Black Phone 2.

Review #2445: Black Phone 2.

Cast: 

Mason Thames (Finney Blake), Madeleine McGraw (Gwen Blake), Ethan Hawke (the Grabber), Demián Bichir (Armando), Jeremy Davies (Terrence Blake), Miguel Mora (Ernesto), Arianna Rivas (Mustang), Anna Lore (Hope Blake), Graham Abbey (Kenneth), and Maev Beaty (Barbara) Directed by Scott Derrickson (#874 - Doctor Strange, #1865 - The Black Phone, #1905 - Sinister)

Review: 

You might remember that The Black Phone was released just a few years ago, first premiering in the festival circuit back in 2021 before Universal Pictures eventually got on actually releasing the movie to theaters in 2022. Scott Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill cultivated a story based on Joe Hill's short story of the same name with a good deal of inspiration from people Derrickson knew when he was younger, which differed from say, the "Spielberg Amblin suburban middle school life": there were obviously a handful of differences between story and movie, most notably that the sister was actually the older one along with having calls from just one person in the story (who actually does tell him to fill the phone with sand as a weapon) and, well, the story ends right as one is trying to escape the house all while the phone is ringing* In 2023, Derrickson and Cargill worked on "Dreamkill", a segment for the found footage horror anthology movie V/H/S/85 that dealt with a cousin of the Blake family with their own psychic ability. Derrickson and Cargill wrote the script just as they did for the previous film, although Hill apparently came up with an idea ("The Grabber calls Finn from hell") for the sequel.

It probably was spooky to watch a movie where you see people in a film just yanked out of the blue that won't come back and will stare at nothing for the rest of time. Sure, a good chunk of the last Black Phone movie was basically an escape room, but it had an interesting performance in Ethan Hawke to go along with a few unsettling moments with a person who clearly had the headspace of wanting to win his own game (whether that involves his brother or not) while wearing such a strange imposing mask. Sure, the movie didn't outright show much in terms of gore, but I think you get the creeping factor that could come in what might happen if one in fact can't just stay dead with a sequel. This is a lot of words for me saying I really wished that I liked the movie, because it is quite ridiculous, when you get down to it (I will try to not spoil anything too specific unless you scroll down below for notes). Let's start with some praise first. McGraw does manage to shine the best among the cast in terms of evoking interest in vulnerable. And I do like Thames reasonably well in his burrowing evolution from the point of "what next?", for the most part. Hawke does still have an unsettling presence here, even if a good chunk of it is really just a voice more than anything (the not-quite spoiler is that being dead means not being able to just take your mask off). The 114-minute runtime can only go so far when having ideas of trying to ape A Nightmare on Elm Street (as I recall, the climaxes for 3 and 4 dealt with resting bones and a soul revolt, respectively), although I imagine someone would argue it might have had a bit of inspiration from Friday the 13th with its camp scenario. But you can only do so many things involving dreams. To put it mildly, there are quite a few scenes now spent in Super 8-filmed dreamland that takes things to new levels convenience. Since the Grabber is basically only around in the dream world (or when he calls Finn because, obviously), it means a good chunk of time is spent in going from thing to thing because the movie can only maneuver itself forward within dreams, particularly when the movie doesn't have as much urgency as you wish it would have. For a movie that tries to be "Good vs. Evil", you can only go so far before you start to wonder if "Black Phone: Rocky Vacation" would've been a more apt title, complete with clunky dialogue all in its midst. I sometimes felt like I was back in It Chapter Two (2019) territory, for whatever reason.

