The Green Mile.

Review #1522: The Green Mile.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Paul Edgecomb), David Morse (Brutus "Brutal" Howell), Bonnie Hunt (Jan Edgecomb), Michael Clarke Duncan (John Coffey), James Cromwell (Warden Hal Moores), Michael Jeter (Eduard Delacroix), Graham Greene (Arlen Bitterbuck), Doug Hutchison (Percy Wetmore), Sam Rockwell (William "Wild Bill" Wharton), Barry Pepper (Dean Stanton), Jeffrey DeMunn (Harry Terwilliger), Patricia Clarkson (Melinda Moores), Harry Dean Stanton (Toot-Toot), Dabbs Greer (Old Paul), Bill McKinney (Jack Van Hay), Brent Briscoe (Bill Dodge), Eve Brent (Elaine Connelly), and William Sadler (Klaus Detterick) Written and Directed by Frank Darabont (#1506 - The Shawshank Redemption)

Review: 
"I think it's the basic need for all of human kind to be a part of something bigger than themselves because as actors we get to create that."
"The notion that we can be better than we are, as human beings; that there’s a bar that can be raised in all of our lives. And that there are certain acts of incivility that we should no longer indulge in. Maybe we should try to do a little better."

The 1990s had a plethora of memorable Tom Hanks performances that turned him from just a star in comedies into an icon. The California native had done plays in high school and at Chabot College and California State University, Sacramento before dropping out to do work with the Great Lakes Theater Festival in Cleveland. He did theater work for a few years (doing three years at the Lakewood Civic Auditorium) before venturing into film with He Knows You're Alone (1980) and television with Bosom Buddies (1980-82). Splash (1984) was his first starring role, which proved beneficial to his career in leading to more comedy roles and a gradual shift to drama with films such as Big (1988). While the 1990s started off with flops like The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990), he proved himself in the following years with neatly-picked roles suited to his personality that resulted in praise, with numerous highlights being iconic ones like Philadelphia (1993), Forrest Gump (1994), and Toy Story (1995). Coincidentally, Hanks was once thought of to star in The Shawshank Redemption before turning it down to commitments, but Hanks found himself onto this film after Darabont's first preference of John Travolta fizzled out. This was also the first major role for Duncan, who had worked odd jobs such as a bouncer/security guard and bit roles before having a break with Armageddon (1998, which he did when he was 40 years old) that led to a recommendation by none other than friend and actor Bruce Willis in this role.

The source material that this is adapted from is the serial novel of the same name, published from March to August 1996 as six paperback volumes (all except the last were 96 pages). There are a few differences between the two works, such as the change in year from 1932 to 1935 (Top Hat, the film with a significant part to play in the story, was released in the latter year), while certain characters are excluded (such as a vicious orderly present in the bookends that Darabont felt was beside the point). Ultimately, what we have here is a nicely-done fable, one that captures a sense of miracles with dignity and emotional power that makes an fairly watchable experience like no other. If it isn't as striking in depth as Darabont's other adaptation of a King work about prison in The Shawshank Redemption, it is at least spirited enough to maintain enough reason and hope to make its lasting point all the more endurable. It sits well with mature audiences without seeming too wistful in 189 minutes to the point of sanctimony, building its foundation with its bookend aspects in Greer that keep its lasting words about miracles and other ideas that can be interpreted with thought by viewers with the patience to do so and linger with it.

Undeniably, the cast live up to the period piece fable staging with care. Hanks proves charming in everyman consistency, sinking into manner of dignity and curiosity for those he works with in a place of officers and a cell of doomed men. Morse accompanies him as the lead focus of officers to view, maintaining a spirited patience that contributes well to the sequences within the prison in pragmatism. It is Duncan who shows the best presence with his time needed, a force of nature that inspires the passion and pan that comes with someone who pulls off sensitivity and conviction with no trouble at all, seeming one with the world and with us in a world that seems to just have pain. Hunt and Clarkson accompany the film with fair importance that proves useful, whether in grace or in withered nature. Jeter provides a little warmth within the bars, while Hutchison makes a tremendously slimy bully with accomplishment. Rockwell taps into wild evil with careful energy that could have been thought of as just a loon in lesser hands but seems quite underlying in creepiness with him. Cromwell does fine in hard-lined moments while Stanton provides a chuckle in his one key scene involving a execution rehearsal.

