Broadcast News.

Review #1485: Broadcast News.

Cast:
William Hurt (Tom Grunick), Albert Brooks (Aaron Altman), Holly Hunter (Jane Craig), Robert Prosky (Ernie Merriman), Lois Chiles (Jennifer Mack), Joan Cusack (Blair Litton), Peter Hackes (Paul Moore), Christian Clemenson (Bobby), Jack Nicholson (Bill Rorish), and Leo Burmester (Mr. Craig) Written, Produced, and Directed by James L. Brooks (#1470 - Terms of Endearment)

Review:
"I always feel that I am the advocate for my character. More than anyone else on the set, including the director. I'm there to protect my character, in a way."

"I am a character actor in a leading man's body."

It must have been an interesting task to try and follow up a debut success like the one James L. Brooks had. And to do so with three captivating actors in a romantic comedy-drama about the news (for someone who worked at CBS News as copywriter and newswriter) is surely a solid curiosity, with each having been featured in a couple of films in their own interesting paths. The first key to the film is in Hunter, who had started acting from a young age and had entered film and television in 1981, with work gradually following that built to luck in 1987 with this (chosen prior to production after Debra Winger became pregnant) and Raising Arizona. The next key piece is Hurt, who shifted his focus to acting despite having studied theology at Tufts University, utilizing his training at Juilliard School to start in the stage in 1977 and then film in 1980. The third piece to the puzzle is A. Brooks, who quickly rose through the ranks of stand-up comedy to fair amount of variety and television fame before shifting focus to writing/directing his own films along with acting (most notably debuting in Taxi Driver).

Alongside Brooks' own experiences with the news, one other key inspiration for the film was producer Susan Zirinsky, who Brooks based for Hunter's character, who would also serve as technical advisor and associate producer. It is evident fairly quickly that we are dealing with a smart and capable movie, one with a distinct trio of performances that line up together for an interesting look upon the nature of romance within workaholics and a prevailing shift in the way news is delivered to the public. Each of these performances reflect well upon the other sides of the triangle because they all drive the film with comedic anguish that is easy to see traits of in ourselves without looking away. Hunter is the one to gravitate to first, with a high-strung performance that generates skillful intensity that can be both admirable and one to fear in anyone that hard-driving, which generally makes for plenty of interesting sparks when paired with anyone, particularly with Hurt; the best scene to represent that is when she is guiding Hurt through his first broadcast as anchorman with an earpiece, which almost in a way feels like sex. Hurt proves just as well with the other side of the news coin as the harbinger of fresh-faced infotainment that proves convincing in secretive charm, aware of the surroundings yet managing to never be sacrificed for pretty boy cheap shots. A. Brooks makes up the conscience of the film, and he is quite riveting in keeping our interest over with cynical charm and timing - one of the best lines come from him that asks if it would be "a great world if insecurity and desperation made us more attractive", which only makes scenes like his first anchorman show all the more entertaining. Others prove just as endearing in their own ways, such as the amiable Prosky or with Cusack (participant in another interesting scene involving a dash to get a tape in time), or retired news correspondent-turned-actor Hackes. And yes, Nicholson is also present for a time in the film, and he delivers his brief time with the spry standards one would expect from him. In general, the film does a fine job in showing people and the way they work around it in an evolving landscape along with how they work around themselves in various quibbles and high-strung desperation for 133 minutes. We seem them as children, then as adults, and then finally we see them all together again, steadfast in the honesty of who they are, for better or worse. On the whole, this is a fairly entertaining work, an achievement that hits most of its marks in sharp honesty and amusement that holds together long after its release because of how much we still see of it play out now.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Incredibles 2.

Review #1097: Incredibles 2.

