The Book of Eli.

Review #2175: The Book of Eli.

Cast: 

Denzel Washington (Eli), Gary Oldman (Bill Carnegie), Mila Kunis (Solara), Ray Stevenson (Redridge), Jennifer Beals (Claudia), Evan Jones (Martz), Joe Pingue (Hoyt), Frances de la Tour (Martha), Michael Gambon (George), and Tom Waits (Engineer) Directed by Albert and Allen Hughes.

Review: 

"Allen deals with the actors, I deal with the technical side. Outside of that, we both do everything. I think it came up that way because I went to film school (at Los Angeles City College) and learned more of the technical side. Film school was just putting names on things me and my brother were already doing, different ways of doctoring up stuff. But even when we work together on the set, we both have opinions on each others' area."

Sometimes it matters to be two of a kind. The Hughes Brothers, composed of Allen and Albert, were born in Detroit but raised in California with a clear interest in film from a young age (as helped by their mother, who bought them two VHS machines and a video camera when they were 12). They honed their craft with music videos. At the age of 20, they made their first feature film with Menace II Society (1993). They followed this with Dead Presidents (1995), the documentary American Pimp (1999) and From Hell (2001); Albert moved to the Czech Republic in 2004. At any rate, this film was written by Gary Whitta, but re-writes were done by Anthony Peckham. This is currently the last film made together by the Hughes brothers, although each have continued to direct for separate features and television, such as The Defiant Ones (2017) and Alpha (2018), respectively.

Really one could just interpret the film as a slightly less hokey version of The Postman (1997). Think about it: both movies involve a wandering drifter with a particular vision in mind on their travels that run into someone wanting to maintain control of their part of a post-apocalyptic America that eventually leads to some sort of semblance of hope (hey, one gets a statue and the other gets a gravestone after doing what they set out to do), and both happen to feature a musician in a bit part. Of course, one has hand-to-hand combat and a runtime under two hours (118, but still) with this film, which is set...30 years after some sort of thing happened. Honestly, it probably would've looked the same regardless of if it was 5 or 10 years, but so be it. The result is a mildly involving attempt at parable that comes and goes on just how much one is interested in its eventual climax, which, well, is more a Western than anything (Pale Rider (1985) referred to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse in its title, chew on that). The blind leading the blind, in good ol' browns and greys with some brand references (just how big were iPods anyway?), I think you get the idea of where things will go besides the part that really attracts my attention: a few moments of kick-ass with the hands. Of course, Washington is pretty good as the headline enigma to hold the film as long as it can, which exudes faith in the assured manner that fits what you would picture in your head in terms of trying to stay on the path that seems most obvious to him. That, and, well, he does make a quality presence to see handle a bunch of fools in their place that would fit a samurai film. Oldman handles the other side of the coin in just how much knowledge can lead a man on a certain path, which mostly involves craven nature, and this is mildly successful. It isn't exactly a role begging for scene-chewing, because Gambon and de la Tour can do that instead. Kunis makes a blank slate that may or may not work depending on one's patience for, well, seeing where a slate goes for a road movie. The film gives me more of a chuckle in its attempt at playing bleakness and religious nature in a familiar package that is only as good as the commitment to make it something worth sticking with. As a whole, it meanders in a certain type of meandering that could only come from something that is hazy in both construction and look that works best for those who don't look for the obvious signposts but instead just sit for the ride and relax.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

Review #1888: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

Cast: 

Andy Serkis (Caesar), Jason Clarke (Malcolm), Gary Oldman (Dreyfus), Keri Russell (Ellie), Toby Kebbell (Koba), Kodi Smit-McPhee (Alexander), Kirk Acevedo (Carver), Nick Thurston (Blue Eyes), Terry Notary (Rocket), Karin Konoval (Maurice), Judy Greer (Cornelia), Jon Eyez (Foster), and Enrique Murciano (Kemp) Directed by Matt Reeves (#1038 - Cloverfield and #1814 - The Batman)

Review: 

"I think that what I thought was this emotionality and being in the apes kind of inner lives, that's a reason to do this.  Like because you know the ending.  And so now the question is how do we get from here to there?"

