Postal.

Review #2479: Postal.

Cast: 

Zack Ward (The Postal Dude), Dave Foley (Uncle Dave), Chris Coppola (Richard), Jackie Tohn (Faith), J. K. Simmons (Candidate Eugene Welles), Verne Troyer (himself), Larry Thomas (Osama bin Laden), David Huddleston (Peter), Seymour Cassel (Paul), Ralf Moeller (Officer John Mann), Chris Spencer (Officer Greg Sharp), Michael Paré (Panhandler), Erick Avari (Habib), Lindsay Hollister (Recorder), Brent Mendenhall (George W. Bush), Rick Hoffman (Mr. Cornelius Blither), with Michael Benyaer (Mohammed), and Uwe Boll (himself) Directed by Uwe Boll (#1765 - In the Name of the King, #1924 - Alone in the Dark, #2144 - House of the Dead, #2317 - BloodRayne)

Review: 

"The lessons I have learned from my live-action adaptations of video game franchises have shaped my growth as a filmmaker. While there are areas where I would have approached things differently in hindsight, I am grateful for the opportunities to bring these beloved games to the big screen and to continue evolving and pushing boundaries in the world of film."

Oh go figure, another Uwe Boll video-game movie. You might call it low hanging fruit, but there is a curiosity to what Boll does so weirdly in trying to adapt material in his own vision for audiences. The basis for this film is Postal, a 1997 top-down shooter game developed by Running with Scissors (as founded by Vince Desiderio). Whichever game one played (the first was isometric, the second was first-person and open-world), you went around encountering the town of Paradise and shooting things (the first was probably a bit controversial, it featured an attempted shooting of a school). Apparently, the German fan club of the game contacted Uwe Boll and asked him about doing a film based on the game. Boll contacted Desiderio and got the rights to do a film as long as the company had involvement with the production. Apparently, Desiderio did have a dark and gritty script in mind with Steve Wik (who was involved with the two games) but Boll instead went with a script he wrote with assistant director Bryan C. Knight that had "satire". After all, his first film (German Fried Movie) was a comedy. Apparently, there are two versions of the film, one that is 100 minutes and a "Director's Cut" of 114 minutes (which did have a festival screening); inquire further here. Although there were ideas of doing a wide release...distributors balked to where it had a release to four screens on opening week in America. The movie was shot in September/October 2006, roughly around the same time that Boll had a series of boxing matches against alleged online critics of his films (for whatever reason, one of the DVDs included footage from said fight as a bonus feature). Boll didn't take certain reviews well, but your milage may vary. Boll tried to do a Kickstarter for a sequel in 2013 to raise $500,000 but dropped out after it raised less than seven percent of its goal. Boll was involved in a few more sequels to his video game films with BloodRayne and In the Name of the King, albeit for the video market. Postal is the penultimate feature film adaptation of a game that Boll did, with the last one being Far Cry (2008).

Technically speaking, this is his best video game movie. Go figure, the one where he tried to do jokes on purpose is almost an actual movie. The opening scene may or may not set your expectations a bit too differently from the actual film: it starts with a debate from two terrorists flying a plane over just how many virgins they will get for the attack they will do before the plane. When they don't like the answer and try to abandon the mission, the passengers end up breaking into the cockpit right as the plane crashes into a tower. So, there's that. For all of the controversy one could have about making light of a certain plane crash, the real issue of the film is that it only works on a basic level of humor that barely rises above juvenile at times because of the assortment of jokes that basically come off as ones done based on what irritates Boll or what might get the most jollies, whether that involves male nudity (don't ask who), bad women drivers getting shot up, annoying panhandlers that won't leave you alone (okay that one is relatable) fat people antics involving food or sex, a lead character wearing a "Peace" shirt when shooting people, depicting Osama bin Laden and Bush as buddies, and so on. Boll claims that various actors (Foley, Troyer, Simmons) wanted to be in the film against the wishes of their agents. Sure. Some of the cast do better in timing than others, probably best served with Foley, who seems to practically glide in playing sleaze for over-the-top amusement. Ward (who apparently would be a featured option in the next two Postal games) has a few effective moments in timing where life is basically hell around him, one where basically regrets are for lesser people, as evidenced by the scene where he tries to get a better numbered ticket while a rampage is going down at the unemployment office. Boll must've at least had a tiny bit of glee to play a fictionalized version of himself here: he gets to make an Auschwitz joke and tell folks that he hates video games. The gallows humor basically works best when it seems to deal with how violence begets more violence as opposed to say, Verne Troyer getting penetrated by monkeys or a ridiculously complicated plan about trying to steal dolls. The violence is about as stock as it can be and the timing of the jokes may or may not be the result of having just a few takes to do them for "freshness". The film can't quite achieve the humor it yearns to have and instead is a bit too goofy to actually click on a consistent level, but I did at least enjoy a chunk of its simmering annoyance at human foibles. As a whole, Boll clearly wanted to make a broad satire about violence or something about political anarchy that might as well be a poor man's Dr. Strangelove. Is it successful? No, it is full of crude hits-and-miss moments, but it definitely is watchable enough to at least make you believe Boll has potential as a filmmaker beyond calling him one of the worst. Pick your poison. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Saturday: Double feature.

Jennifer's Body.

Review #2457: Jennifer's Body.

