi novel named All You Need Is Kill, written by Hiroshi Sakurazaka and illustrated by Yoshitoshi ABe originally published in 2004, with subsequent adaptation into manga and graphic novel; one can only imagine how they might find inspiration from playing a video game and dying over again and make their own story from that, as was the case of inspiration for Sakurazaka. The film (which Warner Brothers mandated have their title rather than the title of the novel or Liman's preference for the tagline as the title) had gestated in pre-production for years, starting with a spec script done by Dante Harper in 2010, although this would be discarded for reworking by other writers such as Joby Harold. Before filming started, Harper's script was mostly discarded by Liman, and the resulting screenplay that eventually came out was done by Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth (which did not have a set ending at first).

What an interesting time one could spend with this film. It is a neat little action film, finding an edge in terms of making repetition involving action come across as useful entertainment with amusement. Is it more than just "Groundhog Day (1993) but with killing aliens"? In parts, sure. It proves to be a fun one, particularly for those who desire some sci-fi thrills with a light story that is right to follow along with for 113 minutes without becoming stuck in a loop. Cruise does fairly well with this role, one that invites curiosity for the challenges needed in playing a hero who has to fail over and over again and grow with the feature in capability and charm. Blunt proves efficient here, just as capable in handling action without hitting a false note, who makes her time of tough heroism roll along with guidance with enjoyment that never wavers from our attention once properly introduced to us. In other words, they make for a good team together in beat-by-beat training. Paxton and Gleeson make up useful support, generating some wry amusement when Cruise shares the screen with either of them (since each seem right at home with action fare like this). Taylor and the others do fine in parts, since the main threat is making sure to handle bulky suits and effects-driven adversaries, which is useful to follow along with. The ending does fine for what is needed in closing the loop for an action film without short-changing itself too much, relying on its effects to carry through without being too murky or unclear to follow (although novel fans will note its clear departure with its ending). The film was a modest success for its lofty budget (because one needs to spend over $100 million for either action movies or in marketing), and it isn't hard to appreciate the film as a useful example of an action movie that bets on itself in captivating the audience with flair and a degree of intelligence to it. In any case, there are supposedly plans to do another film (called Live Die Repeat and Repeat, because words fail me), but who knows how intriguing that could be? As a whole, while it certainly seems more polished for its first half over the second, it generally works out well in capturing the challenge of trying to make a breezy film with thrills that weaves a decently conceived idea together with a useful cast and visuals to go alongside it for a useful time to have time and time again.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Looper.

Review #1563: Looper.

Cast:

Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Joe), Bruce Willis (Old Joe), Emily Blunt (Sara), Paul Dano (Seth), Noah Segan (Kid Blue), Piper Perabo (Suzie), Jeff Daniels (Abe), Pierce Gagnon (Cid), Summer Qing (Joe's Wife), and Tracie Thoms (Beatrix) Written and Directed by Rian Johnson (#1027 - Star Wars: The Last Jedi and #1306 - Knives Out)

Review:

"For Looper, I very much wanted it to be a more character-based movie that is more about how these characters dealt with the situation time travel has brought about. So the biggest challenge was figuring out how to not spend the whole movie explaining the rules and figure out how to put it out there in a way that made sense on some intuitive level for the audience; then get past it and deal with the real meat of the story."

As long as there is a good story somewhere in the margins and people involved enough to keep it useful for entertainment or notice to keep attention, you can't go wrong. Born in Maryland but raised primarily in California, Rian Johnson had an developed an interest in film from a young age (noting inspirations such as Martin Scorsese and Annie Hall), graduating from the University of Southern California and its School of Cinematic Arts in 1996 (his first film was a short called Evil Demon Golf Ball From Hell!!!, a low-budget psychological thriller inspired by The Tell-Tale Heart). He would spend years developing and pitching what eventually turned out to be his first feature film in Brick (2005), which proved successful on a budget of less than $500,000. He has continued to keep himself invested in doing distinct movie as director and writer that tell stories in familiar genres that utilize the expectation of the audience at part of the storytelling, which have resulted in five feature films alongside work in television such as Breaking Bad that have been met with fair success.