I'm sure you remember Ruper Wyatt's Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011), the first reboot movie involving Planet of the Apes since the last time someone tried to do a new Planet of the Apes ten years prior. With the use of visual effects and performance capture by Weta Digital rather than prosthetics, it certainly made quite the impression in trying to make a new path inspired by Pierre Boulle's 1963 novel Planet of the Apes. Honestly, while I remember Rise being fine, I think I could only tell you that Andy Serkis was the best part to remember, if only because his motion capture performance (and occasional voice) really made the film distinct in not just being a mundane reboot/makeup show (of course, Serkis had considerable experience with capture in the previous years, so that helps). Wyatt did not return for this film, instead being replaced by Matt Reeves, director of films such as Cloverfield (2008) and Let Me In (2010), and the only cast members to return are Serkis, Konoval, and Notary (you may notice those are all performers for apes, and this is the case with the subsequent 2017 sequel). The film was written by Mark Bomback, Rick Jaffa, and Amanda Silver (the latter two wrote Rise and also serve as producers on this film), with Bomback being brought in to do re-writes, as Reeves was not big on the original treatment (post apocalyptic San Francisco...with humans and apes pushing up power lines), favoring fir a story with Caesar at the forefront that spends a good chunk of its first quarter with him before eventually segueing into the "surprise" of human life (since remember that the humans suffered an airborne flu that spread worldwide in the c-sorry, Simian flu).

So yes, there are elements of previous Ape films (such as Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973), for example), but there is something here that was sorely needed from the shallow or mild foundations seen in the last two features: energy. It has a pacing to it in its presentation of the similarities and differences that come with human and ape life (where you can see some American Sign Language utilized with certain quirks done), one that has an edge in handling the material with a useful main presence with plenty of credibility and presentation to go around. With a more balanced film of actors with and not with motion-capture, Serkis leads the ensemble with commanding presence, one that handles the dilemma present in both apes and humans in the battle of how one treats others (hint: co-existence is easy to say but hard to administer). One looks past the fact that Serkis (and others playing apes) had to act with a bunch of dots around his face and instead sees the talent shown by him in the art of showing dominance alongside conflict. Serkis has managed to evolve the character with his performance that mimics the evolution of the apes in the most fitting of ways, which makes the overall result all the more interesting. The rest keep up okay. Clarke makes a reasonable counterpart to the divide, well-meaning in trust when it is earned in ways that operate in similar fashion to the performance by James Franco in the earlier film (with regards to Caesar) without being a copy, and Russell and Smit-McPhee make okay companions to the human element (well, one is here for folks like the big orange primate, not kids and step parents trying to make friends). Oldman has only a select number of things to really do as a sort of caretaker, since Serkis has the show, but he does prove a useful adversary for what is needed in the long run, which also applies to Kebbell when he is paired against Serkis in terms of pain and aggression. As a whole, it shows plenty of perspective on its inevitable road to ruin. As a movie depicting the brink of war and a demoralized world, it's a pretty solid adventure. It runs through its 130 minutes with careful ambition to make involving drama for a useful epic. It makes most of an effort to stand apart from the number of sci-fi dystopias involving the usual suspects while inviting the question of what could happen next with Ceasar and beyond.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

True Romance.

Review #1632: True Romance.

Cast:

Christian Slater (Clarence Worley), Patricia Arquette (Alabama Whitman), Dennis Hopper (Clifford Worley), Val Kilmer (Mentor), Gary Oldman (Drexl Spivey), Brad Pitt (Floyd), Christopher Walken (Vincenzo Coccotti), Bronson Pinchot (Elliot Blitzer), Samuel L. Jackson (Big Don), Michael Rapaport (Dick Ritchie), Saul Rubinek (Lee Donowitz), Conchata Ferrell (Mary Louise Ravencroft), James Gandolfini (Virgil), Anna Thomson (Lucy), Victor Argo (Lenny), Chris Penn (Nicky Dimes), and Tom Sizemore (Cody Nicholson) Directed by Tony Scott (#029 - Top Gun, #253 - Unstoppable, and #357 - The Last Boy Scout)

Review:

"The biggest edge I live on is directing. That's the most scary, dangerous thing you can do in your life."

Curiosity can reign free when it comes to looking upon two merging visions make a film together in the writer and director. The writer of the film was Quentin Tarantino, who based his script of a script Roger Avary had done called "The Open Road", and Avary helped organize the structure of that script. He had met director Tony Scott while lurking around the set of Scott's film The Last Boy Scout, and he gave Scott two scripts (True Romance and Reservoir Dogs), for which Scott wanted to make films of (when faced with having to pick just one, he picked the former (the latter script was turned into a film first, although it had been written later than the former). The script was written by Tarantino with the lead character as a stand-in for himself. Scott was obviously no stranger to making enterprising efforts in action. A graduate of the Royal College of Art in London like his older brother Ridley, with each becoming inspired to move from an interest in art to advertisements to eventually films, with the younger Scott specializing in action and thriller over the course of sixteen films. This was the seventh feature effort from Scott, which he made on a budget of $12 million that led to fair notice but a limited appeal in terms of box office. Its stature has risen in recent years as a cult favorite, for obvious reasons to those who look at the film at the nexus of two directors. There is of course one key difference from script to film - the final fate of one of the characters, in which Tarantino had them die (as a sign of comeuppance for all the cynical folks), but Scott liked one of the characters so much that he wanted them to stay together, acting it as a fairy tale love story. Of course, the acting choices would certainly be interesting if looked upon by Tarantino, since he wrote the film with Robert Carradine and Joan Cusack in mind for the leads (for his part, Scott desired Drew Barrymore at first), so wrap your head how that would have looked.