Three ideas popped into my head about what the movie could've been: Finn trying to actually cope with his survivor's guilt, or lurking further with what the Grabber is beyond being a "bottomless pit" of sins, or maybe asking aloud if Gwen actually is going nuts (okay maybe everyone starts to believe something is up when being levitated in the air, but, well). Instead, it goes for lurking in dreams again and again and again until it eventually reveals the last card that comes with things that either could be thought of as a blessing or a curse*. It can only go so far when trying to make the Grabber a thing because you can only go so far in the first place* before it all becomes too goofy for words. You might say it isn't advisable to judge a movie on what you want it to be rather than what it actually is, but for me, there is a uneasy feeling of being underwhelmed by what I was watching by the time the film stumbles to the climax. It already felt sluggish for its first half, but it just doesn't stick the landing all the way through. You can say that it isn't a slasher movie and that it is supernatural and yea, okay, the first movie was about dead kids calling someone, but now we are talking about once-dead beings skating on ice as if they were the Invisible Man, so keep trying to say "atmosphere, atmosphere"- yadda yadda yadda. Some might find it spooky, other might just find it only mildly involving. In trying to justify its existence, it only ends up feeling like an epilogue. As a whole, I wanted to like the movie beyond tagging it as just mildly disappointing but didn't quite find what I was looking for. It's just too average to really love. The tough situation of having voices of the dead be the one point standing between a trapped person and a kidnapper seemingly turned on to playing a game with a stacked deck is now just a rocky mountain adventure. The movie accomplishes a good chunk of its goals but doesn't really pull the punches that were as apparent in the first film. You might think of it as a solid sequel, and that's fine with me. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Apparently, the short story (30 pages) is available on the Wayback Machine. To prove that, the first words of the story: "The fat man on the other side of the road was about to drop his groceries."

*Okay, one spoiler: Imagine, if even for a second, that Gwen was actually just going a bit crazy, rather than just being The Most Correct Person To Ever Live. But nah, she even gets to be the one who mom talks to on the phone at the end. Sucks to be you Finn! And don't tell me that is supposed to be an emotional hallmark, you already make it so the mom did not in fact kill herself (ITS ALL CONNECTED AHHHHHHH), do you need closure on closure too? I wanted to know if the religious parents died in the ice or not, by the way.

*Addendum: Technically, the movie has no actual body count. Sure, you are told about a few more dead kids from the 1950s, but really: is a movie spookier when you are told about something or when you actually see it? You can't introduce three new characters to join the proceedings and then basically not have any of them deal with mortality. And no, the mom doesn't count, that's just retconning/cheating.

Sinister.

Review #1905: Sinister.

Cast: 

Ethan Hawke (Ellison Oswalt), Juliet Rylance (Tracy Oswalt), Fred Thompson (Sheriff), James Ransone (Deputy), Michael Hall D'Addario (Trevor Oswalt), Clare Foley (Ashley Oswalt), Nick King (Bughuul / Mr. Boogie), and Vincent D'Onofrio (Professor Jonas) Directed by Scott Derrickson (#874 - Doctor Strange and #1865 - The Black Phone)

Review: 

The best part of a horror movie is when one finds inspiration in a prior horror film experience and homes in their own interesting idea. When C. Robert Cargill saw the 2002 feature The Ring, he had a nightmare after viewing the film, one that had Super 8 films and a projector in his attic. The scenario snowballed from there when spending time with Scott Derrickson in writing the script, where Cargill devised his idea of what a Bogeyman would look like that would stand apart from the usual entity, which had a look inspired by a picture Derrickson found on Flickr when looking at "horror" images (making a deal with said photographer, naturally). I'm sure you recognize the scenes with a Super 8 are in fact shot from a Super 8 camera. This was the fourth feature film from Derrickson, previously responsible for Hellraiser: Inferno (2000), The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005), and The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008). Made on a budget of roughly $3 million that was made from a variety of production companies that included Blumhouse Productions, the film was a considerable success at the time, and a sequel was made in 2015 that had Derrickson and Cargill return to write it along with one returning cast member.