Cast: 

Megan Fox (Jennifer Check), Amanda Seyfried (Anita "Needy" Lesnicki), Adam Brody (Nikolai Wolf), Johnny Simmons (Chip Dove), J. K. Simmons (Mr. Wroblewski), Amy Sedaris (Toni Lesnicki), Kyle Gallner (Colin Gray), Cynthia Stevenson (Mrs. Dove), Chris Pratt (Officer Roman Duda), Carrie Genzel (Mrs. Check), Juan Riedinger (Dirk), Juno Ruddell (Officer Warzak), Valerie Tian (Chastity), Aman Johal (Ahmet) Directed by Karyn Kusama.

Review: 

"I was blessed to read this script at a moment where the producers were meeting with directors and it just knocked me out. It was just so original, so imaginative. That’s what it is about this script and the world is that it feels like a fairy tale gone psycho and I think that’s what most fairy tales actually started as. So, they’ve just been sort of neutralized over the years and there’s something about this story that felt old, like coming from old stories but totally fresh, and I just went to bat for myself, I guess."

It isn't often you see a film poster that bills the talents of its writer, but here we are. In the buildup to the sensation that was Juno (2007), Fox Atomic (a short-lived label of 20th Century Fox and Searchlight that was aimed for comedy and genre film distribution) bought the rights to a certain script by Diablo Cody, the blogger-turned-stripper-turned-writer that, well, wound up winning an Academy Award for Juno (hence the film poster); Jason Reitman served as a co-producer for Jennifer's Body. Cody stated in interviews that she wanted to “pay tribute to some of the conventions that we’ve already seen in horror, yet, at the same time, kind of turn them on their ear" while also saying that her macabre sense of humor played into how it became a comedy-horror movie. As it happened, the movie was directed by Karyn Kusama. Kusama previously had directed Girlfight (2000) and Aeon Flux (2005). According to Cody, the movie (distributed by 20th Century Fox after Atomic closed down), which made nearly double its $16 million budget back in its release in 2009 was marketed terribly, as it apparently was marketed to target “boys who like Megan Fox” (which is how you get a poster that has Fox in a miniskirt) as opposed to trying to target, well, girls too; in recent years, with the growing cult audience for the movie, Cody has stated her wish to do a sequel to the movie, while Kusama noted her appreciation for the following the film has developed in recent years.*

It helps that the movie basically is a fairy tale of two growing women who have rapid change befall them, right down to the line actually said in the film of Hell being a teenage girl...that just happens to run with one of them becoming a succubus that actually reminds me a bit of Rosemary's Baby (hey, when the high schoolers get mowed down and "honored" in a manner not exactly more dignified than Heathers, why not crib from one of the alleged great horror movies too?). I thought it was a pretty funny movie, to be honest, mainly because I went in with mild expectations of expecting a bit of humor and gore that hopefully wouldn't crash and burn up and found a delight. Sure, you can probably understand where people may not have got what it really was going for 15 years ago beyond just leering at its star and waiting for things to happen. You've got a succubus who for her first act (that we see) of trying to cope with their new surroundings of desire go up to a person's house to try and eat an entire rotisserie chicken only to vomit goo, fail to bite someone and then just leave. In that sense, Fox does a tremendous job in the lead role, managing to be quite funny along with unnerving in the plight of a person who goes from a creature that might as well be the parasite in their one friendship to a very hungry creature that could be the parasite for all people (hey, an equal opportunity succubus) involved if she had her way. Her dynamic is compelling with Seyfried in ways that work far better than just simply being a creature bereft of comic timing. Seyfried's journey of change is just an interesting, mostly because it is a self-realization story that perhaps one of the miserable people lurking in the world today actually can get lucky for once beyond just being lumped in as a needy odd-duck. It is a worthwhile time to see the two of them engage in banter all throughout that shows just how one can really view somebody they've known for years when the grisly details are presented so clearly. The rest of the cast is fairly interesting in parts, whether that involves the conniving group of wannabee music icons led by Brody or the hook-handed straight-laced Simmons. The gore sequences (as could be read in some part here) involving the unfortunate souls being led in to the promise of, well, flesh (three) is pretty well done as well. The 102-minute runtime does prove worth it, although one wonders if the real ending is worth being in the credits. As a whole, Jennifer's Body is a delightfully macabre film about the perils of growing womanhood that happens to involve blood and guts for a solid curiosity that really did take time for its audience to really find it and appreciate its merits.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Hey, they even did a Q&A of the movie just this week. 

Hell of a coincidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRGd7sHN1io

Spider-Man: No Way Home.

Review #1781: Spider-Man: No Way Home.