When one is tired of relationships, they should pick a romance, obviously. If Natural Born Killers (1994, the second script he sold) represents a compromised vision between Tarantino's scripting and the director, True Romance is certainly a case of writer-director cohesion, one where the details all come together to make what might seem like a fantasy come alive with energy and intrigue (although there is some satire included by Scott, who molded Rubinek's character after producer Joel Silver). It never seems like a compromise, balancing eloquence of amusement with violence that only got more interesting upon the progression of Tarantino over the next few years, and Scott makes his effort count in riveting interest with what is needed, whether that means scenes shot at the Ambassador Hotel, or with scenes that can jump from amusement to violent at a turn that go with the aspects of Elvis Presley adoration to a collection of cast that could make up two separate big-time movies (Oldman, Jackson, and Pitt basically make up about 20 minutes of time on screen, and this is 1992 we are talking about). Is it perfect? No, but it certainly is bold enough to linger with anyone curious enough to seek it out for those who like to see an interesting time that runs the gamut from pulp to black comedy without running itself ragged. Slater thought of the role as a comedy before Scott and him saw Taxi Driver (1976) in order to hone in a darker, cooler approach. Obviously it worked out well, since he plays it off with a refined sense of daredevil charisma, where one can see him roll with everything that goes in action and romance without any trouble, playing this quasi-Tarantino character with no false note (even when dealing an imaginary friend that looks like Elvis) Arquette fits on the other side of the coin, matching well in making this romance easy to believe in from the very first few moments, because one sees plenty of magnetism between these folks in their pursuit of living free within the domain of enjoying kung fu among other hobbies and vices. She makes for a mix of worldly innocence that makes this dark fairy tale come around with dutiful interest that holds her own (just as Slater does) when not together - the best scene might be her paired with another actor though, as the scene in the motel room with Gandolfini (in a key early role marked with brutal effectiveness) makes for a tense tête-à-tête in rising action and a natural bludgeoning edge to close it out. Others do their part with less time on screen, such as Hopper, who naturally gets one interesting scene to spend making it all count - his last, spent with one-scene wonder Walken, which involves a few choice words involving Sicily that makes for a riveting standoff. Kilmer spends his time with a good voice needed to play off scenes spent in quasi-hiding, which go well when playing an imagined presence. Oldman may not be in it much, but he sure makes a worthy rough presence count that never betrays the makeup and voice set for such an unsavory curiosity. Pitt (no stranger to making supporting turns count in the first part of the 1990s) makes his buzzed time count, an observer with improvised dialogue to make for bemused amusement (one might recognize the influence this role had on another film released years later with Pineapple Express). Pinchot (mostly known for his star role in Perfect Strangers for seven years) makes well with panic-laced pacing, which plays right into the climax fine, particularly with the bravado played by Rubinek, while Rapaport, Penn, and Sizemore contribute in their own little ways (mostly with the standoff). By the time the film closes down its 118 minute run-time, one will find a pretty good experience in balancing dark humor and violence that has plenty of energy where it needs to go without seeming too much like a brazen fantasy running around in references. It makes for a fun time, accomplishing what it needs to do with its pursuit of story beat to drive it over the finish line to its standoff that will hit with the viewers that enjoy what comes from either Tarantino or Scott without too much worry about every detail or just who did what. Sometimes one just has to sit and enjoy the tale for itself.

Well, you are probably wondering just why there were a few reviews this week that happened to tie to the years of 1990-1993. Sure, these films have been in consideration for several months (for obvious reason), but there is also another reason: They happen to be the years involving a team dear to me when it comes to rooting interest in the Buffalo Bills, who went to the Super Bowl in four straight years. I don't usually take to the sports pulpit when it comes to these writings, but let's bend the rule for this one because of the fact that they are playing for the right to be in the Super Bowl again: Let's go Buffalo, let us see you pull of a great big upset today and move on to February, so say it with me now: No one circles the wagons like the Buffalo Bills!

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Dark Knight Rises.

Review #1562: The Dark Knight Rises.