It is the pursuit for recognition that pushes the whole film. Sure, the entity looks both unfamiliar and alluring to us in appearance, but the goals of the being and the lead character we are watching are not too particularly different, and that probably is spookier than anything else. Granted, the thing likes to do elaborate sequences of terror like one might expect from a horror film, but that doesn't mean that the film lacks energy when it comes to making a good slow burn movie. Ten years have only made it seem all the more interesting in what endured best in seeing the clash of old and new technology within a movie that doesn't aim for a blood affair but instead a calm terror (you might ask how Google doesn't play a part here, but where's the fun in that?) It is a familiar movie, one that plays on the cliches of the past without trying to play it for laughs. It is one with a general patience in 109 minutes that uses its imagery well for those who pay attention and dig where it wants to dig in unraveling terror when it comes to old legends and not learning when to leave well enough alone. It isn't hard to see while the filmmakers felt Hawke would be an ideal presence to work magic with a character that would have been pure heel with a less talented actor. It is his film to shine in terms of craven charm that sells every moment of ambition or growing suspicion without a false note present. We know what kind of hostility will come from a spooky dark house and secrets from all sides, but it still works well with someone we can lovingly chuckle with in terms of how self-centered a pursuit can be with Hawke there to guide it as a haunted fool that we like, as opposed to someone we shake our heads at. Rylance and the others playing the on-screen family are about what you would expect in light charm, while Thompson chews in scolding grit for two scenes of neat timing. Ransone makes a bit of plucky charm on the sidelines while D'Onofrio makes his exposition-heavy side role worth viewing for a couple of minutes. I find that it is a pretty good horror movie, one that achieves the basic goal of making its premise work more than just on paper through the use of a decent cast headlined by one really good actor to go with some stellar Super 8 photography that makes this a movie warped in past and present for the right reasons. I especially like the climax, one that doesn't roll on a red herring or any kind of last-minute tricks to try and yield the inevitable, which means one gets a movie about a creature that feeds on attention - human or beast, and the movie knows what to say about the plight of each in where recognition can get you. Some will find it pretty scary and other may find it familiar, but they certainly will have an interesting time regardless because of how Derrickson and company came together to make a horror movie worth one's attention without having to strain credibility to get to that point.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Black Phone.

Review #1856: The Black Phone.

Cast: 

Mason Thames (Finney), Madeleine McGraw (Gwen), Ethan Hawke (The Grabber), Jeremy Davies (Terrence), E. Roger Mitchell (Detective Wright), Troy Rudeseal (Detective Miller), James Ransone (Max), Miguel Cazarez Mora (Robin), Rebecca Clarke (Donna), J. Gaven Wilde (Moose), Spencer Fitzgerald (Buzz), Jordan Isaiah White (Matty), Brady Ryan (Matt), Tristan Pravong (Bruce), Jacob Moran (Billy), Brady Hepner (Vance), Banks Repeta (Griffin) Directed by Scott Derrickson (#874 - Doctor Strange)

Review: 

Every now and then you need a good scare, particularly one that tries to draw upon the 1970s in terms of stranger danger. One good thing that came out of Scott Derrickson leaving the production of Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) is that he was thus free to start production on this film rather than wait until after trying to cobble a sequel, which was shot in 2021 with a debut screening in September before eventual release this month. The Black Phone is based on the short story of the same name written by Joe Hill (who served as a co-executive producer), which had been included in his collection 20th Century Ghosts; the story is mainly focused on just the lead child character trapped in the basement (the story apparently ends right after a call comes in for the killer). Scott Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill (collaborators on films such as Sinister (2012), which also featured Hawke in a lead role) were thus tasked with writing a screenplay that extended the material beyond just the short story. One might be thinking of familiar things when it comes to a 70s tale involving a clown that traps children or with a phone that has the voice of dead kids, or with a secondary lead that may or may not have psychic abilities. Well, Hill is the son of Stephen King, so that might help things, since King described the movie as "Stand by Me in Hell". 