There were various filming locations that ranged from studio work at Warner Bros along with the Tennessee State Prison to go with custom-built interior sets from Terence Marsh to depict a sense of space and mystery in those prison scenes, which are quite effective. In its fable of miracles and pain, one has time to ponder upon its style and its weaving of story threads that make an experience that can inspire curiosity alongside revulsion, such as during its first hint of a miracle or a disastrous execution in the chair, respectively. It makes us want to think a bit more clearly about life, or more specifically the joys and pains that can come from such an emotional release that comes from something like this. It isn't completely perfect in its road to perdition in all of its time spent, but I find it worth at least one watch, particularly if one is looking for a Stephen King adaptation with an accomplished director and stars behind it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Dances with Wolves.

Review #1497: Dances with Wolves.

Cast:
Kevin Costner (Lt. John J. Dunbar/Dances with Wolves), Mary McDonnell (Stands with a Fist), Graham Greene (Kicking Bird), Rodney A. Grant (Wind In His Hair), Floyd Red Crow Westerman (Chief Ten Bears), Tantoo Cardinal (Black Shawl), Jimmy Herman (Stone Calf), Nathan Lee Chasing His Horse (Smiles A Lot), Michael Spears (Otter), Jason R. Lone Hill (Worm), Charles Rocket (Lt. Elgin), Robert Pastorelli (Timmons), Tony Pierce (Spivey), and Larry Joshua (Bauer) Directed by Kevin Costner.

Review:
"Real heroes are men who fall and fail and are flawed, but win out in the end because they've stayed true to their ideals and beliefs and commitments."

There have been plenty of great Westerns, both epic and not-quite-as-epic in scope over the past few decades, with a significant amount dealing in some way with Native Americans. When the time is right, it can come from any source, whether that means from an actor trying his hand at directing or somewhere else. Costner has stated that a screening of How the West Was Won (1962) helped formed his childhood, but he became interested in acting before he graduated from college. Costner had met screenwriter Michael Blake while starring in the film Stacy's Knights (1983), which was directed by Jim Wilson. Costner encouraged Blake to turn a spec script of his into a novel, and Dances with Wolves was published in 1988 after a few rejections from publishers. Costner (an established star with films such as Silverado and The Untouchables) soon lobbied for the screen rights after its publication (with Blake writing the screenplay and Costner co-producing with Wilson), although he would have to do it apart from the major studios, which did not find the long script and significant subtitling (as well as being a Western) to their liking, with a key difference being in the portrayal of the Sioux rather than the Commanche tribe. The film is noted for its usage of the Lakota language in several scenes, one of a certain group of features to utilize Native dialogue.

Of course, some movies are born to be epics and then some just don't quite turn out the way one expects. Part of me was interested in how the Western would turn out in another decade removed from it being the norm in conventional filmmaking, while the other side hoped it would not drag at three hours while wondering if it really deserved to rank highly for its era (or even its particular year). In the end, it turned out to be a bit of both, a film firmly in the "good, not great" department that is nice at times to sit through but ultimately not quite enough in strong centering depth to really pull all of its punches successfully. Credit must given to Costner however for his drive to make a film in South Dakota with a fine selection of actors of indigenous origin with plenty to look upon in the landscape and subtitles that do in some way drive a useful story. After all, he does deliver a fairly sensitive performance that draws upon curiosity and care (along with an occasional voiceover), so him operating a camera alongside being in front of it works out fine. McDonnell proves okay in following along in both worlds in care and frenzy, and Greene carries along with solemn interest that carries his part of the film handily with stature. John Barry does well with his musical score in setting a sweeping tone of emotion. The sequences involving a buffalo hunt and the battles are handled well as the highlights for the film as a whole.