What, a time travel movie that relies on character-based drama and not so much on time travel as a whole from the 2010s? Granted, Safety Not Guaranteed is a dubious film to compare this to, but the easiest thing that can be said about Looper is that it is an entertaining movie that maintains consistency and entertainment with dutiful direction and cast without shambling into cliché. It certainly seems familiar to those who who have seen the films that proved an inspiration to this feature that ranged from The Terminator (1984) to Witness (1985) to Akira (1988). It loops itself together with enough suitable enjoyment for where the story could unfold next that comes from making a living killing others from a time you have yet to see and then your future ends right by your own hand. It makes a suitable movie about the future and what can come from decisions made or ones that have yet to be made with interesting atmosphere that treats its sci-fi aspects equally with its drama that makes the challenge more about seeing two actors play the same person and how they play off with themselves and others. Gordon-Levitt (wearing make-up to more closely resemble Willis) does a pretty good job here, wry and efficient that comes off with similarity to a youthful Willis without becoming mere imitation, which goes well in tension with Blunt. Willis is given the task of doing his part to play without as much dialogue in general, but he does fairly well regardless, showing the anguish and efficiency that comes from a lifetime that required the latter but didn't see the former coming, and the diner scene where they confront each other (involving a clever way to get around detailing how time travel works without needing exposition) is the best scene with the two in general that lends an edge to the nature of what we're dealing with for a hunter/hunted kind of film. Blunt does well with her gradual role, showing conviction and care as the last key adult piece to the puzzle, going with Gagnon as an interesting family to see play out on screen that gravitates well to our attention from their first few moments on screen. Dano and the other supporting members (including a big-bearded Daniels) do well in lending out the layers of the world the film wants to show involving making a living through a hard and cheap life in the not-too distant future. On the whole what we have here is an intelligent film that rounds its bases with an interesting handle on human nature within time travel that utilizes its expectations from the audience into an engaging time with its own welcome surprises and efficient acting to make for an excellent time to go through 113 minutes with.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

A Quiet Place.

Review #1073: A Quiet Place.

Cast: 
Emily Blunt (Evelyn Abbott), John Krasinski (Lee Abbott), Millicent Simmonds (Regan Abbott), Noah Jupe (Marcus Abbott), Cade Woodward (Beau Abbott), and Leon Russom (Man in the woods) Directed by John Krasinski.

Review: 
In horror films, the best way to elicit scares is generally to use certain movements or certain imagery to get a reaction that will hopefully be effective consistently enough to deliver good entertainment. With this film, it utilizes its selective choice of sound and atmosphere to deliver a tense but successfully suspenseful horror film that I readily enjoyed. Its reliance on sound as a form of raising tension is effective, in part because the movie knows exactly what it is striving for with its sound, not making needless sound for the sake of a cheap thrill. This is the kind of movie that doesn't become just a gimmick without any sort of substance to it, having a heart to it. The film's emphasis on the family is fairly watchable, resonating well in a way that feels authentic, where you care about these characters and aren't just wanting to get a glimpse at the creature. It's interesting to watch a film that has more American Sign Language than English, where you can count the amount of scenes of dialogue between characters with their voices on probably one hand. In any case, the actors do a good job, being interesting to watch in their story and carrying their emotions on their sleeve with fair ease. The film's structure is fairly well done, and while it may have some slight distractions at times with some of the choices made, the basic outline is sound enough. Blunt, and Krasinski have fine chemistry with each other that is neatly natural, and Simmonds and Jupe do fine jobs in selling their roles without much hesitation. The film is shot well, having a clean and calculated look by Charlotte Bruus Christensen, with a fairly effective music score by Marco Beltrami and satisfactory direction from Krasinski (who helped with writing the screenplay along with Bryan Woods and Scott Beck, who are credited for story). The effect for the creature are fairly decent,  The movie runs at a fairly coherent pace of 90 minutes, managing to be entertaining at the right moments along with having enough charm to power itself a winner.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Sicario.

Review #753: Sicario.

Cast
Emily Blunt (Kate Macer), Benicio del Toro (Alejandro Gillick), Josh Brolin (Matt Graver), Daniel Kaluuya (Reggie Wayne), Maximiliano Hernández (Silvio), Victor Garber (Dave Jennings), Jon Bernthal (Ted), Jeffrey Donovan (Steve Forsing), and Raoul Trujillo (Rafael) Directed by Denis Villeneuve.

Review
Sicario (a term for hit man) is a tough movie to write words about. It's a good movie, I can say that much. But I can also say that it is not for everyone. The movie certainly had a mystique on me, given that it was the first R-rated film I saw in theaters. The movie had gone into full release in October, yet I was watching it in November, with not much of a crowd (six, including myself) but perhaps that made the movie a little more isolated and intriguing. The movie certainly deserves its R-rating, but it also deserves accolades as well. What we have here is a tense and brutally effective thriller that is both unrelenting and interesting to watch. The main three are brilliant in their own ways. Blunt is certainly a lead character we can identify with as an audience to follow with. As for del Toro, he always seems to lurk around but still manage to be interesting and entertaining to watch, especially as his story comes full circle. Brolin has a grimy charm to him that makes him enduring to watch as well. The movie isn't really about hunting down a villain as much it is about seeing the progression of our lead as she sees the methods Brolin and his team uses, especially with regards to del Toro. The movie works because the drama and action balance each other out really well, especially at the end with del Toro. It's a great movie to look at, especially the night vision scenes. Ultimately, this isn't a movie for the faint-hearted, but it is a good movie to watch for some entertainment that may make you think hours after you watch.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.