Cast: 

Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Zendaya (MJ), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Jacob Batalon (Ned Leeds), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Jamie Foxx (Max Dillon / Electro), Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn / Green Goblin), Alfred Molina (Dr. Otto Octavius / Doc Ock), Benedict Wong (Wong), Tony Revolori (Flash Thompson), Marisa Tomei (May Parker), Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), Rhys Ifans (Dr. Curt Connors / The Lizard), and Thomas Haden Church (Flint Marko / Sandman) Directed by Jon Watts (#966 - Spider-Man: Homecoming and #1243 - Spider-Man: Far From Home)

Review: 

If you think about it, the best thing the Spider-Man series should do is take a few years off. Don't get me wrong, this movie is just fine and all that jazz. But as we approach the end of 2021, consider the fact that there have now been nine of these films in nearly twenty years, a rate basically like the James Bond series. At least one can say there is apparent difference between the respective series of films done by either Sam Raimi, Marc Webb, and Jon Watts. Of course, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) has stood tall in its own right when it came to a unique style of animation while featuring several versions of the hero in numerous dimensions (i.e. a multiverse). So, of course it figures that the third film of the third series of (live action) Spider-Man films decides to feature each of the previous heroes and villains of the previous films. If one didn't think they were cribbing from Spider-Verse, you might joke that they really cribbed from the multi-Doctor specials of Doctor Who, complete with a lack of surprise of really seeing these faces. The film was written by the same two behind the last film: Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers (they had also co-wrote the Homecoming film).

Not to be mean, but Spider-Verse did it better. True, the approach of this film is different (because that had the challenge of showing a new hero), but there is a familiar link within trying to stuff as much as possible in 148 minutes (the longest of the film series) that results in a decent if not noticeably uneven movie. It is just a bit better than Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019), but it is absolutely clear that the best Spider-Man film is a horse race between Spider-Man 2 (2004) and the aforementioned Spider-Verse film. But I will applaud the film for at least taking the time to approach the nature of consequences and choices when it comes to Spider-Man, if only because I did tire of the idea of folks just happening to know just who was behind the mask (if you remember, the last film ended with everyone suddenly knowing the name in a frame-job), almost as much as having the hero switching their masks on-and-off. In other words, sometimes you need to see your heroes get taken down a peg. Honestly, the idea of responsibility versus fate when it comes to handling circumstances is probably the more interesting idea presented by the film, since the villainous group is the one shown before the other main component. Granted, I don't really think I had to hear the "with great power comes responsibility" line again, but at least there is some sort of meaningful drama presented in making a real choice and sticking to it. Of course, the thing that comes with doing a film with numerous characters is all the references that come with it. Simply put, sometimes the film really takes it a bit much with "fan-service". It isn't exactly ego-stroking, but sometimes the best thing to do with a film that idles between action and conversation is to just let things breathe. This is especially apparent in the opening, which might be more interesting to set the tone if it wasn't for the incessant conversation that comes and goes before it finally ceases. The action scenes are decent, even if one wonders if the circumstances involving filming (filming in 2021 versus 2019, if you get my drift) means that certain dialogue scenes are a bit muddled. I appreciate Holland for what he has done for the role of Spider-Man, in that he seems to have really settled into this role now, charming in his disposition that keeps things in check. If the discussion at just who is the best Spider-Man comes up, one can at least make a fair argument for him among the others. Zendaya does just as well in the composure expected from maintaining her key angle in the plot that matches well with Holland for curious moments. Batalon does well with a few chuckles, but it is Cumberbatch who is the interesting last piece among the main cast, gliding through with reasoned timing that matches starkly with Holland (in a sense dabbling as a mentor but really more of a foil, what with the whole "turn things back" thing). Tomei does well with the warm ease presented for the role that doesn't get shuttled too far into the background (Favreau less so, but at least it is nice to see him). It is nice to see Simmons get to chew on the familiar words of a role now played five times, even if the obvious thing parodied is more an eyeroll than anything ("TheDailyBugle.net", gee I wonder). 

One gets to see a handful of villains - five, in fact. Oh sure, the highlight is Dafoe. He is the key in making the film work as well as it can when he is there because he is the prime sinister contrast needed among everything present that has not lost a step despite all the previous appearances (one prior film with two subsequent cameos). Molina (CG and all) is a careful second, while Foxx makes a capable mark. I can only imagine the joke I had about seeing Electro if I saw The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) beforehand, if only of the stark differences that a few years makes (yellow instead of blue). At least the Lizard looks better now, probably because he isn't really shown in full light, while the Sandman looks just fine, even though he probably doesn't have as much to really do (same with the reptilian, but that wasn't a surprise). Eventually, it becomes time to see Garfield and Maguire return as well. This works about as well as you would expect, in that they haven't lost the spark that made each interpretation interesting to view on screen (of course, one doesn't dwell much on the time between the respective last appearance, nor exactly what's up with their respective story, I suppose), having good patience and charm that we all have seen before and such. The three "Spider-Men" make for a good team with fitting chemistry by the time it comes to the climax, and it keeps the film from potentially de-railing under all of its weight (narrative or figuratively). By the time the film makes its final decision, I am at the very least satisfied with where the series may choose to go for its next film, even I would argue that a couple of years off wouldn't kill them (oh, but Sony sure loves the idea of their own Spider-Man film universe, and I immediately try to stop rolling my eyes). It maneuvers the line of responsibility and what it means to be a hero within a tightly packaged film that hits most of the marks required from its expectations that make a good time. Granted, it isn't the best film I've seen all year, but at least it proved its mettle in entertainment to make it all worth it. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Well, I did not actually intend for three Spider-Man films to be the closing trio of 2021, and yet here we are with another year over. Since this show started on December 20, 2010, only in three occasions (2010, 2015, 2017) has not had a review on New Years' Eve. It is nice to follow in the tradition of covering a current-year film like I did with Tenet (2020) last year, so it was good to get this out in time. That makes for 163 reviews in 2021 and the end of Season 11. It might not have been as busy as the previous year, but this was still the fifth busiest year in Movie Night's history (with only Season 2, 3, 4, and X being bigger). Have a Happy New Year in 2022 and I will see you there with what I hope is a good group of selections.