Cast: 
Craig T. Nelson (Bob Parr / Mr. Incredible), Holly Hunter (Helen Parr / Elastigirl), Sarah Vowell (Violet Parr), Huck Milner (Dashiell "Dash" Parr), Eli Fucile (Jack-Jack), Samuel L. Jackson (Lucius Best / Frozone), Bob Odenkirk (Winston Deavor), Catherine Keener (Evelyn Deavor), Brad Bird (Edna Mode), Jonathan Banks (Rick Dicker), Sophia Bush (Karen / Voyd), Phil LaMarr (Krushauer and Helectrix), Isabella Rossellini (The Ambassador), John Ratzenberger (The Underminer), and Bill Wise (Screenslaver / Pizza Guy) Directed by Brad Bird (#083 - The Iron Giant, #128 - Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, #153 - The Incredibles, and #158 - Ratatouille)

Review: 
I figured that the best way to get myself prepared for a sequel after 14 years of waiting was to re-watch the original Incredibles film, and it was a refreshing choice to do so since I have fond memories of how entertaining it was. Naturally, it still held up well as as entertaining superhero film that doubled as a family movie with the styling of a retro age in terms of its heroes and spy elements that is best suited for its cast and makers that I find myself adoring each time I watch it. With the decision to follow up directly from the first movie (complete with a sequence teased at the end of the other one, drawn out to its conclusion here), this is a sequel that undoubtedly relies on nostalgia in more ways than one, but it also has enough heart and care in making a quality piece of entertainment that ultimately succeeds. It isn't as exceptional as the original, but there are enough pieces in its 118 minute run-time that fit correctly.

The family dynamic isn't lost here with the main group of five (baby included, naturally), with the group of Nelson-Hunter-Vowell-Milner-Fucile proving to be adept at having their own moments to shine, the first two especially. The structure is flipped a bit on its head from the previous one, but Nelson handles it fairly well, having some amusing moments while also still having the strong spirit that made him easily watchable all those years ago without resorting to cliches. Hunter also does a fine job in elevating her role and making her character feel fresh and interesting to follow throughout most stretches of the film. Vowell and Milner aren't as prominent, but they do manage to contribute with making their plot-lines resonate well enough to what the film wants, for the most part. The parts involving Fucile and the baby are pretty amusing and interesting to watch play out without being typical fare resorting to playing down to the audience. Make no mistake, this is a movie for any type of audience, and it is nice to see that it is a film that doesn't pander to anyone - whether to kids or adults, which the original also shone well at. It manages to rise above being just a "greatest hits" kind of sequel to something different nature.

Other returning members such as Jackson and Bird are nice to see again for their time on screen, having a few laughs that work out fine. Odenkirk and Keener round out as the most important of the new additions to the cast. With Odenkirk, he does a fine job with his character, capturing an earnest yet endearing spirit that is charming if not amusing at times. It reminds me of how the first film also had its own variation of the fanboy with regard to superheroes, and while they certainly have key differences, it is nice to see where the films have their divergences. Keener is okay, showing her differences in her style of her interaction with the plot and the heroes (in contrast to her brother), even if she sometimes feels like she falls into the background at times (which you could say about others, too however). There are a few heroes introduced here that share some time on screen, particularly around the climax, with Bush coming out the best in being pretty interesting in sticking out. Admittedly, the weakest part of the movie is the villain, although it isn't for lack of trying. The Screenslaver is sometimes interesting to see on screen (although some will likely have trouble with the flashing lights that encompass the movie at times), and there are some relevant points that come along with dealing with the nature of society and its role with what superheroes mean to that world. However, I feel that it falls a bit short (and for some a bit predictable) with where it ultimately goes, and while the basic nature of the villain can work, I just don't think it really worked as well as it probably could have. It's hard to say how that it could've worked better without spoiling the fun, but I'll just say that it is a bit hard to follow up a threat as interesting as the original film's villain was without falling prey to comparisons, as one would probably expect. While I can't say that the adversary is great, I can see why the choice was made to do so and at least see some of the motivations for said villain.