Cast: 
Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Michael Caine (Alfred Pennyworth), Gary Oldman (Commissioner James Gordon), Anne Hathaway (Selina Kyle / Catwoman), Tom Hardy (Bane), Marion Cotillard (Miranda Tate / Talia al Ghul), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (John Blake), Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox), Matthew Modine (Foley), Ben Mendelsohn (John Daggett), Burn Gorman (Philip Stryver), Alon Aboutboul (Dr. Leonid Pavel), Juno Temple (Jen), Daniel Sunjata (Captain Jones), Chris Ellis (Father Reilly), Brett Cullen (Byron Gilley), Cillian Murphy (Dr. Jonathan Crane / Scarecrow), and Liam Neeson (Henri Ducard / Ra's al Ghul) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, and #980 - Dunkirk)

Review:
"For me, The Dark Knight Rises is specifically and definitely the end of the Batman story as I wanted to tell it, and the open-ended nature of the film is simply a very important thematic idea that we wanted to get into the movie, which is that Batman is a symbol. He can be anybody, and that was very important to us."

Auteur filmmakers can do any genre, as long as they manage to cultivate films that are of their own design with distinct style and interesting consistency to make it a worthwhile experience to look for time and time again. Christopher Nolan rose to that occasion, doing so under the inspiration of wanting to be a filmmaker since he was a child with influences like Ridley Scott and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). A graduate of University College London, he started making his own short films by the time he was 19 and made his first feature with the independently made Following (1998) that was followed up with breakthroughs with Memento (2000) and Insomnia (2002) before being brought in to bring back Batman to the big screen. There must have been quite the high hype for a film like this, one that would prove the end of a trilogy of films that Nolan co-produced and co-wrote (with his brother Jonathan for the screenplay and David S. Goyer for the story) alongside direction (he has done writing for most of his features alongside directing, with this being his eighth feature film). Nolan was hesitant for a third film, only wanting to do one if it served satisfactory in its story (as opposed to being just a follow-up film). If the first film involved fear and the sequel involved chaos, Nolan wanted a film that would involve pain, and the main villain of each film seems to reflect that vision, which also seems to include making the films longer as well (if the first felt long at 140 minutes, try 165 with this one). Nolan was the second director to have directed an entire trilogy involving one superhero after Sam Raimi and his Spider-Man trilogy, and it is clear to mention the success that has been done in capturing an epic of sweeping realism that drew upon certain Batman stories (such as Year One or The Long Halloween) that proved distinct in what they did for superhero films when compared to the various ones that came around since 2005 (or even more so by 2012). There are various comic books from the Batman series that this takes inspiration from, such as "Knightfall" (which had Bane pushing Batman to his limits), The Dark Knight Returns (an aged Batman returning to Gotham after several years), and "No Man's Land" (where Gotham is cut off from the rest of the country due to violence), although one major influence on the story was actually Charles Dickens' 1859 novel A Tale of Two Cities (detailing revolution that also happens to borrow lines from it in one of the last scenes).