Spider-Man 3.

Review #1779: Spider-Man 3.

Cast: 

Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson), James Franco (Harry Osborn / New Goblin), Thomas Haden Church (Flint Marko / Sandman), Topher Grace (Edward "Eddie" Brock Jr. / Venom), Bryce Dallas Howard (Gwen Stacy), James Cromwell (Captain George Stacy), Rosemary Harris (May Parker), J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), with Theresa Russell (Emma Marko), Dylan Baker (Dr. Curt Connors), Bill Nunn (Joseph 'Robbie' Robertson), Elizabeth Banks (Miss Brant), with Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn), and Cliff Robertson (Ben Parker) 

Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, #1495 - Darkman, #1695 - Spider-Man 2)

Review: 

"Where’s Peter Parker again in the second picture as a human being? He’s a kid in all these stories. They’re kind of coming of age stories and he learns aspects of growing up. Different life lessons in each of these films and often times, the comic books."

You know, it is entirely possible to make a third film of a trilogy that closes the narrative of its story with the right kind of balance and entertainment value that doesn't seem quite cluttered. Of course, doing so for a superhero trilogy is especially interesting to consider, if not for the fact that the expectations can sometimes reach grand heights. With this film, Sam Raimi was the first director to have helmed an entire superhero film trilogy. Spider-Man (2002), if you remember, was pretty well-made for the time and effort it took to get it on the screen, complete with a director that obviously had reverence for the source material that managed (for the most part) to generate warmly interesting entertainment. Spider-Man 2 (2004) continued that path while managing to be even better than its predecessor, both in its hero and villain story, and a third feature was immediately set for 2007. The story was done by Sam and Ivan Raimi, while Alvin Sargent (one of the writers of the second film) did the screenplay with the Raimis. Of course, it seems every sequel superhero film needs more than just one villain. With this one, there are three of them, distinct from the previous film (well, at least, if you count Harry as a villain in the second film). Raimi intended on just a story that was focused on the primary three folks from the first two films (Maguire, Dunst, Franco) and the Sandman (as played by Church). One of the producers suggested adding the character of Gwen Stacy, while Avi Arad (former president of Marvel and a fellow producer) suggested adding the character of Venom (introduced to the comics in 1984), with his argument being that the character had a strong appeal to fans (particularly since Raimi had made two features with his favorite villains); of course, before that happened, there had been plans to have the Vulture as one of the villains, so there is that. The film, while a hit with audiences, was the last Spider-Man film for five years, as plans for a fourth feature stalled because of Raimi's doubt over the viability of maintaining an intended release date of 2011 with a suitable script.

At the time of its release, it was actually the most expensive movie ever made, having been made for $258 million. It also was the longest of the three films at 139 minutes. I'm sure it goes without saying that this isn't a great movie to close the series down by any means. But hey, it has nearly been fifteen years since this film has come out, and six (five live-action) further Spider-Man movies have followed in its wake. Honestly, the movie is okay (besides, making a third feature involving an inverted hero already happened once with Superman III (1983), which was worse). Sure, it has a few little moments that could be made fun of (scrutiny, mockery, or whatever), but as a whole it at least manages to have some entertaining moments along with perspective on redemption that at least makes for a solid average movie. But of course, a movie that had considerable hype just can't be average now, can it? Undeniably, the big problem is that it has just one too many villains to go along with not being able to land all of its sticking points by the time it all ends. It is a messy movie, one that tries to fill itself on spectacle and drama that try to maintain the balance set by the previous two features that makes a good case for why it was good to just cap the series with three films. Maguire and Dunst maintain the sincerity in their chemistry that made for two curious (and interesting) features, but it probably doesn't help that their fragmented story here is the only one among all the other loose webbing that sticks out. Seeing their web tangle and untangle itself is the endearing aspect of the series, pure and simple. In that sense, Maguire does what he can, moving onto the next step that comes in the full-fledged stages of being an adult: finding forgiveness along with dealing with the pitfalls of pride (i.e. normal Peter Parker and symbiote Peter). He is earnest enough to make things such as "dancing" work where it could have been really silly to sit through. Dunst does just as well with matching up with withered patience (since her next step is not so much ego as it is "having a life"), doing what is needed as everything basically comes full circle with these two to useful effect. 

Franco has the weird dilemma of being a key side of the villainous triangle while having a segmented part of his time spent with "amnesia"; besides, one of the resolutions presented (i.e. next time check the wounds) is incredibly convenient in all the weird ways. Haden Church (who by virtue of graduating from Harlingen High School gets "Valley credits" from me) seems to be drawing his character from films such as The Wolf Man (1941), which works to a degree. While I understand the changes made to the character from the original origin (one that I remember because I actually did read one of those stories distinctly as a kid), I think it basically ties the story (and to an extent, Haden Church) in a knot that is way, way too convenient. Grace, best known for his role on That 70s Show, which I freely admit to watching too much of for years...does not exactly fare as well. While he does make an interesting reflection upon Maguire, it is hard to escape the inevitable "Yes, but Venom..." when it comes to actually seeing him on screen. I'm not saying the role needs a "bodybuilder" type, but it just never clicks together all the way with Grace, who almost seems a step away from making a quip more than anything (the less said about the actual lead-in to Venom, the better). Besides, having another costumed character present that likes to put on and then take off their mask is a step too far (keep it on!). Howard and Cromwell are there for segments that work right until you start to remember they disappear by the time of the climax (Harris has what she needs in the usual patience expected from her role anyway, while Simmons is sorely lacking in time). 