Technically speaking, the movie isn't as particularly dark as the story, but I do think the movie will work most people's taste in horror, particularly in terms of execution. One doesn't get taken for a fake-out ride or confronted with incessant horror tricks. I'm not going to go out on a limb and say it is one of the scariest films of the current decade, but I will say that it is one of the best executed features I have seen in quite a while, a solid period piece with a suitable cast and staging that never wavers in its building of terror in 103 minutes. It helps that the movie is lifted by solid performances from both kids and adults. Thames never wavers from the degree of believability required from a "kid gets spooked" movie while McGraw has sharp presence and timing on the other side of the pursuit coin. The belt scene with Davies (solid in scuzzy screen presence) might be the most striking scene with any of them outside the parts when Thames is paired against Hawke. Hawke apparently had reservations about playing the character because of how evil it was, but he reconsidered by saying "Villains might be my future." He does really well here in playing a pillar of evil that is confined to wearing a mask (each designed by Tom Savini) for all but one scene, doing so with a voice that pierces through with sneaking terror that is never overplayed for one second. I especially like the sequence where he turns on Thames in the midst of a dark street and reveals his complete nature with a few quiet words for tenseness. The sequences leading up to the main kidnapping are fairly solid building blocks in making one care for our lead besides just throwing them into danger right from the get-go (which works best in a short story rather than a full-fledged story), as it lends time to let one absorb the atmosphere of what is shown without leaning into complete reference-preaching to the choir. One just watches a movie about a phone with the voices of dead kids without needing to think hard about why this is happening, with one appreciating the guidebook approach in an escape attempt. Granted, it is more of a coming-of-age movie rather than a straight descent into abject terror, but it does so with solid conviction that makes one curious for what Derrickson wants to show in horror on a certain scale with suitable timing and framing that makes for a clever and anxious ride.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Northman.

Review #1833: The Northman.

Cast: 

Alexander Skarsgård (Amleth), Nicole Kidman (Queen Gudrún), Claes Bang (Fjölnir the Brotherless), Anya Taylor-Joy (Olga of the Birch Forest), Ethan Hawke (King Aurvandill War-Raven), Willem Dafoe (Heimir the Fool), Elliott Rose (Gunnar), Gustav Lindh (Thorir the Proud), Eldar Skar (Finnr the Nose-Stub), Phill Martin (Hallgrimr Half Troll), Ingvar Eggert Sigurðsson (He-Witch), Björk (the Seeress), and Olwen Fouéré (Ashildur Hofgythja) Directed by Robert Eggers (#780 - The Witch)

Review: 

If I told you that this was a Viking rendition of Hamlet, would you be as interested to hear about the movie as opposed to just stating the cast and director? Well, one does prefer a bit of a history lesson, I suppose. Amleth is a legend in medieval Scandinavian lore, as told by Saxo Grammaticus, a Danish historian who wrote about him in the 13th century based on the oral traditions of long ago, which explains why the film is set in the year of 914 (by coincidence, "Hamlet" happens to be an anagram of "Amleth"). As such, this is a loose adaptation of the legend, one that was written by Eggers and Sjon, an Icelandic poet, novelist and lyricist. This isn't exactly an adaptation of Hamlet as it is more a parallel of it, but since one has likely seen many interpretations of revenge and madness, this isn't exactly a surprise: it involves a family mixed in blood and fate. Undeniably, it helps to have a little familiarity with Eggers as a director before one goes off seeing a film like this, since it helps to see the progression of a director who seems interested in exploring lost imaginations through all the research and rigid shooting methods that were apparent in his prior films with The Witch (2015) and The Lighthouse (2019); it is the traditions of the past that he wants to see through that mean most. Skarsgard and co-producer Lars Knudsen had wanted to do a Viking project for some time, but it was only in 2019 that Eggers was tapped to direct the film, and there were historical consultants utilized for the film that would do a mix of historical accuracy and educated guesswork; for example, initiation rituals are not exactly specified beyond a few descriptions of sprinkled blood of dead animals (now, catching a thrown spear to throw it right back, that came from an Icelandic saga). At any rate, it is the biggest budgeted film done by Eggers (at around $70-90 million), owing to attempts to try and balance the demands of the studio for accessibility over deliberate pacing/artsy - 137 minutes is the run-time for the film.