I will admit that Nolan has done a well-placed achievement in his career, a definitive end to a series in its own vision of what Batman is as the last leg of an epic series that achieves most of what it sets out to do with scope and gravitas that ties as many ends as it does invite further discussion over the nature of such an extraordinary figure in an ordinary world that have villains that aren't necessarily just big foils to defeat but instead are ones that get under one's skin with coherence. I don't think of it as the best of the three films (The Dark Knight is inevitably an indelible achievement to surpass), but it definitely serves as one of the most interesting films of its year (or if one is more bold, its decade, which had a considerable amount of films based on comic books, but not many better than this). Bale certainly has come a long way in seven years in this role, one that requires an actor who can show numerous layers beyond just playing a millionaire playboy / dressing up as a bat and fighting crime in a deep voice. While it might have seemed a bit silly-sounding at first, I have warmed up to it because Bale does so well in pulling off this dual person that actually seems like three acts when faced with who he is to his close friends, the public at large, and perhaps his real self as Batman. He captures the struggle that comes with continuing to be defined by pain and loss to its logical conclusion with the time that he balances well on screen, where one doesn't really need too much of Batman to still be captivated by what it means to find one self again and become a knight of a city that needs it as opposed to a false ideal or kowtowing to fear or apathy. Caine lends the dutiful hand with sharp elegance and usefulness as one should expect from an anchor of sensibility like him. Oldman carries a mix of honesty with guilt and weariness that still reflects the sense of right and wrong and the choices that come in trying to fitting those goals for better or worse. Hathaway does fine with her role, reflecting differently from the others that had portrayed the role before her in past films with playful care that she modelled after the initial inspiration for the character in Hedy Lamarr. Hardy based his accent on a Romani gypsy (named Bartley Gorman), and it seems well-suited for one meant to be a sort of liberator of pain, one that ultimately does just well enough with serving the film in generating interest as a test of strength and mind, which I think works itself out really well despite maybe one small misgiving about the way the climax handles him; this plays into the other adversary lurking in plain sight that connects itself right back to the first film - Cotillard is a decent actress here and it is a decent twist, but it all somehow feels a bit too convenient to really close everything out neatly. Gordon-Levitt does fine here with generating idealism with instinct that never sparks a false note or seems too off for what is needed to set the film on course when with paired with Bale or Oldman. Freeman and the rest round out a useful cast that do what is needed in filling the depth of characters needed to fill the depth of the city or plot detailing. The film packs quite a wallop in action, executing itself with balance and consistency for capable action in such a distinct atmosphere that keeps itself on the edge with numerous situations and weaving of plot that keeps itself on track despite a length that could've proven bloated with a lesser director of style and substance. While it doesn't reach all the heights imposed by the first sequel to Batman Begins, it seals its legend of Batman as a symbol with conviction as a testament for practicality within the margins of comic book adaptation that honors its source material while closing the book with its own exclamation points as a useful story for the ages.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Review #1502: Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Cast:
Gary Oldman (Count Dracula / Vlad the Impaler), Keanu Reeves (Jonathan Harker), Winona Ryder (Mina Harker/Elisabeta), Anthony Hopkins (Professor Abraham Van Helsing/Priest/Principal Narrator), Richard E. Grant (Dr. Jack Seward), Cary Elwes (Lord Arthur Holmwood), Billy Campbell (Quincey P. Morris), Sadie Frost (Lucy Westenra), Tom Waits (R. M. Renfield), Monica Bellucci (Dracula's Bride), Michaela Bercu (Dracula's Bride), Florina Kendrick (Dracula's Bride), and Jay Robinson (Mr. Hawkins) Directed by Francis Ford Coppola (#592 - Dementia 13, #1139 - Supernova, #1460 - Apocalypse Now, #1469 - The Outsiders)

Review:
"I used to be under the impression that in some kind of wanky, bullshit way, acting was like therapy: you get in and grapple with and exorcise all those demons inside of you. I don't believe that anymore. It's like a snow shaker. You shake the thing up, but it can't escape the glass. It can't get out. And it will settle until the next time you shake it up."

Not many directors can make a film worth pages of discussion in multiple decades with a variety of genres. And yet here we are, facing another Coppola film, with this following the end of the Godfather trilogy. It was Ryder who brought the script (done by James V. Hart) to his attention, as she was attracted to the emotional love story while Coppola had first read the book to kids as a teenager (while having seen Dracula movies with his brother as a youth) and was interested in some of the sensual aspects of the film. Oldman was attracted to the idea of doing a film with Coppola (whom he described as one of the great American directors), and this was in the midst of a developing career of versatility in the English-born actor.

It is entirely possible that Coppola really believed that his film would indeed be the definitive version of Dracula. After all, how many book adaptations have the author's name right there on the film title? Of course the main sticking point with that is the fact that the film reminds me as a more refined attempt at doing things others had done before, with mostly decent results more so on the visual level than anything. On one level, it is definitely better than the last high-profile Dracula adaptation by a major American studio in John Badham's cold-blooded flop from 1979 (which also had its own tinges of romance between Dracula and the lead, only much more ridiculous). On the other, it only just barely reaches levels that the Hammer adaptations did with less ridiculousness in refinement. There is such a strange mix of scenes that work with ones that come off as muddled, and it definitely doesn't reach as scary as it could have been. Perhaps it relies on first impressions, what with that opening involving Vlad the Impaler and that smooth red suit, which actually is a decent moment for the film...of course it also introduces the whole "lovers played by the same actress centuries apart" cliche, which believe it or not was actually already done before in a 1974 TV adaptation of the same name that also happened to share the Dracula / Vlad connection, which has been speculated by writers for decades.  That sure is one way to start your supposedly more-faithful book adaptation, make a ridiculous historical connection to a fictional character - why stop there, might as well make a film of The Mummy and have him be King Tut while you're at it. I did indeed crack a smile not long after that - the sight of seeing old man Dracula in a kimono and a long hairdo. It may not last long in the film, but it is highly amusing as the first little crack in the "let's take it seriously" approach.