The contrivances that come with trying to tie it all together aren't swayed so easily with its climax (which is fine). Simply put, the dilemma of figuring out what it means to be a hero suddenly with sins that only thought in black-and-white is an interesting one, but the movie seems too mired in trying to pack in as much as possible in its frenzied focusing that it nearly loses sight of what the films meant in the first place. They were interesting movies with earnest charm and atmosphere (case in point this film seems lacking with the folks in the actual city that the film sets its action) that made it the first important group of superhero films of the new 21st century. While it may not be a great closing film by any means, it pulls off just enough tricks that keep one's interest on the level without churning into a pit. In other words: being just okay might not be the best thing to say about a highly anticipated movie but time generally shows that a movie being fine works out in the end.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Amazing Spider-Man (2012). Must be a coincidence.

Spider-Man 2.

Review #1695: Spider-Man 2.

Cast: 

Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson), James Franco (Harry Osborn), Alfred Molina (Otto Octavius / Doctor Octopus), Rosemary Harris (May Parker), J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), Donna Murphy (Rosalie Octavius), Daniel Gillies (John Jameson), Dylan Baker (Dr. Curt Connors), Bill Nunn (Robbie Robertson), Elizabeth Banks (Betty Brant), Elya Baskin (Mr. Ditkovitch), Mageina Tovah (Ursula), Ted Raimi (Hoffman), with Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn), and Cliff Robertson (Ben Parker) 

Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, #1495 - Darkman)

Review: 

“I just tried to get even more in touch with the things that I loved about Stan Lee’s great character Spider-Man, and a lot of writers throughout the 40 years at Marvel have contributed to Spider-Man. All the things that I loved about all of their stories, I tried to really get deeper into and connect on a deeper level with the actors, and make it more about the characters and their interaction with one another. I tried to get to the core of what I loved even more.”

It must be amazing to think of an era where superhero movies did not in fact rule the Earth, really. But the dawn of the 21st century shows that they merely lurking in the shadows of entertainment, when you think about it. There is not a long line to get from something like this film to Iron Man (2008) when it comes to adaptation of something from the world of Marvel Comics, much less when it comes to movies beyond just an one-off. Spider-Man (2002) was the sixth feature film adapted from a Marvel character (as created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko in 1962), coming off the heels of previous works such as Blade (1998) and X-Men (2000), which like this film came from years and years of development (among quite a few scripts); naturally, this film follows along the sequel line among those aforementioned movies (Blade II, X2), and it likely stands as one of the best superhero sequels of its time. It is interesting to note that the first film actually had the character of Doctor Octopus as a secondary villain before Raimi dropped him in order to focus more on the dynamic between the title character and the villain. At the helm for the screenplay was Alvin Sargent (near the end of a lengthy career of writing, which included un-credited work on the first film) while the story came from Michael Chabon, Alfred Gough, and Miles Millar (the latter two are mostly known for their development of the show Smallville; obviously, the movie is a hodgepodge of ideas from each writer - Chabon's proposed script apparently had a love triangle involving Doctor Octopus). 

Most superhero sequels generally tend to raise the stakes by adding villains to the pile for the hero to fight that make the challenge seem tighter (i.e. more than one villain, which was present in more than a few superhero films beyond the Marvel line, such as with the Batman series). And yet, here we are with a movie that has quite a controlled focus with consistent stakes and drama that improves on the original without being as hamstrung by the little things as had been the case with the original Spider-Man (which was a pretty decent effort from a director who clearly appreciates the material). It carries itself with enough weight in responsibility to deliver entertainment with meaningful power and meaningful moments to see and hear. Of course it isn't just an effects show, even though one can be impressed by the crew of John Dykstra, Scott Stokdyk, Anthony LaMolinara and John Frazier (among others) when it comes to the tentacles for its villain that prove a blend of computer effects with puppetry (alongside a harness of course) that definitely serves an improvement when compared to the sequences involving the Green Goblin from before. Maguire (who was nearly replaced by Jake Gyllenhaal because of a near-serious back injury) leads the cast with worthy presence once again, maintaining the sincerity and vulnerability depicted before without seeming generic in his charm or being overshadowed by others too much (heroes get overshadowed by the villain in a handful of films anyway). Dunst matches well with snappy chemistry that balances scenes spent either with Maguire or Gillies.  Franco works with the gradual moments with bitter righteousness that still seems like a worried child when it comes to obsession and taking the mantle his father held (which I guess works pretty well in its little imitation of Hamlet, but seeing Dafoe again is a worthy bonus). Molina proves a worthy adversary, one struck by fate that is quite sardonic in his menace that draws you in from the very first moment with him on screen (at least if you compare him with his scenes spent with Murphy with his time with the AI arms); in other words, he makes for a fun villain that improves upon the dynamic seen between the lead and the adversary from before in terms of showing the nature of power and responsibility. Closing out the cast is a few brief-scene wonders from before with the bright nurturer in Harris and the wonderful blustering comic relief in Simmons. At any rate, the film proves efficient at 127 minutes in balancing its spectacle with effective characterization that draws upon the comics without being beholden to too much cheese or being a show for overdrawn spectacle - Raimi honed his craft with the hero film in Darkman and he has merely improved upon the human aspects of what makes a thrilling and poignant movie that happens to have folks in costumes that builds on the curiosity left by its predecessor while setting its own stage for another adventure without too much trouble.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

La La Land.