The animation and style is beautiful to look at once again, and there are enough jokes and riveting action sequences to make this good entertainment. It never gets to a point where things are too bright or dark or glossy, and there a few touches that will certainly check well with people. What we have here is a movie that manages to deliver in the right places in its characters, action, and story to be a welcome piece of entertainment for audiences in any kind of year beyond summer. In a sea of sequels over the past few years, this one manages to stick itself just fine, especially for animation standards. Maybe there will be another one, maybe not, but at the very least it is nice to say that there is more than one movie involving this interesting family of heroes. It may not be purely incredible, but it is purely worth it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Always (1989).

Review #958: Always.

Cast: 
Richard Dreyfuss (Pete Sandich), Holly Hunter (Dorinda Durston), John Goodman (Al Yackey), Brad Johnson (Ted Baker), Audrey Hepburn (Hap), Roberts Blossom (Dave), Keith David (Powerhouse), Ed Van Nuys (Nails), and Marg Helgenberger (Rachel) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, and #642 - Jurassic Park)

Review: 
It has been said that this is one of Steven Spielberg's weakest films, but it is easy to admit that with regards to his resume prior to (and after) this film's release; it is also easy to see his love for the 1943 film A Guy Named Joe and the passion that he must've had to make a remake of it. Is this a flawed movie? Yes, but it is the kind of movie that can qualify as a guilty pleasure, for better or worse. The main cast is fairly enjoyable together, having good chemistry with each other (particularly in the first half); I liked Hunter the best in part because her hard but consistently believable tone works best against Dreyfuss and his flippish nature, though Goodman is a welcome comic relief. Johnson is fairly decent in his first co-starring role in a major film, though his chemistry with Hunter isn't as entertaining as the case with Dreyfuss. Hepburn (appearing in two scenes) is graceful as ever in her final film appearance. When it comes to showing the action with the planes (through aerial photography, rear projection and models) or when the movie wants to have some laughs, that is when the film is at its best; when it comes down to saying some of the dialogue about love and death, that is when the film nearly drowns itself in sappiness and sentimentality. At 123 minutes, it does feel a bit long with all of those awkward (but not manipulative) kind of lines, but I found the film made up for some of it with its fiery climax, with Dreyfuss and Hunter handling themselves quite convincingly. It's not a bad movie, but it is obviously not on the top of any totem pole of quality for Spielberg. The best things about the movie is what it isn't, needless to say. It's a nice harmless movie that works best for some, but likely not for others.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Review #788: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Cast
Ben Affleck (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Henry Cavill (Superman / Clark Kent), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), Jesse Eisenberg (Lex Luthor), Diane Lane (Martha Kent), Laurence Fishburne (Perry White), Jeremy Irons (Alfred Pennyworth), Holly Hunter (Senator Finch), Gal Gadot (Diana Prince / Wonder Woman), Scoot McNairy (Wallace Keefe), Tao Okamoto (Mercy Graves), Ray Fisher (Victor Stone / Cyborg), Jason Momoa (Arthur Curry / Aquaman), and Ezra Miller (Barry Allen / The Flash) Directed by Zack Snyder.

Review
The idea of a movie with Batman and Superman facing off against each other is not a new concept (in fact, a script had been written back in 2002, though naturally that idea did not come to fruition), but in theory the concept shouldn't work, considering that Superman is....well, Superman. But of course this is not a movie about a face-off, it's a movie that attempts to establish other DC superheroes (such as Wonder Woman, Cyborg, Aquaman, the Flash) which I do applaud in the sense that the DC movie universe has had very little success with franchises not named Batman or Superman, with their biggest problem being that it took them this long to even put these characters to screen. But does it make sense to include numerous heroes in the same movie?