 
No, having a love story with Dracula isn't exactly what I call an interesting and fresh take. Some things really are best left untouched, and having a Dracula film that actually proves scary is one of them. As much as I would like to resist the urge to compare it with other Dracula adaptations, it is inevitable to talk about relentlessly overblown it looks when compared to the films of the past in really sticking its landing in executing genuine suspense. Excess does not always win the day, no matter how many effects you might throw at it if the other parts are simply not right to go with it. If anything hasn't really changed from the old hammy Dracula films of the past, its the somewhat uneven acting of its main stars. All revolves around how one feels about Oldman in this role, one that seems to exist in contradictions that try to spring fear and passion within madness that in lesser hands would've been red meat material for mockery (try being a romantic antihero and then having to wear wolfman/bat makeup). Oldman does just fine with the role, but it is quite clear that he can only be at most third-best in a turn as Dracula and nothing more (Christopher Lee and Bela Lugosi are the obvious choices for when one thinks of a vampire), one who certainly has some blood in his veins for terror while having to sift through effects-work and campy undertones.  Reeves (chosen after Christian Slater declined the role) is an easy target for ridicule when it comes to that British accent, and both Reeves and Coppola have commented about their regrets in casting (the former describing himself as too tired from a busy schedule and the latter stating that they wanted a matinee idol type for a not-great part). For me, the accent is indeed silly, and it certainly would pale when compared to class acts like Oldman or Hopkins. And yet, Ryder only just does better in matching the others, a bit too quiet to really sell this dark passion between her and Oldman (the parts with Frost and a wolf-man Oldman raping her isn't exactly better in comparison). It would take quite a bit of conviction to win me over to the vampire would-be romance, and they just can't quite make it seem that relentless in interest, particularly with the maddening last meeting for the climax (sure, why not have Mina do the final blow). Hopkins seems to be doing just fine in stoking some dignity to the fire while having multiple roles (for some reason). I do appreciate seeing Grant with Elwes and Campbell, but they somehow don't seem to really make as much impression as when compared to the campy stuff ahead of them (or when faced with even more cofounding casting choices, like singer Waits as the somewhat insane Renfield).

I admire Coppola for his attempts at keeping his intention to use traditional effects, since when he approached his visual effects team in what he wanted from the film, they told him it couldn't be done without computers. With that response, he fired them and just had his son Roman do the effects instead, which involve stuff such as double exposure to show mist coming out of a window or other various camera tricks. There are quite a few moments where it really can feel claustrophic, and credit certainly goes to some interesting design work in costumes and makeup. Then I remember the supposed love story and the scares that die with it, and the film dips back and forth again between looking scary and then flailing around trying to act like it is. It certainly takes inspiration from the Dracula films of the past (ranging as far back as Nosferatu), but it falls firmly in the middle of the pack with them rather than above it all. If you want to make a film about some sort of sensual repression and the nature of love through the centuries, find another vampire to do that crock of shit with. Dracula has been dragged around the woodshed for some good and not-so good films for over a century, and this is one that is just fine for what it is.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: RoboCop (2014).

Review #666: RoboCop (2014).

Cast
Joel Kinnaman (Alex Murphy/Robocop), Gary Oldman (Dr. Dennett Norton), Michael Keaton (Raymond Sellars), Samuel L. Jackson (Pat Novak), Abbie Cornish (Clara Murphy), Jackie Earle Haley (Rick Mattox), Michael K. Williams (Jack Lewis), Jennifer Ehle (Liz Kline), Jay Baruchel (Tom Pope), Aimee Garcia (Jae Kim), John Paul Ruttan (David Murphy), and Patrick Garrow (Antoine Vallon) Directed by José Padilha.

Review
It's not better than the original film. But I think we all knew that already. But at least it tries to be a decent movie. Whether or not it succeeds is up to the viewer. The movie's at least better than RoboCop 3 and up to the level of RoboCop 2, which I guess is a success. It's really hard to live up to the original film, especially for a remake/reboot, but at least it looks they tried to make a decent film. To be fair, I'd recommend renting the film. The acting is passable, the highlights being Michael Keaton and Samuel L. Jackson, they make the film seem less basic, and they are pretty entertaining also. Kinnaman is not bad, while at times he feels flat; the emotional aspect of the character is at least explored a little, though it's really hard to beat Peter Weller's portrayal. The movie is probably more enjoyable when not being compared to the original, but then again that's really hard to not compare. The action is fine, though the fact that it's toned down due to the PG-13 rating does hinder its effect. I guess it helps make the film have more chance at profit, but who didn't watch the original film when they were a teen? Heck, I watched the original for the first time when I was 13, though that's a product of my dad's love of buying movies. But enough about my recollections, back to the review.  At least the tone of the film feels different, and the suit looks...pretty good. While they first show the suit with grey/silver as the main color, it actually looks better in black. It looks more robotic and less human like. While it may seem like the human drama drags it down at times and sometimes it feels odd, but I guess in the end it works...sort of. Much like the last film reviewed here (Star Trek: Into Darkness), it's a toss-up. Pick your poison.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Kung Fu Panda 2.