Review #1577: La La Land.

Cast:

Ryan Gosling (Sebastian Wilder), Emma Stone (Mia Dolan), John Legend (Keith), J. K. Simmons (Bill), Rosemarie DeWitt (Laura Wilder), Finn Wittrock (Greg), Callie Hernandez (Tracy), Sonoya Mizuno (Caitlin), Jessica Rothe (Alexis), and Tom Everett Scott (David) Written and Directed by Damien Chazelle (#1146 - First Man)

Review:

"Now more than ever we need hope and romance on the screen, and I think there’s something about musicals that just get at something that only movies can do. That idea of movies as a dreamland, movies as the language of our dreams and movies as a way of expressing a world in which you break into song, that emotions can violate the rules of reality.” - Damien Chazelle

Maybe the old saying about the youth being the future can work out in film, as one could observe from Damien Chazelle. Born in Rhode Island but raised in Princeton, New Jersey, he had a love of filmmaking from a young age (while doing music with the local studio band), which reflected on his study at Harvard University within Visual and Environmental Studies. As part of his thesis project, he directed his first feature film with Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench (2009), which received some notice on the festival circuit. He tried his hand in Hollywood with writing assignments for hire (such as The Last Exorcism Part II (2013) and 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)), but he wanted to do his own projects. He and college classmate Justin Hurwitz had envisioned the idea for La La Land in 2010, and there had been plans to do it with a cheap budget that was scrapped, mostly because he was told that the concept and material "seemed brazenly uncommercial" (Focus, for example, wanted to change the focus from jazz to rock and modify the opening number and ending). It was the success of a film near to Chazelle's heart in terms of his experiences as a drummer in high school that led to his breakthrough with Whiplash (2014), a critical darling that also helped get his foot in the door to make this feature with a more suitable budget.

So, how does one make a film about Los Angeles come alive while describing it once as the place that worships everything and value nothing? (which just reminds me of that old joke about it being a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there). By trying to inspire hope within a cynical audience member? In some ways that may prove all they need, although it is clear that others might find their eyes rolling rather than in tears. I guess it depends on where you look upon the film's idea of bringing romance to the screen with the stylings that try to aim for classic musicals of yesteryear with a touch of modern flair that goes for "cute" but, "not that cute" at the same time, with listed inspirations being films such as The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964) to Singin' in the Rain (1952) to even Boogie Nights (1997). So here we are, a musical that wants to go on with no cuts for its numbers. Is it as great as those traditional musicals? Better than some of them, perhaps. This may all be subjective, but I certainly wouldn't put it on the level of the aforementioned Singin' in the Rain, or even An American in Paris (1951); technically, this might be comparable to the quality of Gigi (1958) - good, not great, but good in inspiring decent little charm with chemistry. One starts with Stone (freshly established earlier in the decade with films such as Easy A), the best presence in the whole film when it comes to well-delivered grace that obviously proves useful to watch on screen in the balancing act of struggling dreamer alongside time to sing and dance with chemistry that flickers with some worthy energy. Gosling does fine with what he has offered to him, since his pursuits come off a bit more aloof, but at least they make a worthy pair together when they dance (singing is a different edge). The supporting cast is played to short lengths, such as having singer/pianist Legend there for a time to promote charm with inverting classic jazz with fusion (which goes...somewhere?), or a stern one-shot from Simmons. Funny, I remember classic musicals having some sort of memorable third character to pair off the would-be romantic leads. It might seem like I am picking at this film a bit, but let's just list some positive notes too. After all, it is a charming film in execution, with the opening number on the freeway, while the dance between Stone and Gosling in that twilight of sunset is also a dazzler. The songs are fairly well-crafted too, perhaps not inherently catchy, but they resonate with a dream of gloss and fevered ambition that the film goes for without needing to stuff themselves. 

And then of course there is the ending of the film. It was stated by both Chazelle and others that this is the ending they wanted with no changes, grounding the classic musical in "real life". For that, all power to Chazelle, since I doubt the ending shifted audience notices downward at all. It's a shame I just don't like that ending, not merely because it's a bittersweet one, but more so because I just found it to be a ridiculous choice for a film that wants to adhere to old-school musical films but then decide for both a supposed honest ending alongside with an "imagined" sequence as a cheap joke to have it both ways. But hey, life is like a bunch of seasons, and one's dreams will require perhaps sacrificing things to get there. Cool, great, have fun with that attempt at spinning goo into the newest product of hope within cynical times (we've never been cynical like this!, says the history-maker of the now). It is also entirely possible that one can get weary at times even for "good" films, because sometimes expectations are higher for some films than others. As a whole, it is a nice little movie, filled with some useful charm and interest with harkening back to the musicals of yesteryear, which it reaches with mostly successful results. Is is the great return of the classic musical? Maybe, maybe not, but at least it is an interesting experiment from its young director in Chazelle that will surely prove a useful curiosity in discussion over where it sits in time spent with song-and-dance.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Justice League.

