United Passions.

Review #1923: United Passions.

Cast: 

Tim Roth (Sepp Blatter), Gérard Depardieu (Jules Rimet), Sam Neill (João Havelange), Fisher Stevens (Carl Hirschmann), Jemima West (Annette Rimet), Thomas Kretschmann (Horst Dassler), Julian Miller (Ludwig Sylow), Jason Barry (Edgar Willcox), Martin Jarvis (Sir Stanley Rous), Bruce Mackinnon (Louis Muhlinghaus), Anthony Higgins (Lord Kinnaird), Nicholas Gleaves (Henri Delaunay), Richard Dillane (Larsen), and Antonio de la Torre (Enrique Buero) Directed by Frédéric Auburtin.

Review: 

"What’s very hard for me is that I’m not a stupid director that took the job for a big check. I tried to do my best, and little by little because of the way the production went and because of FIFA’s involvement and because there was no marketing, now when you Google it, the film is the worst ever and biggest box office disaster."

To get myself into the mood to watch a movie about FIFA, I decided to watch the first thing that popped into my head about reacting to United Passions...a contemporary John Oliver clip. Sure, my brain may think of Oliver as a lizard that happens to be able to talk, but I did want some sort of reference for what folks thought of United Passions before it came out. Apparently, the clip showed that a screening in New York had just one person buy a ticket for the film when it premiered in America in 2015, after it had been shown around other countries in the summer of 2014 as a French production that is mostly told in English (aside from a few parts with English subtitles). Apparently, it sold about $300 worth of tickets when it premiered in a few theaters in the USA. No, not $900 in each theater, $900 combined. I could have saved even slightly more time by watching Tim Roth talk about the movie for a minute, but nobody wants to watch an actor apologize for a movie, especially when seeing them be in crap is far funnier. Thankfully, I did not have to buy this movie to see it. Generally, I try to avoid wasting my money when it comes to spending time (109 minutes this time) with movies, so one can thank YouTube for bringing curiosity to the masses. Aside from seeing a blurb designating this film being shown at the Cannes Film Festival (?), one can only expect what to see from a work of "dramatic fiction". The only reason I picked this film is because of the tremendous coincidence of FIFA deciding to hold a World Cup in Qatar (totally a place with no human rights violations, huh?) in the middle of November. Just a reminder: this film was released in America in the wake of the 2015 FIFA scandal, which saw accusations of bribery of FIFA officials and the eventual resignation of its federation president. Of course, the funny thing is the fact that the movie was released in the summer of 2014 to coincide with the 2014 World Cup, held in South Africa (with the movie ending on a re-enactment of the announcement of the country being the host of the Cup). The film was written by Frédéric Auburtin and Jean-Paul Delfino. The French director had worked as an assistant director on a handful of films from 1985 to 1998 (most notably The Man in the Iron Mask, for example). He directed three films (with one film segment, with none generally known) alongside a few television projects, but this is his most known effort. In fact, it is the last film he has directed. FIFA funded most of the $30 million project, if you did not already know (going from funding 40% of the film as intended to...much more).

Who the hell wanted to make a movie not about the game of soccer, but the founding of an organization? More specifically, who the hell wanted a movie about International Association Football Federation (FIFA)? For the rest of this review, I will refer to the game as soccer, if only because I refuse to not stop saying soccer. Anyway, this movie about a soccer federation has the dubious task of trying to tell a history that spanned many decades, whether that involves the growth of the organization in the turn of the 20th century to the first World Cup in 1930 to the delay of not holding a World Cup from after 1938 until 1950, the "Death Match" in 1942, to the Blatter era (the only word that I can think of for him is "hack"). Incidentally, FIFA saw England join it three times: 1905, 1924, and 1946, which is pretty contrary to the opening sequence of seeing England (referred to lovingly and mockingly numerous times in the films as "inventor of the game") reject FIFA. A documentary, preferably not funded by FIFA, might have proved more interesting. Hell, watching soccer itself may have been less of a timewaster than this. For one, it would have actual compelling aspects to it, if only to see the different angles of how an organization came together: the real truth, corruption and all. I feel like I am watching a really glossy PR ad, one that looks more like 1954 than 2014 in general excitement for the material it wants to show, which is "mild". There is something amusing about presenting the 1950 World Cup match between Brazil and Uruguay in a somber matter (where the host nation Brazil lost in the final group stage needing only to tie to win the Cup) when it comes and goes like all the other things that happen in the movie. The most amusing sequence is a stock montage that sees clips from various World Cups to pass time, which even has a shot of Roth standing by a closed casket of a dead person (yes, seriously). I especially like this one line that talks about how the Olympics is political, but that the World Cup is about people...before a line a couple of minutes later about South Africans and that it is impossible to "keep politics out of sport" contrary to the belief of South Africans. 