Review #486: Kung Fu Panda 2.

Cast
Jack Black (Po), Angelina Jolie (Tigress), Gary Oldman (Lord Shen), David Cross (Crane), Jackie Chan (Monkey), Seth Rogen (Mantis), Lucy Liu (Viper), Dustin Hoffman (Master Shifu), James Hong (Mr. Ping), Michelle Yeoh (Soothsayer), Danny McBride (Wolf Boss), Dennis Haysbert (Master Storming Ox), Jean-Claude Van Damme (Master Croc), and Victor Garber (Master Thundering Rhino) Directed by Jennifer Yuh Nelson.

Review
Naturally, there is a sequel, given the first film's massive success. The film take a somewhat darker turn, but it works well to the film's advantage. Jack Black once again is effective, and he certainly leaves a good impression. The rest of the cast, especially Gary Oldman do good, and Oldman arguably does a better job portraying a villain then Ian McShane in the first film. The story is fine, and the animation is good, especially the animation during the flashback scenes. The action is good, and the comedy is nice, and this is a very effective film that leaves you yearn for more, especially with that ending, which is always welcome with me.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Air Force One.

Review #414: Air Force One.

Cast
Harrison Ford (James Marshall), Gary Oldman (Egor Korshunov), Glenn Close (Kathryn Bennett), Wendy Crewson (Grace Marshall), Dean Stockwell (Walter Dean), Liesel Matthews (Alice Marshall), Elya Baskin (Andrei Kolchak), Levan Uchaneishvili (Sergei Lenski), David Vadim (Igor Nevsky), Andrew Divoff (Boris Bazylev), Ilia Volok (Vladimir Krasin), Paul Guilfoyle (Lloyd Shepherd), William H. Macy (Major Caldwell), and Xander Berkeley (Agent Gibbs) Directed by Wolfgang Petersen.

Review
In keeping with Independence Day, I decided to get another film off my back burner, which was this film. That and it is always fun to watch a film with Harrison Ford (Such as Blade Runner, American Graffiti, Star Wars Episode IV-VI, Raiders of the Lost Ark-Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Fugitive, and 42), so why not? And...it's pretty good. Ford once again manages to do an impressive job, reserved, but a stand out nonetheless. Gary Oldman (Who has been in 8 films reviewed here) is a decent villain, and as a contrast to The Fifth Element, he actually meets the main hero character, so I guess that's something. Glenn Close is alright, improved from her performance in (#383) The Natural. The rest of the cast is decent. The film flows well, not veering off too much in the silliness factor or the absurd zone, though I do wonder if the real Air Force One has escape pods for that situation. Petersen does an alright job directing a film such as this, and it is entertaining along with having a bit of drama to make a balanced, useful film for all.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

original: 

Movie Night: Planet 51.

Review #130: Planet 51.

Cast
Dwayne Johnson (Captain Charles "Chuck" T. Baker), Justin Long (Lem), Jessica Biel (Neera), Gary Oldman (General Grawl), Seann William Scott (Skiff), and John Cleese (Professor Kipple) Directed by Jorge Blanco.

Review
This film has an alright cast, with Johnson not having to do some gimmick to attract the viewers (Such as being a Tooth Fairy, a Quarterback with daughter issues) The plot is meh to say the least. The animation is decent, with reasonable voice acting. This film is not exactly a good film, being simple, but it does manage to make you chuckle or giggle at least a few times, being enough to entertain you for at least 91 minutes. Relatively harmless, but decent enough.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

Review #121: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

Cast
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Imelda Staunton (Dolores Umbridge), Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Ralph Fiennes (Lord Voldemort), Matthew Lewis (Neville Longbottom), Evanna Lynch (Luna Lovegood), Gary Oldman (Sirius Black), Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Jason Isaacs (Lucius Malfoy), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange), and Warwick Davis (Filius Flitwick). Directed by David Yates.