Review #1011: Justice League.

Cast: 
Ben Affleck (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Henry Cavill (Kal-El / Clark Kent / Superman), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), Gal Gadot (Diana Prince / Wonder Woman), Ezra Miller (Barry Allen / Flash), Jason Momoa (Arthur Curry / Aquaman), Ray Fisher (Victor Stone / Cyborg), Jeremy Irons (Alfred Pennyworth), Diane Lane (Martha Kent), Connie Nielsen (Hippolyta), J. K. Simmons (James Gordon), and Ciarán Hinds (Steppenwolf) Directed by Zack Snyder (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice)

Review: 
To fellow readers: I did not intend for this review to be over 700 words, but here we are. Hopefully this review is consistent enough and useful for you.

Admittedly, the DC comic book films over the past few years have a been a bit...diverse (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, #828 - Suicide Squad, #942 - Wonder Woman), with their own particular brand of taste and style (and that is putting it lightly). This remains the case with this film, which is certainly a strange movie for one that is also wildly mediocre. Sure, I enjoyed the movie, but it is easily one that won't go down as anything great (in fairness, it's not like Thor: Ragnarok will go down as a hallmark of comic book films). It's clear that this movie wants to be lighter and fun, with varying results that come off as slightly inconsistent, particularly with characters like Batman, though that is not the biggest flaw. In any case, let me start with the main six, which is certainly an interesting bunch.

Affleck pulls off a pretty decent performance, being somewhat endearing even if seems like the character shifts tone from stoic to snarky, though it isn't too awfully distracting. Gadot is the best one of the group, being quite enjoyable and graceful as she was in her prior film. Miller is fairly entertaining in the film and is likely the most amusing part of the film. Momoa is fairly decent, though I'd say it takes time for him to really grow on you. Fisher is probably the weakest of the six, feeling a bit flat (though his character is at least useful to the plot). Cavill (with accompanying CGI-erased mustache) is decent enough for the time that he appears, but he doesn't really appear as much as he probably should've appeared. The supporting cast aren't really given much to do, and that can prove to be a bit disappointing (even in a movie all about the main six). It's not so much that Hinds does a terrible job as the villain as it is the fact that his character just isn't compelling to watch. with this being the worst part of the film. He is not a character that ever inspires fear or anything other than a mild expression, with his scenes with dialogue or fighting reminding me more of cut-scenes than actual scenes. Naturally, he is a villain that doesn't take too long to take down, with the victory feeling somewhat hollow that actually feels amusing to laugh at. The action sequences prove to be a mixed bag. On the one hand, they are sometimes pretty entertaining in their spectacle. On the other hand, the CGI just doesn't hold up that well, and for a movie that was reportedly made for over $300 million it certainly seems puzzling to see how it doesn't really work in the department. The film is at least sometimes amusing, and the cast does seem to have some good chemistry with each other, although at times it can come off a bit rushed, which can also apply in some way to the plot, which isn't too special, especially when it seems to go all over the place with its characters.

The film certainly feels a bit jumbled, no doubt due to post-production efforts in which Josh Whedon  (director of #312 - The Avengers and #706 - Avengers: Age of Ultron) was hired to rewrite additional scenes. In May of this year, Snyder stepped down during this process due to the death of his daughter, with Whedon taking over for rest of post-production, serving as director for scenes that he had written. In any case, Snyder is listed as the only director, though Whedon is given a credit for the screenplay (along with Chris Terrio, who had also co-written the story with Synder). The film certainly feels like a jumbling of numerous things, trying to give time for the three characters without their own film (Aquaman, The Flash, Cyborg). Subsequently, the film feels rushed when trying to deliver exposition for them.

Ultimately, this is a movie that achieves its most basic goals of being escapism and entertainment. It is ridiculous in how okay it is, but I found it to be fairly acceptable, warts and all. It isn't anything worthwhile, but it's a movie that will prove just enough for some audiences. Take this film for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Terminator Genisys.

Review #834: Terminator Genisys.

Cast
Arnold Schwarzenegger (The Guardian), Jason Clarke (John Connor), Emilia Clarke (Sarah Connor), Jai Courtney (Kyle Reese), J.K. Simmons (O'Brien), Dayo Okeniyi (Danny Dyson), Matt Smith (Alex), Courtney B. Vance (Miles Dyson), Lee Byung-hun (Cop / T-1000), Michael Gladis (Lt. Matias), and Sandrine Holt (Detective Cheung) Directed by Alan Taylor (#827 - Thor: The Dark World)

Review
The Terminator franchise (#001 - Terminator 2: Judgement Day, #063 - The Terminator, #089 - Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, and #090 - Terminator Salvation) is a strange one in terms of where the story goes in these films...and also the quality of the movies. The first two films are great movies, both being hallmarks in the sci-fi genre because of the high quality writing and entertaining action. The third movie was a mixed bag that felt unneeded. The fourth one was flat out uninteresting to watch. As for this film...it's certainly a strange one. It's clear the people behind this film saw Star Trek (#009) and tried to make their own version...and it could have worked. The idea of a Guardian Terminator protecting and raising Sarah might've have worked as its own thing, instead of shoehorning Kyle Reese into the dynamic. One of the biggest problems is that Courtney and E. Clarke don't have real chemistry together, and while no duo could really compare to the chemistry that Linda Hamilton and Michael Biehn had in the first film, there is never a moment where they click together. He just doesn't give much to care about, resembling one of those blank slates in a fan-fic. Ultimately, this is a movie that is at best moderately entertaining but at worst just a bland retread, with a sequence mimicking the first film, and even a T-1000 (that is promptly beaten in less than 20 minutes) that is a bit laughable, for all the wrong reasons. It just feels weird seeing another film where they think they will destroy Skynet by doing X. I appreciate the idea of a retcon, but there really isn't anything presented here to demonstrate the need to have another film. There's no real style to the movie, nothing that you can really identify as memorable. Another problem is that there are no real stakes, with everything feeling predictable (in a way like the third film) and somewhat tedious. Schwarzenegger is as entertaining as ever, having better chemistry with E. Clarke than Courtney does. J. Clarke is pretty decent for what he's given to work with. The action scenes are pretty decent, though sometimes it comes off as a bit dull with regards to the colors. There really isn't much to the supporting cast, with Smith having barely any time to register a presence beyond occasional dialogue. It's a movie that works when it's about the action, but not so much when it's about the characters or story. Honestly, just stick to the first two films.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Zootopia.

Review #782: Zootopia.

Cast
Ginnifer Goodwin (Officer Judy Hopps), Jason Bateman (Nick Wilde), Idris Elba (Chief Bogo), J.K. Simmons (Leodore Lionheart), Tommy Chong (Yax), Octavia Spencer (Mrs. Otterton), Jenny Slate (Dawn Bellwether), Shakira (Gazelle), Nate Torrence (Officer Benjamin Clawhauser), Bonnie Hunt (Bonnie Hopps), Don Lake (Stu Hopps), Alan Tudyk (Duke Weaselton), Mark Smith (Officer McHorn), Raymond S. Persi (Flash), and Maurice LaMarche (Mr. Big) Directed by Byron Howard, Rich Moore (#386 - Wreck it Ralph) and Jared Bush.

Review
Honestly, the movie exceeded my expectations. And it only makes sense that it comes from a movie ultimately all about how we perceive types of people...and the fact that it came at a time like this with regards to prejudice and stereotypes. It's not merely a buddy film, or a movie just with animals in a city, or even just a silly comedy, it's a clever movie on many levels that could appeal to anyone. Of course it helps the cast is enjoyable as well. Goodwin and Bateman have good chemistry together, being enjoyable to watch not just exchanging remarks, but actually in solving the case. The rest of the cast is also pretty enjoyable, making these characters (and animals) stand out. It's also a wonderfully animated movie, especially with shots of the city, but also the look of the animals. It's a movie that also doesn't hesitate to take risks with plot and characters, and it always kept me interested in what would go on next. The way the movie talks about prejudice and stereotyping is also well done, being neither over done nor underplayed, being utilized neatly. More importantly, this is a movie that works for both kids and adults, being a movie full of creativity and enjoyment that anyone can like.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Spider-Man.

Review #611: Spider-Man.

Cast
Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker/Spider-Man), Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn/Green Goblin), Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson), James Franco (Harry Osborn), Cliff Robertson (Ben Parker), Rosemary Harris (May Parker), and J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson) Directed by Sam Raimi.

Review
No matter the weather wherever you are, today's going to be a beautiful Independence Day, so I'm going to review something that's been on the waiting list for a long time, the (can't believe I'm saying this) original Spider-Man film. Speaking of which, how is the film? It's pretty good. For all of its quirks, the movie does a good job at putting Spider-Man onto the screen and be entertaining for the most part. The cast is well rounded, it's even fun to see J. K. Simmons as Jameson because his bombastic nature to everyone is just fun to watch, even if it's brief. Maguire and Dafoe have a good dynamic together, and while Dafoe may have some odd scenes (though I guess talking to a mask is normal if you go insane), he is pretty menacing. Maguire is a good hero, I think my favorite scene is when he's being introduced to the ring against a guy named Buzzsaw (played by the late great Randy "Macho Man" Savage), and he asks to be called "The Human Spider". I don't know why, but there is something funny about trying to make your own name and come up with something a 1950's b-movie would reject as a title. The dialogue is okay, though Robertson's line about "with great power comes great responsibility" is a defining line for the film. Is it a great movie? No, but it at least is a good flick for anyone curious on how the first movie about Spider-Man is. Happy 4th, everyone.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Megamind.

Review #195: Megamind.

Cast
Will Ferrell (Megamind), Tina Fey (Roxanne Ritchi), David Cross (Minion), Jonah Hill (Tighten/Hal Stewart), Brad Pitt (Metro Man), J. K. Simmons (Warden), and Ben Stiller (Bernard) Directed by Tom McGrath (#165 - Madagascar and #154 - Madagascar 2)

Review
Megamind has been compared to a mix between Superman and Despicable Me, which is a strange combination of films, but is it really? Not so much, but you eventually get over that comparison and start to watch with interest. Ferrell does a good job, he's charming and somewhat sympathetic. The rest of the cast do good as well, such as Fey and Cross, who are both fun to watch. The animation is refined and excellent, the movie is enjoyable and while it may not be a great movie, it at least is a fun one. The plot line is alright, with some good jokes and dynamic action all around to make an excellent film. Countdown to 200: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.