So, you have Tim Roth play a person born in Switzerland, "Academy Award-winning producer Fisher Stevens" play a Dutch man and Sam Neill play a Brazilian. Roth shows up by the hour mark, after Depardieu has dominated a good part of it and Neill has just managed to come in the picture at the 49th minute. Perhaps there is a certain irony in an actor taking a role solely for the money when the person he is playing has been dogged about claims of corruption and financial mismanagement. This is even more amusing since the film is actually mostly about the tenure where Neill's character is in charge rather than with Roth (Blatter was not FIFA president until 1998). Roth may talk all he wants about his apologies for not questioning the script ("Where's all the corruption in the script? Where is all the back-stabbing, the deals? So it was a tough one. I tried to slide in a sense of it, as much as I could", an actual quote from Roth), but he is laughably stiff here. There is a black hole where a performance should be: a vanity project that doesn't have the slightest bit of charisma from any of the performances that make the main actors look like anything other than accountants. Neill looks like he wants to be anywhere else, while Depardieu is having a ball in terms of zoned out acting. The director may say he tried to insert ironic parts past FIFA's "observation". Who came up with the idea to show kids playing soccer in a dump throughout the movie? Actually, that was the writers, who apparently came up with it to avoid having the film be connected with their first idea of an investigator looking at the history of FIFA in corruption. Is it irony or unintentional amusement in the face of FIFA wasting money on this? As a whole, the only thing to say about the movie is that it sucks. Watching eleven corporate videos in a row would be more tolerable than this movie, which is glossy in the same way a gold bucket of crap is still crap. Watching a soccer game end in a tie may actually be more entertaining than this movie, which is probably the funniest way to waste making money on a glossy propaganda mess.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Turkey Week is upon us again! This time, for the 3rd edition of this favorite project of mine of films known in some way for being "turkeys", I am going to take out the traditional method of starting with older movies and instead going in a free-form pattern to make for a few surprises. In fact, the traditional eight-course of bad movies will increase slightly...to a surprise amount. Next up in Turkey Week III: Alone in the Dark.

Hackers.

Review #1128: Hackers.

Cast: 
Jonny Lee Miller (Dade Murphy / "Zero Cool" / "Crash Override"), Angelina Jolie (Kate Libby / "Acid Burn"), Fisher Stevens ("The Plague" / Eugene Belford), Renoly Santiago (Ramόn Sánchez / "The Phantom Phreak"), Matthew Lillard (Emmanuel Goldstein / "Cereal Killer"), Laurence Mason (Paul Cook / "Lord Nikon"), Jesse Bradford (Joey Pardella), Lorraine Bracco (Margo Wallace), Alberta Watson (Lauren Murphy), Penn Jillette (Hal), and Wendell Pierce (Special Agent Richard Gill) Directed by Iain Softley.

Review: 
I suppose it makes sense that this I encounter Hackers, since it seems to linger on how hip and weird it wants to be, even if it shows its age more so than actual people from the 90s. After all, what other movie can you think of that showcases Jolt Cola? (of which I can safely say I have had a cup of). Or offbeat hairstyles and fashion choices that make bow-ties seem sane by comparison? No doubt, the highlight of this is seeing the virtual environment and computer screens that we can see on people's faces without much problem. This is a film that certainly had some sort of curiosity about hacking and cyberpunk subcultures, where Rafael Moreu (screenwriter for the movie) talked with actual hackers to help develop inspiration for the movie, which the cast also ended up doing, to the point where Miller attended an actual hacker's convention. By the time this film was released, hackers even had their own manifesto out in the open. Sometimes, the best thing to say about a movie is to say that it's "just a movie", for better or worse. How can I take this movie seriously when the stakes and situations presented are so ridiculous in execution? This is a film that has a scene of our main lead hacking a local TV station's computer network to get it to show The Outer Limits (not that there's anything wrong with that choice) and leads into a hacking showoff with another hacker that has the imagery of cassette machines fighting over what tape to show. On one side of the film is a bunch of hacker heroes who like to roller-blade and listen to electronic music, while on the other side is a villain who un-ironically goes by "The Plague" who likes to skateboard around when working who plays the cliche of the corporate adversary, complete with a theft scheme right out of Superman III (1983). Actually, the fact that Penn Jillette (of the comedy magic duo Penn & Teller) is featured in a supporting role probably doesn't break the top five of weirdest things to note in this movie. One could probably write an entire essay over the strange nature of a film made in a time where people weren't as familiar with the Internet as they are today - you're reading this on a virtual screen, after all. Although the movie (made on a budget of $20 million) was not much of a success with audiences at the time, it does endure with its own cult following.

Miller does an okay job at handling a main role, but there are times when he feels a bit dry and not always too interesting, particularly when others are on screen who stand out in their own ways. After all, you might say he's a hacker, not a fighter. Jolie (in her third ever appearance on film) for example, has a certain kind of energy and nature to her that invites interest even with her closed off character and a hacker rivalry with Miller that goes (mostly) the way one would probably expect. They do share some chemistry with each other, at least, although the fact it is in a movie as weirdly built as this one is amusing. It proves amusing to see itself try to subvert the cliche romance, mostly because you'll find yourself involved with the hacking more. Santiago is fine, and Lillard certainly inspires hit-or-miss moments with his scene-stealing moments of hacking and weird hair. Mason and Bradford round out the hacker group, and they are both fine in their brief time. Clearly, the one who munches attention is Stevens, the keyboard cowboy (as he puts it) who makes the experience worth it in playing the role of the adversary without taking it too seriously or too amusingly. In lesser hands, it would've come off as silly nonsense, but Stevens is adept at being compelling to watch be the smug and clever foil, even if the stakes aren't particularly too high. Oh sure, a bunch of oil tanker fleets will capsize to cover a hacking scheme, but there is something truly amusing about the levels of tension (and occasional humor) the film wants to draw for its climax, complete with rollerblading, hacker-themed pirate TV show hosts, and splotches of color and imagery for a hacking showdown. Interestingly, the cyberspace effects are not computer generated imagery, but instead naturally created, using methods such as animations, motion control, or other methods. The cutting edge-ness that I'm sure the film had in 1995 is more of a soft edge now, but there is something to watch in its entertainment value regardless, whether for laughs or not. It's dumb and cheesy, but there's a certain feeling to its cheese that makes it one you can't reject too easily out of hand. I'd hesitate to easily call it a cult classic, but it's certainly the kind of film you could watch late at night and point at with chuckles, for better or worse, even if I can't quite give it a positive endorsement. It isn't much as a crime film, but it is certainly something on an entertainment level. It's entertaining junk of the weirdest order even with over two decades of age behind it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Super Mario Bros.

Review #736: Super Mario Bros.

Cast
Bob Hoskins (Mario), John Leguizamo (Luigi), Dennis Hopper (King Koopa), Samantha Mathis (Princess Daisy), Fisher Stevens (Iggy), Richard Edson (Spike), Fiona Shaw (Lena), and Mojo Nixon (Toad) Directed by Rocky Morton and Annabel Jankel.

Review
Since today's the 30th anniversary of the release of Super Mario Bros, I decided to review the movie based off the video game. Before talking about this movie, let me talk a little about Super Mario. Let's be honest: The plot of the original game is simple: A plumber named Mario tries to rescue a princess from Bowser (also known as Koopa). To make a movie out of it, you have to have more plot. Whatever Super Mario game you played first (Mine was Super Mario Bros 3 on the NES, which my dad bought at a sale five years ago), Mario's legacy is one that can never be stopped, and it is has crossed over into the realm of television, cereals, anime, comics, and of course, this movie.

Yep, this one. The one from the same people that worked on Max Headroom (never heard of it)...which has had a reputation. Not just from people, but from the actors themselves. Dennis Hopper described this film as a nightmare that went over budget. Bob Hoskins said it was not only the worst job he ever did, he also said it was both his biggest disappointment and the one thing he'd change about his past. Leguizamo said in his own memoir that he and Hoskins got drunk constantly while filiming this. It's strange that Mario and Luigi's last names are both Mario (I guess that explains the Mario Bros. part)...but that's not the least of the movie's problems. The main problem is that the movie really doesn't have much of a focus to it in terms of tone. Is it supposed to be a comedy? Light hearted family flick? Adventure? Sci-fi? Dark fantasy? What is it? The lack of consistency with the tone clouds a movie that is already pretty strange. I do kinda like the idea of an alternate dimension for the Mario Bros, but it's still not done very well because it just flies by too quick to make an impact. The acting is certainly...notable. Hopper looks like he doesn't care. Now whether that means that he doesn't care about the movie or his performance in it is the question. Hoskins and Leguizamo evidently did not enjoy their experience in the movie, and it shows. Pretty much every actor is just there to say lines...though Stevens & Edson provide occasional moments of mild enjoyment

Let's talk about some of the video game stuff briefly, because I know at least something about video games. I wonder if the Princess is named Daisy because of Super Mario Land (released four years earlier) or because being known as Princess Toadstool (The name she was referred to as in the US prior to 1993) would be too weird. The Goombas are an okay effect, though them being taller than the Mario Bros doesn't make too much sense, given that in the game they are the easiest to kill. I find it very strange that Toad is now a guitar playing rebel...but then again Toad wasn't exactly endearing in the video games to begin with. Yoshi...is there for about 20 seconds. Apparently Yoshi was an animatronic effect controlled by cables and radios. It's not a bad effect, but he's only there briefly.  Koopa (also known as Bowser) is now evidently half-human, half-lizard. Nuff said. Remember Big Bertha? That fish from the third game? Big Bertha is now a big woman. The Bob-omb at least resembles the one from the game, and is probably the only thing in this movie that is loyal, sadly enough.

The movie's effects are hit and miss. The design of the city is okay, but you could honestly confuse it for any movies with a  The portal effects look more like soup and the Goombas have a certain washed out pale look to them. The movie ends on a cliffhanger...that will never be resolved. Super Mario Bros was a flop at the box office, and rightfully so. It's a movie that tries to cover too many bases to focus and please everyone while managing to be a tangled mess with no clear focus. It's sad how it seems no one who made this had fun making this, but at least it's not unwatchable. It's not a terrible movie, it's just isn't any good either. I did find it interesting that there's actually a comic strip dedicated as a "sequel" to this film, so at least something came out of this. Ultimately, this a movie that lags alongside other weird 90's movies, though not the good kind. Happy 30th, Mario. You deserved better than this.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Short Circuit 2.

Review #376: Short Circuit 2.

Cast
Tim Blaney (Johnny 5), Fisher Stevens (Ben Jahrvi), Michael McKean (Fred Ritter), Cynthia Gibb (Sandy Banatoni), Jack Weston (Oscar Baldwin), David Hemblen (Jones), and Don Lake (Manic Mike) Directed by Kenneth Johnson.

Review
Well, what do you know, I'm reviewing another sequel to a film long ago here, 288 reviews ago and 473 days to be exact, which was (#088) Short Circuit. It had some creativity, and while it didn't exactly make me laugh a lot or really be any good, it had a spark of entertainment, for all its weirdness. And so, once again, the qeustion is asked is does this film live up to the first one? Eh...yea. Johnny 5 is allright, once again having some decent lines as...a person robot? Made weirder by the fact he is actually declared a citizen at the end, I'm not kidding. Fisher Stevens is back once again, in a way promoted from sidekick to Steve Guttenburg to mostly-main character. Guttenburg and Sheedy from the first film don't appear (though it is explained they are in Montana. Okay?), and the depth (or there little of) is replaced with...comedy. Strangely enough, the film has a revenge sub plot and even tries to be tear-inducing at one point. In the end, the film isn't horrible, it's just...okay.

BTW: If you have any questions about this site or just about the reviews, just ask on this post, any questions at all. Please.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Short Circuit.

Review #088: Short Circuit.

Cast
Ally Sheedy (Stephanie Speck), Steve Guttenberg (Newton Crosby, Ph.D), Fisher Stevens (Ben Jabituya), Austin Pendleton (Dr. Howard Marner), G. W. Bailey (Captain Skroeder), Tim Blaney (Number 5), Brian McNamara (Frank), and Marvin J. McIntyre (Duke) Directed by John Badham.

Review
It figures to have an 80s flick be in Robot Week. No, not that one. But you get this flick. And so we have a story that's easy thin for the most part, but of course who could predict this story? No one? Any one? Oh wait, no one's here...Anyway, this film at least has some enjoyment, with it's gags and slight robotic-ness, which at least will make you remember. Heck, I was going to review without watching, as I already could remember the gags and such, but I decided to watch. The acting's standard, and the robot looks decent for the most part. This ends Part III of Robot Week.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.