It does start a bit sluggish, but once one is hooked into its blunted edge of darkness, you are in. It never tries to be anything other than what it wants to be in a saga that has plenty of blood to go along with an unyielding sense of revenge. Well, that, and the honor of being able to die by the blade. It draws on mythology and archeology to make a formidable freak-out film that doesn't settle for just mundane magic.  Eggers has cultivated a brutal yet beautiful vision of history while making a film that would make Conan the Barbarian (1982) blush. Any debate over whether style or substance wins the day seems unnecessary when it comes the real question about just how far a vision can go in not wanting to compromise for the sake of it. For me, I was totally fine with the movie as a whole, because I admired what I was seeing in its blood-soaked sorcery without needing to squirm at attempts to divert itself away. This also includes the climax, which manages to maintain its destiny of vengeance with durability. This is a movie that starts with folks taking substances while acting as wolves and ends with a fight on a volcano...in the nude. It may be weird, but I admire its sensibility and its gradual pacing, and it is the cast that helps to elevate the material just as far as it wants to go. Skarsgård makes an ideal lead in terms of a man going berserk with trance-like fury that exists along the other people for one purpose: primal ones. Kidman takes some time to get properly involved in the action, but when she does get there, she sinks her teeth right in when it comes to committed steely nature, particularly when Kidman and Skarsgård encounter each other alone. Taylor-Joy seeps into the mystical side for a few useful moments (generally spent with Skarsgård), earthy and familiar without mundane. Given that one could almost flip the perspective around for a different film (a man threatens to take one's whole family away because of something they did years ago...think about it), it is interesting to see just how Bang would end up, because he makes a soothing adversarial presence, one that doesn't have to chew scenery to make the inevitable conclusion with the lead any more interesting than it needs to be (heck, they don't even say words in that moment). Hawke and Dafoe aren't in the film for too long, but they are each useful for what needs to happen with the youthful title character (as played by Oscar Novak), made clear by their one big scene together: a ritual together, complete with folks acting like dogs...and hallucinogens, which certainly raises the hair on the skin. Just saying what happens in a movie like this isn't quite enough, one really should just see for themselves what happens in a movie that presents vengeance and traditions of the Viking age in all of its clear glory without pretense or false note. I think it hits most of its marks for what it aims for, and fans of Eggers will certainly enjoy what they see here, and I think others will generally find their patience rewarded.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Boyhood.

Review #1568: Boyhood.

Cast:

Ellar Coltrane (Mason Evans Jr), Patricia Arquette (Olivia), Ethan Hawke (Mason Evans Sr), Lorelei Linklater (Samantha Evans), Libby Villari (Catherine), Marco Perella (Bill Welbrock), Brad Hawkins (Jim), Jamie Howard (Mindy Welbrock), Andrew Villarreal (Randy Welbrock), Jenni Tooley (Annie), Richard Andrew Jones (Annie's father), Karen Jones (Annie's mother), Bill Wise (Steve Evans), Zoe Graham (Sheena), and Charlie Sexton (Jimmy) Written and Directed by Richard Linklater (#645 - School of Rock, #1138 - Dazed and Confused, and #1206 - Bernie)

Review:

"It had been growing in me in ’99 and 2000. I’d been a dad for a while and seeing a kid growing up is a very intense thing. It made me think, ‘What about my childhood? What is childhood? Maybe I’ll make a film about childhood.’ But I was frustrated because I couldn’t pick a moment. It became a storytelling challenge and I’d almost given up, and then in 2001 the idea hit me in one big moment: We’ll film a little bit every year.”

It makes sense for a Texan to have made a variety of his films involving his home state in some form or another, so it should prove no surprise to see Richard Linklater with a distinct film to display his canvas of cinema again. The Houston native was involved in sports from a young age that led to a scholarship at Sam Houston State for baseball before moving back to work on an offshore oil rig. During those years on the rig, he found himself interested in film through watching them at the theaters. He would start venturing into his own moviemaking by buying his own Super-8 film camera and did his own short films. He made his first feature with the camera with It's Impossible to Learn to Plow by Reading Books (1988), a minimalist movie that he handled all the production duties that never had a wide release. His next feature proved to be an indie standout in Slacker (1990), which he wrote/produced/starred in that achieved attention and profit made despite a small release that dealt with misfits in Austin, Texas. Over the course of three decades, Linklater has made a variety of films with distinguishing features, whether that involves a relationship over the years in the Before trilogy (1995, 2004, 2013) or films involving animation like Waking Life (2001).