I can see its ambition in bonding when it comes to trying to break the mold of the traditional Western, but it seems to nearly choke itself in sentiment that somehow seems lacking a certain kind of quality needed to really drive home a poignant epic. It has a decent heart behind it, but it is really a great Western? I can think of at least five Westerns that reach higher levels of interest and depth before this (Stagecoach, The Searchers, Shane, Hud, Once Upon a Time in the West), and none of them garnered as much high awards praise like this did three decades ago. It has the production value and some of the right notes behind it, but it just seems a bit flatfooted in driving its conflict and message of identity to full realization, where it seems like a slightly more sophisticated version of Broken Arrow (1950). There exists a four hour Special Edition of the film, which Wilson supervised to expand upon the relationship between Costner and McDonnell in addition to more parts with the wolf and the tribe. I did have the choice to pick either the regular or Special Edition, but I didn't really feel interested in having to spend even longer amounts of time (equivalent to Gettysburg (1993), basically) that could make me feel like I really am watching grass grow in the Dakotas. On the whole, this is a fairly good movie with its cast and ambition, but it ultimately is a test of how much one desires of a three-hour Western with an imperfect core and execution to make a curious effort of the modern Western.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Maverick.

Review #619: Maverick.

Cast
Mel Gibson (Bret Maverick), Jodie Foster (Annabelle Bransford), James Garner (Marshal Zane Cooper), Graham Greene (Joseph), Alfred Molina (Angel), James Coburn (Commodore Duvall), Geoffrey Lewis (Matthew Wicker), Paul L. Smith (The Archduke), and Max Perlich (Johnny Hardin) Directed by Richard Donner (#355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, and #547 - Superman)

Review
The movie is based off the classic television show of the same name, which also had the late great James Garner in it. The movie uses a trio of actors that manage to do a great job together, especially Gibson and Garner, they share a really good act with each other and Foster is also excellent, very clever and very intriguing to watch. But what makes the movie just so awesome is how it manages to be not only a fine action movie, but also a good comedy as well, making for a really entertaining film. The supporting cast is delightful to watch, especially Molina and Coburn. They're practically irresistible to watch, even Coburn's beard. The card games are interesting to watch, even the riverboat is great to look at, it just looks so beautiful. This is a Western that just has fun, and it's a pleasure to see Garner and all of his charm in a film like this. It's a fantastic film that manages to not just a other adaptation of a TV show, it's a movie of its own that is just so fun.

On a sadder note, I would like to say rest in peace to James Garner, who died just two days ago. We will all miss James Garner, but we will always have movies (#559 - Grand Prix, The Thrill of It All, The Great Escape, Space Cowboys, etc) and TV shows (The Rockford Files, 8 Simple Rules) to remember him for, with his charm being especially one that will last forever.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Die Hard with a Vengeance.

Review #018: Die Hard with a Vengeance.

Cast
Bruce Willis (NYPD Lieutenant John McClane), Samuel L. Jackson (Zeus Carver), Jeremy Irons (Simon Gruber), Graham Greene (NYPD Detective Joe Lambert), Colleen Camp (NYPD Detective Connie Kowalski), Larry Bryggman (NYPD Inspector Walter Cobb), Anthony Peck (NYPD Detective Ricky Walsh), Nick Wyman (Mathias Targo), Sam Phillips (Katya), and Kevin Chamberlin (Charles Weiss) Directed by John McTiernan.

Review
As a movie that connects itself with the first film while ignoring the second film (with McTiernan returning to direct this film), it's a good if not perfect movie. Willis and Jackson are pretty good together as a duo, having pretty good scenes in the midst of fairly established tension for both them and the plot. It veers into being like a cartoon with the action at times, but it manages to keep itself going relatively well. Irons is a decent villain, not simply just being the brother of the guy from the first film. Ultimately, there's enough to keep one entertained in this third installment of a franchise that usually delivers some thrills.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.