The answer to all the questions (including the unasked one of if it is actually any good) is a no. And yet, it works for April Fools Day because of the fact that I was laughing at it. It was the only way that I kept myself sane for a movie that has the nerve to be 151 minutes long and manage to feel even longer (apparently there is even a 3 hour edition, because I guess home media releases will really need it). When I said "establish" other superheroes, I did not mean a conventional way of say, having the heroes we know (like Batman and Superman) encounter them (save for Wonder Woman, who is in the movie for about 20-25 minutes)...but instead have them introduced to us via video files. The fact that the movie really doesn't do a great job in actually giving us a glimpse into heroes not named Superman and Batman is troubling, but not exactly the biggest sin in this movie.

The movie starts out with (spoiler alert for anyone who's never heard of Batman's origins - which would be no one) the death of Bruce Wayne's parents (with some inspiration taken from The Dark Knight Returns, which I had read earlier in the week), but honestly there's no point to the scene because that (plus the scene with the bats) is completely unnecessary. The acting in the movie ranges from passable to deserving of mocking. Affleck is pretty decent, and it is nice to see an older Batman for once (unnecessary opening scene non-withstanding), but not even he can save a movie that can't keep focus. The plot feels very ham-fisted together, with events happening and going without any real definition. The dream sequences are especially jarring, mainly because they don't really gel well, only seeming to make the movie feel even longer. Saying the words "Jesse Eisenberg playing Lex Luthor" does seem a bit ridiculous, and his performance actually makes me wish I was watching Robert Vaughn in Superman III. He never seems evil, coming off more as a Willy Wonka reject, and he just gets on your nerves after a while.

Batman and Superman do indeed fight...for maybe 10-15 minutes. Naturally, it's a one sided fight (that is predictable if one saw the trailers beforehand), and while I will admit that it is a decent fight...it ends in the most idiotic of ways. It isn't a spoiler to mention that both of the heroes' mothers have the same first name of Martha. Yes, that is actually the word that essentially stops their conflict. Not an epiphany, not a third party hero, a coincidence that someone probably figured out when reading Wikipedia articles on Batman and Superman. It's weird how one can make a movie that feels so detached from reality (compared to other, better comic book movies); even scenes where cities are being totaled don't really evoke any feelings. The final fight in the movie (with Doomsday, who also was spoiled in the trailer, and manages to look really ridiculous) is a jumbled mess, but at least Wonder Woman is finally given something to do, like fight, for one thing.

The movie feels so bloated and so untrained that it made me laugh (albeit in a sad way); the fact that I saw it in a half empty theater is also a bit sad, but the fact that Marvel not only had a head start on making a movie universe, they also seemed to be the only one who can properly set a timetable on what to do. Even though the movie is bound to be a moneymaker, not even money can hide the sad fact that this movie just does not work. I understand if people like the movie (grim-dark is admittedly entertaining, and I did like reading The Dark Knight Returns), but for me the movie was only really enjoyable when I laughed to myself about it.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Incredibles.

Review #153: The Incredibles.

Cast
Craig T. Nelson (Bob Parr/Mr. Incredible), Holly Hunter (Helen Parr/Elastigirl), Sarah Vowell (Violet Parr), Spencer Fox (Dashell Parr), Samuel L. Jackson (Lucius Best / Frozone), Jason Lee (Buddy Pine / Syndrome), Brad Bird (Edna Mode), Elizabeth Peña (Mirage), Bud Luckey (Rick Dicker), Wallace Shawn (Gilbert Huph), and John Ratzenberger (The Underminer) Directed by Brad Bird (#083 - The Iron Giant, #128 - Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, and #158 - Ratatouille)

Review
A long time ago, I had mentioned this film in another review (#011 - Fantastic Four), basically comparing the two because it seemed to have taken the dynamics of this film and used in their own, mediocre way. The Incredibles works better then Fantastic Four because everything feels real, it feels perfectly natural as opposed to the other's mediocre way of doing dynamics. This film is wonderful in so many ways, from the nice animation to the cool soundtrack. The writing is good, as I've stated before. The cast is perfect, especially Craig T. Nelson, who just makes this movie his own. This is another hit by Pixar (I refuse to call it Disney•Pixar), as this film has more then fun, it also has charm.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.