Someday, there might be a time when a Linklater film really resonates with me and seems ambitious enough to actually accomplish what it sets out to do for a true classic. It is good film, no question about that, one that is unique for its filming over the course of twelve years that follows a growth from child to teenager in all the bumps and rolls. Oh sure, the adults at every turn find ways to interact with our main star in their lectures with him about what he is supposed to be (whether as a kid doing homework or a cleaner doing his job), and it is this sense that he perhaps becomes someone reminiscent of the pathway presented in Dazed and Confused (1993) in being oneself in their own life. Of course that presents a strange little problem: that film was unbelievably average, and this film is just above average in what really matters in the end in what was described by Hawke as “human time-lapse photography". The film wants to play its game of highlighting the little moments between things that make a person's life rather than just being aligned on the big milestones (good or bad) to try and be documentary realism with the drama of ordinary life in a movie. If this reminded me of anything, it reminds me of a documentary series I look up every so often in curiosity despite never seeing it: The Up series, which has followed the lives of a group of children from when they were 7 that started in 1964 that checks up on them every seven years. Not every child brought in for that project has continued on to that project, but this is a different story in filming people over and over again without being obligated to do it under contract (since one can't contract someone for that long of work), and a script wasn't even finished before filming began, aside from a few contracted points of plot for each character that would segue into writing the script for each year of filming after seeing/doing the previous year's footage. Sure, you could make a story based on the idea of talking about the little victories/losses between the main procession of life without the supposed clichés that come from it, but I don't really buy that as really all that refreshing. If I filmed fifteen minutes of a one day and then returned to do the process again the next year for fifteen years and brushed aside key moments (like moments with finance or moments with friends outside, whichever sounds more believable), could one just wave their hands at that and say "look upon this and how it depicts LIFE!" - by that point, we are getting ourselves into subjective desires for what makes a good story worth following. I liked most what I saw, achieving most of its lofty goals through a long pace of 165 minutes that could prove an interesting starting point on one's patience - so here we are.

Coltrane was six years old when he was cast for a project like no other for an actor. It is the journey that counts in seeing his evolution play out on screen from innocence boyhood to making his step into the real world. Do I relate to all of his journey? In parts, I do, but at least Coltrane can be given credit for making this journey at least seem more than a series of vignettes (although one almost wonders if it was almost more suited for the progression of television). With actors like Hawke and Arquette playing parents in the film, it is nice to look upon the contrast and presence each bring to the feature and highlight their qualities (which to me works out better in observation for the former than the latter, although it is more about preference rather than saying one has more "fun" scenes), even if listing them as "support" when it came to awards season is a bit dubious (because if there are no parents here, we would have an entirely different film, estranged from the "ordinary" Boyhood). There is just something appealing about the feckless charm shown by Hawke here, one whose differences in being a figure to his children that pops in from time to time proves his worth in moving forward with strong will and humor that shines with Coltrane in those moments together, particularly for the last one at the gig venue that might as well have been the last sequence. Arquette does fine with gravitating the expectations and hopes that come from primary care of maintaining all the pressures of family and beyond, the unwavering presence in the storm of ambitions and life passing by, which I suppose makes it all worth that last scene with Coltrane. L. Linklater (daughter of R. Linklater) is fine, in the same way that she has her own bit of growth over the years that come across in the film with a set point to rest on. Others are there to serve as markers for where one is in the story, whether that involves a brash Perella or Hawkins, for better or worse when it comes to relevance. Maybe it all plays into the idea that narratives in life don't have to end in a neat little bow, and that might prove worthy for those who get into what the film is selling as a portrait of life in the margins. I don't know, I just think that's a bit convenient, since it ends on a line about the moment seizing oneself rather than the other way around - a slacker moment to roll the eyes with for a film that will either prove profound or otherwise for viewers. If you find yourself dazzled by what the film brings to the table in a 12-year tale involving a particular vision of what it means to grow up from a director who has liked to make distinct movies of story, all power to you. For me, it is good, but not quite a great feature that shows some flickering interest in where it could go in its vision and the occasional response it can generate involving childhood experiences with a decent cast to back it up.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.

Review #1545: Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.

Cast: 
Philip Seymour Hoffman (Andy Hanson), Ethan Hawke (Hank Hanson), Marisa Tomei (Gina Hanson), Albert Finney (Charles Hanson), Rosemary Harris (Nanette Hanson), Brían F. O'Byrne (Bobby Lasorda), Aleksa Palladino (Chris Lasorda), Michael Shannon (Dex), Tom Zolandz (Junkie), and Amy Ryan (Martha Hanson) Directed by Sidney Lumet (#035 - 12 Angry Men, #036 - Network, #404 - The Anderson Tapes, #1065 - Deathtrap, #1446 - Murder on the Orient Express, #1450 - Dog Day Afternoon)

Review: 
“In drama, the characters should determine the story. In melodrama, the story determines the characters."

If one can say they directed 44 films, that would probably be enough to have pride in as a director. If one could say they had a handful of memorable movies to go alongside an Honorary Academy Award and some notice for stars that feature in those films, that would be exceedingly good to have. At the age of 83, Sidney Lumet created one last classic to serve a career filled with well-managed preparation and a vitality for storytelling with complexity and stature to go with it. Not every film of his was great, but Lumet managed to cultivate success and audience notice with films in multiple decades with films like 12 Angry Men (1957), The Pawnbroker (1964), Network (1976), and The Verdict (1982) while still keeping busy with smaller films and a soft return to television (his involvement with 100 Centre Street was his first in 40 years). The film was written by first-time screenwriter Kelly Masterson, who previously worked with stage plays before being inspired by "the folly of human nature" and his study in theology to write this screenplay, which took seven years to get it made. Lumet was attracted to the script (likening it to a melodrama as opposed to just a thriller) while also making key suggestions to the plot such as having the main two actors play brothers rather than friends in order to heighten the tension. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (based on a old Irish saying) was the first and only Lumet film to be shot on high-definition video (owing to less hassle) along with being the last film that he directed before his death in 2011.

Sometimes a simple plan of robbing a mom-and-pop store for easy money and easy solutions to the problems of two brothers just doesn't go the way one expects. Or more specifically, sometimes people are just brought down by the obsessions that wreak havoc on one's soul, particularly their obsessions. What we have is a family on the verge of a breakdown in terms of morality and beyond that captures the desperation one can encounter when greed turns into guilt. I think we all reach a moment where we think about what would happen if we could just escape from our troubles, where one must try to stop themselves from having envy over how the grass looks on the other side. We look upon these people and we see them as fairly believable types reflecting upon us regardless of however many bad choices they end up making, because the simplest plans can go awry just like that turn crime dramas into tragedies. It does this by spanning through different perspectives that will occasionally crisscross a scene we saw earlier with another look, which pleases those who desire such non-linear telling for the most part. Hoffman, generally known for his variety of distinct character actor roles throughout his life, does tremendous here in pulling strong will and desperate emptiness needed to encapsulate his part of the drama needed that would have been rough putty with less talent behind it. Hawke has an equally interesting challenge with his pathetic counterpart that he still handles with a fair sense of conviction to what he needs to pull here on his end to keep up with the level of desperation required without becoming consumed in languished pity. Tomei doesn't have as much dialogue, but she does well in capturing a lack of satisfaction and aimlessness with what she has when facing Hoffman or Hawke. Finney is the last key to come together in terms of this growing spiral in terms of hardened nature that sells those carefully planned moments just right, with his one highlight being a scene of attempted reconciliation that ends with a devastatingly executed breakdown in what you see in the margins. Of the rest of the cast, Shannon does nicely in those small moments of sad intimidation for a film all about people past their prime. It generally works out for 117 minutes in winding itself up in tension and bleak situations that looks upon consequences and lost values within oneself and family that usually hits the mark in keeping up with its perspectives that all build to a mostly rewardingly bleak conclusion in what it says and doesn't say. Ultimately, I would say it proves to be an underrated classic worth looking upon with its high-strung string-pulling as Lumet's last winner.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Training Day.

Review #1529: Training Day.

Cast: 
Denzel Washington (Detective Sergeant Alonzo Harris), Ethan Hawke (Officer Jake Hoyt), Scott Glenn (Roger), Eva Mendes (Sara), Cliff Curtis (Smiley), Raymond Cruz (Sniper), Noel Gugliemi (Moreno), Dr. Dre (Paul), with Harris Yulin (Detective Doug Rosselli), Tom Berenger (Stan Gursky), Raymond J. Barry (Captain Lou Jacobs), Peter Greene (Jeff), Nick Chinlund (Tim), and Snoop Dogg (Blue) Directed by Antoine Fuqua.

Review: 
"Being a kid growing up with Kurosawa films and watching Sergio Leone movies just made me love what it could do to you, and how it could influence you - make you dream."

What we have here is a film comprised of two unifying visions in writing and directing when it comes to shades of gray in the streets and the people that live in it. Fuqua grew up in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and described himself as living a rough area that nevertheless found inspiration from films of his youth that affected him such as Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven in watching people struggle through their own fight for justice. He studied engineering and fine arts at West Virginia University with the intent to join the military before deciding to enter into filming with music video directing, which he started in 1992 for performers such as Chanté Moore and moved into film directing with The Replacement Killers (1998). The writer of this film was David Ayer, who while born in Champaign, Illinois lived with his cousin in South Central Los Angeles before serving in the United States Navy for two years as a Submarine Sonar Technician (with those experiences inspiring him to write his first published screenplay, U-571). The script for this film had been developed over the course of a few years by Ayer (who would later become a director in his own right) and he spent considerable time observing with people who resided in that area for their perspective on law enforcement, with the 24-hour setting coming through his fascination with seeing a person entirely transformed through one particular day. Fuqua would also do his part in maintaining a realistic atmosphere through shooting on location all around Los Angeles (whether that meant South Central or the Imperial Courts) that meant consultation with undercover cops and gang experts (which extended to the stars of the film).

Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that Washington does a great job with this role, because it clearly is a challenging role well-suited for a great actor to show nuance with. The film seems to take its lead from films like The French Connection and Dog Day Afternoon in a gritted-teeth telling about police action how it pertains to the community at large with a pace that works itself to fair standards with a solid duo wrapped around a world of brutality involving crooked cops and gangsters that still seems relevant today (the C.R.A.S.H. scandal involving the Los Angeles Police Department occurred by 1998, which was after the development of the screenplay but still prescient by the time of filming). Washington does a great job in depicting the logical next step of trying to take on the pressure-cooker type streets in going over the line and becoming an intimidator of the neighborhood. With a lesser actor, it might have just been an opportunity to go over-the-top in the guise of street justice, but Washington reins in a captivating performance filled with aggressive precision that isn't easy to pin down scene-to-scene. Hawke holds his ground on the other side of authority in ambition choked by underlying darkness, one that does just as well in driving the material forward with patience and an electric rapport with Washington that makes for good drama. Others do just fine in filling the details of a grayish world, such as Glenn with slimy calm, or an unassuming Mendes, though of course the best scene with others is one involving Yulin, Berenger, and Barry as "wise men" in their understanding with Washington when it comes to what's on/off the table. On the whole, one will find a decent experience to be had here through 122 minutes, as it has a general patience and understanding of a time and place that still adheres to how might makes right, with credible pacing and buildup to go with a well-paired duo and capable support to deliver a good thriller.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Gattaca.

Review #112: Gattaca.

Cast
Ethan Hawke (Vincent Anton Freeman/Jerome Eugene Morrow), Uma Thurman (Irene Cassini), Jude Law (Jerome Eugene Morrow), Loren Dean (Anton Freeman), Gore Vidal (Director Josef), Xander Berkeley (Dr. Lamar), Ernest Borgnine (Caesar) Directed by Andrew Niccol.

Review
The film is a delight to watch, as it's a smart film that makes you interested in the film rather than just be a science-fiction film. It raises questions and makes you wonder what would happen if we picked people because of genes rather then personality (Even if a sickened man goes to the one place different from Earth-Space) The acting is good, and the locations they use, especially the double helix staircase, is excellent. All in all, it's a good film to watch any day.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.