Review
This film tries to do the longest book in the series justice, and it...shortens it to be the second shortest film in the series. But is it still a good film? Yes, yes it is. The acting again is superb, with Stauton, Lewis, and Carter being the main standouts (Other then the main three) The plot at least lasts 2 hours (given with the long 10 minute credits), but 20 minutes is used to have a trial scene which only makes us have one thing useful: The Order and the other characters, with the trial of course being good for Harry (I've seen more fairer Trials, but that Trial had someone called the "Boneyard", I believe) Anyway, the film omits some things and cuts into other scenes to have a faster climax. I wonder why they needed this to be the shortest, they could have made it just the same length as the others, but maybe it makes a better film by having not so much of the book. At least there is some characterization for some as this film might not be the best one, but it is not the worst by a long shot (There's no real worst), as we get close to the end. This ends Part V of Harry Potter Week. Stay tuned for Part VI...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

Review #119: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

Cast
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), David Thewlis (Remus Lupin), Gary Oldman (Sirius Black), Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Emma Thompson (Sybill Trelawney), Timothy Spall (Peter Pettigrew), and Matthew Lewis (Neville Longbottom) Directed by Alfonso Cuaron.

Review
This film is a departure from the previous two films, getting darker in tone and in the color (Seriously, look at the color, it looks like they made it grey-ish), and it's an alright film, setting the tone for the rest of the film series, introducing things that won't be seen in the rest of the series while introducing things that do (Werewolves + Time Travel and Lupin and Black, respectively) The acting is good as usual, with Oldman and Thewlis being the standouts. The main three characters get better and better as the film proves we didn't need a villain in a movie to make a Harry Potter film (And to keep torturing Longbottom rather then make him a character...) This ends Part III of Harry Potter Week. Stay tuned for Part IV...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Batman Begins.

Review #062: Batman Begins.

Cast
Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Michael Caine (Alfred Pennyworth), Liam Neeson (Henri Ducard/Ra's al Ghul), Katie Holmes (Rachel Dawes), Gary Oldman (Jim Gordon), Cillian Murphy (Dr. Jonathan Crane), Tom Wilkinson (Carmine Falcone), Rutger Hauer (Earle), Ken Watanabe (decoy Ra's Al Ghul), Mark Boone Junior (Flass), Linus Roache (Thomas Wayne), and Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight and #055 - Inception)

Review
I find that this film is pretty good, for the most part. It successfully reboots the franchise (which died after the 1997 bomb Batman and Robin) with an origin story that reintroduces people to him, and sets the ball in motion for the sequel. I felt the acting was good, but there were some little gripes. For one, I found the coveted "throat voice" of Christian Bale very, very unconvincing (what's next, Superman having the voice to disguise himself? It would be better then his glasses trick...). I also felt the action was jumbled, so you couldn't really tell what was going on. Scarecrow actually doesn't get a lot of screen time, and he's taken down so easily. And my final little gripe is how the Tumbler looks so...ugly. Is this the Batmobile, or a tank? Look I know there's a scene that says its a tank, but how is this a "mobile"? But nonetheless, the film is good, for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Dark Knight.

Review #054: The Dark Knight.

Cast
Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne/Batman), Heath Ledger (The Joker), Gary Oldman (James Gordon), Aaron Eckhart (Harvey Dent), Maggie Gyllenhaal (Rachel Dawes), Michael Caine (Alfred Pennyworth), and Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox) Directed by Christopher Nolan.

Review
This film is the sequel to Batman Begins (which I will review later on this show), and it is better then the first one. But is it better then the 1989 version? I personally think the 1989 version wins on its plot, it's Batman (the 1989 Batman doesn't have sore throat), and just being slightly being better. This film introduces the Joker again to us, and he's...pretty creepy. Sadistic in mind, Ledger plays the role extremely well. I thought Dent was fine, but he was under shadowed by everything. He's the addition to the plot that doesn't really have much influence (as Two-Face anyway) The action is good, and the plot is fine. This film is great, as in my opinion it rivals the 1989 version for "best Batman film", which is saying quite a lot.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Fifth Element.

Review #027: The Fifth Element.

Cast
Bruce Willis (Korban Dallas), Gary Oldman (Zorg), Mila Jovovich (Leeloo), Ian Holm (Vito Corneilus), Chris Tucker (Euby Rhod), Charlie Creed-Miles (David), Brion James (General Munro), Tricky (Right Arm), and Tom Lister Jr. (President Lindberg) Directed by Luc Besson.

Review
This film is not like other Science Fiction films, like Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (#113), 2001: A Space Odysesy (#93), Alien, and many others. It's a weird breed with flying cars and more in a futuristic tale (Not like another one with cars that fly. But that had some sort of organic robots) It's a strange plot, but it's a little creative, and the acting (Save for Chris Tucker, who gets the award for least subtle preformance ever) One odd end to mention is that the main hero and villian never meet. Overall, the movie is a weird breed, but it all works in the end, making this a good film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars..