Collateral.

Review #2325: Collateral.

Cast: 

Tom Cruise (Vincent), Jamie Foxx (Max Durocher), Jada Pinkett Smith (Annie Farrell), Mark Ruffalo (Ray Fanning), Peter Berg (Richard Weidner), Bruce McGill (Frank Pedrosa), and Irma P. Hall (Ida Durocher) Directed by Michael Mann (#1531 - Ali, #1631 - The Last of the Mohicans, #1713 - Manhunter, #2091 - Miami Vice)

Review: 

"I wanted to compress time, to imagine the psychological extremes when two lives collide unexpectedly. Small [details] become very important when, for example, you don’t change wardrobe, when the time of day doesn’t change, when the color of night or the cut of a suit becomes crucial."

Admittedly, taking a ride with a stranger is not a particularly new concept for a film. You've got quite a few movies dealing with strangers on a train, for example, or hitch-hiking with, well, The Hitch-Hiker (1953). Incidentally, the original basis for the script came from a cab ride home that Stuart Beattie (probably best known for his co-credit on the Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl script) had when he was a teenager in which he made an idea about a maniac sitting in the back of a cab with the driver right there in implicit trust that he soon turned into a treatment. Sure, the script and film are only superficially similiar (it had subplots that are entirely not in the film, like a relationship between the cabbie and a librarian), but the efforts of Julie Richardson (who ended up co-producing the film with Mann) eventually paid off. The eighth film of Mann's career, it was his decision to shoot the film primarily with the Viper FilmStream High-Definition Camera (i.e. not film, although the nightclub sequence is shot that way) as a way to capture the urban environment of night-time LA. Incidentally, the original cast members in mind for the lead roles were Russell Crowe and Adam Sandler (or perhaps even Sandler paired with Cruise), but so it goes. The movie was a relative success at the time of its release, done just two decades ago.

You can see pretty quickly the appeal in a movie that is set in one night with such a compact goal in mind in tight thrills with characters that match each other like a glove for a neat movie. It maneuvers curiosity for its locale and machinations for two hours that deserves consideration for any thriller type of night. It has a murky feel with its locale that extends right to its trips through LA that feel distinct like a vignette, whether that involves a nightclub or a hospital visit. Undeniably, Cruise delivers the most in his role, where he apparently took inspiration from Alain Delon's character in Le Samouraï [1967] (one might wonder if there was something to draw from the silver-haired fox of Lee Marvin). Wrapped in grey attire and silver hair, there is something unnerving about his mannerisms in how he just "clicks" as an erudite and efficient killer that still makes one curious about what makes him tick. It basically is a cat-and-mouse game where one is curious where the cat wants to guide the mouse next. The character doesn't even that much of a backstory, one can just picture in their heads a guy who seeps in and out of his assignment as one who really could just lurk in the shadows and have no one notice, much in the same way that Foxx's character is just as one to be thought of in the background for most people (hey, do you know your cabbie?); go figure, it was Foxx that recieved the Academy Award nomination that year. But yes, Foxx is pretty effective here in his own terms of instinct of human nature, one who we like as someone learning to not lie so much about themselves. Smith makes a suitable presence to fit the ends of the film required in snap timing while the others fit the fragmented pieces required in a trip where you have a highly efficient (and smart) killer on one side and a tense but equally interesting presence worth watching on the other, such as the nightclub sequence when it comes to building a release of just who one really is when around other people. The film eventually delves into a chase that works out pretty well in the hands of Mann, who finds time to look upon an office from a distance to build tension. I especially like the ending in just settling on the most soothing of  possible resolutions when it comes to rising above collateral nature to be one's own man that circles back to earlier in the movie involving people fading into the background. As a whole, it's a neat movie that has two worthy players with worthy staging and a look to make a useful neo-noir fit for the eyes of the 21st century.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Review #2206: The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Cast: 

Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy), Jamie Foxx (Max Dillon / Electro), Dane DeHaan (Harry Osborn / Green Goblin), Campbell Scott (Richard Parker), Embeth Davidtz (Mary Parker), Colm Feore (Donald Menken), Paul Giamatti (Aleksei Sytsevich / Rhino), Sally Field (May Parker), and Felicity Jones (Felicia) Directed by Marc Webb (#1780 - The Amazing Spider-Man)

Review: 

Okay, so maybe The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) had a few admirers for its ideas on the character (as originally devised by writer-editor Stan Lee and artist Steve Ditko for comic books). It was self-serious in a way that surely seemed distinct from those other Spider-Man movies from the first decade of the 20th century, well, as much as one can be when having a villain be someone named The Lizard. A sequel was pretty much right on the get go, complete with Webb returning to direct. This time, the screenplay was done by Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Jeff Pinkner, who had been hired to do a re-write of the first draft that had been done by James Vanderbilt (as such, each were credited for the story). Plans to set up further films by Sony to basically set up their shared universe involving Spider-Man related things such as, say the "Sinister Six" or Venom were in mind prior to the release of this film in May of 2014. The film was made at a budget that is probably more than the reported $290 million that attracted slightly fewer people to the theater than the last film (read: money, but money...).; amusingly, X-Men: Days of Future Past came out three weeks after this film (good lord, I actually remember seeing it in theaters) as a film made in the shadow of previous franchise films that hinted at the idea of a follow-up film to a different type of result. Of course, any plans with further Spider-Man films with Garfield as the star all went away in a flash in the span of roughly a year to where the next appearance of Spider-Man came with Captain America: Civil War (2016) and blah blah blah, you probably already know about Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) and the return of certain folks with different costuming.  

Admittedly, there are a few elements worth appreciating, because even the lesser films had something useful to watch in the main lead, and Garfield does manage to carve out something worth watching for a film that is now a decade old. The charm exhibited between him and Stone is star-crossed enough to make the resolution something worth exploring in its impact in a sequel (in theory). They have useful chemistry together, even if some could have the caveat of "nice romcom, but this is a Spider-Man movie" right then and there. A good chunk of the movie is "in theory" when you send a few compliments its way, but there is no truly terrible aspect on the level of say, Blade: Trinity (2004). The action generally works out for those expectations one could hope for in a mid 2010s film that was at least trying to provide some sizzle alongside a moderate steak. And then you get to the film itself and realize that some movies just don't know when to stop. The first film may have been a bit lacking in its attempts to differentiate itself from a previous acclaimed trilogy, but it at least didn't have the gall to throw everything at the wall with a smirk on its face. Here I just find watching a competition of whether one can call it a poor man's Batman Returns (1992) or Batman Forever (1995) that was made by people who really thought they could get away with making a bloated sequel that could also set up something called "The Sinister Six" rather than picking one villain and sticking with it. Did the world really need bits and pieces of a "how did the Parkers die conspiracy"? I think they needed it about as much as they needed a blue Electro. If Spider-Man 3 (2007) was the byproduct of a studio wanting just a bit too much for their superhero sequel, Amazing Spider-Man 2 is the one that says, "hold my beer" and then some (this is a movie that casts B.J. Novak for a bit role that I guess is actually a "thing" in certain comics that for a film is about as interesting as the end of this sentence). Either have an Electro or have the weirdness of a man infused with the mode of a goblin, you really should pick one regardless of if it is a sequel or not (to say nothing of the attempt at setting up a bigger future threat in Giamatti and an "accent" that is completely unnecessary). It is bloated and average in all the frustrating ways possible, somehow being even more self-serious than the first one. 

I barely read any kind of comics, but I vaguely remember looking over a cheap reprint of a Spider-Man comic with Electro in it that had him in a green and yellow outfit that looked about on par for the 1960s that thought it would be cool to do crime when he got struck by lightning on a power line. Obviously one can see that the blue present here had inspiration from less older renditions of Electro, but I imagine that having a blue look also helps when it comes to making spectacle filmmaking. They really thought they were cooking with this character, but all they managed to do was cook up a really amusing look to go with characterization that absolutely cannot hold water with Foxx there to try and play a "nobody turned into a somebody". Of course, it probably isn't nearly as clunky as trying to set a fast one in having Garfield and DeHaan look like old reunited buddies prior to tragedy, which really seems to come off as if one was watching part three of a five part plan that actually is being held up by duct tape. His stuff seems almost studio note'd away with the parts that actually seem like a descent into madness (with the transformation sequence anyway). Field described in an interview after the release as one with troubles when it came to depth as if trying to put "10 pounds of [expletive] in a five-pound bag". This is a pretty accurate way to describe her characterization in terms of having exactly one remotely interesting scene (involving her and Garfield sitting and talking about one's parent). Hell, by the second film of the Rosemary Harris version of Aunt May, it had her finishing prayers to annoying goblins and seeing bank robberies up close. All you get with Field and her characterization is, um, being a nursing student to help with bills that get the sidelines because hey, got to get all this other stuff in about a secret abandoned station or ghost Denis Leary showing up at the most, um, interesting times. It is entirely possible that if you combined the amount of screentime of Scott/Davidtz between the two films as the Parker parents, you might actually finish neck and neck with Field, and only one had the distinct pleasure of being in the start of a film for some reason (the answer for that probably has something to do with the reasoning for wanting to ask exactly who asked about who the Parkers were to an audience that still has "with great power comes great responsibility" stuck in their head). When it comes to comparing bloated movies like say, a Pirates sequel to this, that one has it beat because it at least looks like it is having fun doing things. In general, this is a muddled movie that is all "in theory" - the chemistry of Garfield and Stone work in bits and pieces for a movie that is bloated with too many villains and not nearly enough structure to hold it up beyond the bare minimum of average. There are good comic book movies and bad ones, and this one (ten years standing) achieves the goal of straight average disappointment. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Miami Vice.

Review #2091: Miami Vice.

Cast: 

Colin Farrell (Sonny Crockett), Jamie Foxx (Ricardo Tubbs), Gong Li (Isabella), Naomie Harris (Trudy Joplin), Ciarán Hinds (FBI Agent Fujima), Justin Theroux (Detective Larry Zito), Barry Shabaka Henley (Castillo), Luis Tosar (Montoya), John Ortiz (Jose Yero), Elizabeth Rodriguez (Gina Calabrese), Domenick Lombardozzi (Detective Stan Switek), Eddie Marsan (Nicholas), Isaach De Bankolé (Neptune), John Hawkes (Alonzo Stevens), Tom Towles (Coleman), and Mario Ernesto Sánchez (El Tiburon) Written and Directed by Michael Mann (#1531 - Ali, #1631 - The Last of the Mohicans, and #1713 - Manhunter)

Review: 

"I don't know how I feel about it. I know the ambition behind it, but it didn't fulfill that ambition for me because we couldn't shoot the real ending. But whole parts of the film are very evocative to me still, especially when it comes to the romance. It was about how far somebody goes when they’re undercover, and what that really means because, ultimately, who you become is yourself on steroids, manifested out there in the real world."

Believe it or not, I had been waiting for the right to do this film, because I actually had watched the television show for the curiosity roughly a year ago. Honestly, the curiosity was not so much for the perceived "style" but for the odds and ends that come with trying to wedge in certain guest stars and situations to fit the procedural. Show creator Anthony Yerkovich claimed his inspiration was hearing about asset forfeiture when it comes to confiscating drug dealer properties for use, but I think you can see how the rumor that it came from a memo that said "MTV cops" endures. He had wrote over two dozen scripts for the serial procedural Hill Street Blues, but he has been quoted as saying that he actually had collected info on the city of Miami when working on Blues, even calling it a "sort of modern-day American Casablanca" while noting the wide variety of people that lived there to go along with the service industries for the drug trade. Undeniably though, it was probably the performances of its two leads in Don Johnson and Philip Michael Thomas that probably made the show endure as well as it did to run from 1984 all the way to the very first few weeks of 1990. Yerkovich created the show and had executive duties for the first few episodes before leaving to leave it in the hands of Michael Mann (creator of Vegas (1978) and a couple of films) as executive producer, which he would do for most of the run. A great deal of expense was taken to do an episode of the show, whether that involved fancy cars, song licensing, or painting exterior walls to film in Miami. There are a handful of episodes one could probably mention to talk about to describe the cliches (favorable or not) that came with the show, but "No Exit" (guest starring a pre-Die Hard Bruce Willis) is probably the best example of the show in its prime. Evidently, the basis for making a feature film adaptation came because Foxx, who had starred in Mann's Ali (2001), suggested the idea. Perhaps it is irony that the production of what is considered one of Mann's average films eventually led to the creation of his most polarizing films. A "director's cut" version of the film takes the 132-minute runtime of the original to include a few contextual sequences along with trimming certain bits to make a 139-minute cut (probably the most noted thing is that Nonpoint's 2004 cover of Phil Collins's "In the Air Tonight" plays more clearly). Of course, nothing can erase the fact that the departure of Foxx from filming abroad (because of an incident in the Dominican Republic) led to the curtailing of the planned ending (which evidently would have been filmed in Paraguay) for a rewritten one.

This was the ninth feature film for Mann, and it was a mild success with audiences at the time. The reputation of the film has certainly lent to interesting perspectives with the passage of over a decade since its release, which has softened the middle-ground view of the time. The style and aesthetics of the film certainly lends plenty of credit for a film that really verges itself on the passion of not really trying to pay attention to its attempt at a "ripped from the headlines" story that has the pacing of a hamster on a deflated ball. The show had a main character who lived in a boat with an alligator, the film basically is just two guys who might as well be named Man A and Man B. That doesn't mean I dislike the film, because it is still fairly interesting as a curiosity when it comes to ideas about flawed men trying to live flawless lives of deception and enterprise. It meanders, but it means well. Going into it with minimal knowledge of the show probably works out better for all involved. Whether because of the curtailed ending or not, Foxx somehow suffers in comparison to Farrell when it comes to trying to grasp a useful performance that isn't just "adequate". Strangely enough, Farrell is the one most prevalent in saying his displeasure with the film, stating it as some sort of "missed opportunity" when it came to the friendship meant to be portrayed between the two characters (of course, the fact that he went to rehab right after production probably doesn't help). manages the look of a man who is truly conscious of just what it means to be alive in that game of trust that seems to enjoy the rush of it but also looks like he is being eaten on the inside because of the grind that comes with those moments of where the truth lies. The romance between him and Gong. They may not look like the ideal pairing, but that's the point, its like a crash of waves that only a surfer could want to take no matter the highs and lows that come with it. Foxx, well, hmm, yea, maybe he really should have thought twice about wanting a Vice film. It's not so much that he doesn't really capture the tone of the original (as set by Thomas), it just seems that he is in autopilot, as if the only thing that mattered was to simply be there to say a few lines and boom, there's a partnership of deception (the dynamic between him and Harris doesn't even me blink, but then again I barely remember that there is supposed to be a supporting cast around Crockett and Tubbs 25% of the time in the actual show). Both of the leads seem a bit distant in that regard, but I think you can let it pass if you let the movie pass through. If not, try another buddy film. So yes, it isn't really a straight-line show adaptation, because if that were the case, the one-note capture of folks (in relation to show counterparts) such as Henley would bother me more. At least Ortiz makes a suitable adversary when it comes to players and aggressors of trust. In the end, "time is luck", and that means a film that tries to hold itself to the vibes of the moment for interesting style and a few useful action cues to cover what is neither a masterpiece or a bad time but is instead just fine. If you really care about the intricate vibes that make style and culture to walk over a mild storyline and mid acting, well, then you have quite the curiosity here. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Django Unchained.

Review #1932: Django Unchained.

 

Cast: 

Jamie Foxx (Django Freeman), Christoph Waltz (Dr. King Schultz), Leonardo DiCaprio ("Monsieur" Calvin J. Candie), Kerry Washington (Broomhilda "Hildi" von Shaft), Samuel L. Jackson (Stephen Warren), Walton Goggins (Billy Crash), Dennis Christopher (Leonide "Leo" Moguy), James Remar (Butch Pooch / Ace Speck), David Steen (Mr. Stonecipher), Dana Gourrier (Cora), Nichole Galicia (Sheba), Laura Cayouette (Lara Lee Candie-Fitzwilly), Ato Essandoh (D'Artagnan), Sammi Rotibi (Rodney), Clay Donahue Fontenot (Luigi), Escalante Lundy (Big Fred), Miriam F. Glover (Betina), Don Johnson (Spencer "Big Daddy" Bennett), and Franco Nero (Amerigo Vessepi) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, #1218 - Pulp Fiction, #1251 - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, #1307 - Jackie Brown, #1551 - Inglourious Basterds)

Review: 

"I want to explore something that really hasn't been done. I want to do movies that deal with America's horrible past with slavery and stuff but do them like spaghetti westerns, not like big issue movies. I want to do them like they're genre films, but they deal with everything that America has never dealt with because it's ashamed of it, and other countries don't really deal with because they don't feel they have the right to."

It should only figure that Quentin Tarantino had his eye on Sergio Corbucci. Tarantino was actually writing a book about the director when he found a way to tell a story that he wanted to make in a tribute to Spaghetti Westerns, one where he found inspiration in what he saw as Corbucci's "this evil Wild West, a horrible Wild West" in his feature. Specifically, Tarantino is doing a tribute to Corbucci's Django (1966), a film that the director co-wrote that featured Franco Nero as star involving a drifter and a companion mixed into a deadly feud between Confederates and Mexican revolutionaries. The film was made to capitalize on the success of Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars (1964), which in turn was a "loose" remake of Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo (1961). If you remember, Inglorious Basterds (2009) was made by Tarantino as his desire to make a Spaghetti Western but as a World War II film, and we all know how that went: good for some, okay for others. Here, he has made a film that he calls a "Southern" that is part of his long line of tributes to genres of film such as revenge films, road-rage movies, and martial arts films.

Honestly, I enjoyed the film far more than I thought I would, with my hopes being that it would be a slightly more interesting of sprawling alternate history than the weird jumble that came from his last feature. Of course, Waltz and Tarantino won Academy Awards for their work on the film (both winning their second award for acting and writing, respectively), so who knows what kind of expectations were to be had here from Tarantino's seventh feature. I felt it was a consistent pulp experience that shows its respect for the filmmakers of the past in terms of classic Western types without becoming just a carbon copy of the things that were. It packs a message about slavery and racism in a revenge movie that conveys a sense of scope and scale worth all of the attention it has received in the ten years that have passed since its release. It is dignified mayhem seemingly split into two segments: a movie about the repertoire of its two main stars and a movie about revenge through the eyes of Foxx. History is taken to the woodshed in a glorious manner, with Tarantino saying that he wanted to show two types of violence: the brutal reality of slave life and the violence of retribution, since he believes the genre of the Western reflects the time it was made in more than any other genre to go along with reflecting the morals and feelings of its audience. The Western may not be the most prevalent genre of the past few decades, but they sure do pull an interesting punch when a director is interested in generating fresh voices of the West. It is funny when you think about the fact that DiCaprio and Jackson don't show up until the first hour has passed in a 165-minute movie. And yet, the pair of Foxx and Waltz are ideal to hold everything together, making a great pairing in both chemistry and their distinct approach to the art of hired guns. Foxx is confident and capable to the task at hand, and it is interesting to see that he was not the first choice approached, since Tarantino wrote it with Will Smith in mind, but he rejected it (he wanted to make a love story, not one about vengeance, go figure). Foxx knows what he wants to do and say as a knight of vengeance that is never consumed in self-parody. Oh, the film does have little moments of humor between the two, particularly since Waltz plays dignity to an amoral(ish) killer, which he plays magnificently: they are fun together without making one think the whole film is just them and nothing else. DiCaprio is magnificent in clear-cut villainy in his time on screen that makes him suitably intense when you see him on screen. Jackson is the ideal foil in as the off-center moral compass with resourceful timing and the expressive nature you expect from him that makes him an ideal actor that has collaborated with Tarantino countless times. The rest of the cast proves worthwhile in their own contribution to the terror of dignity in 1858, whether that involves Johnson and his huckster plantation act or the oozing menace in Goggins or the weary fear in Washington. The movie has a wonderful design and atmosphere to it, but I am sure you already know that.

Well, the movie is probably not for everyone, which you might say for a number of Tarantino movies depending on one's patience for violence or language, particularly with the use of one particular word. However, the movie sat fine with me, since Tarantino has a keen eye for what he wants to show in violence and atmosphere without going up his own nose in gratuitous excess (he actually trimmed the film's violence down a bit before release anyway, even though it already received an R rating from the MPAA), despite what critics may think of his interest in not just making a message movie with the usual trimmings. What's not to ponder in a movie that seems a reference of phrenology, people being used as human shields, fighting to a pulp, supremacists dwelling on how hard it is to see out of a hood, and action that might as well be called Shaft (1971) on a horse? You know what really is more of a problem than violence in movies? Folks who really believe that toning things down is better than confronting them head on. It is the grisly Western that represents its era in all of the ways it needs to be: honest without condescending, brutal but not exploitative, and entertaining but not inattentive to the matter at hand. It is the sensation you would hope from Tarantino in the art of making fresh kinetic cinema. He may not hit the mark on every moment of bold brutality, but he knows where he is going without wandering too far from wanting to entertain himself and others.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

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.

Ali.

Review #1531: Ali.

Cast: 
Will Smith (Cassius Clay Jr / Muhammad Ali), Jamie Foxx (Drew Bundini Brown), Jon Voight (Howard Cosell), Mario Van Peebles (Malcolm X), Ron Silver (Angelo Dundee), Jeffrey Wright (Howard Bingham), Mykelti Williamson (Don King), James Toney (Joe Frazier), Jada Pinkett Smith (Sonji Roi), Nona Gaye (Belinda Boyd / Khalilah Ali), Michael Michele (Veronica Porché), Joe Morton (Chauncey Eskridge), Paul Rodriguez (Dr. Ferdie Pacheco), and Bruce McGill (Bradley) Directed by Michael Mann.

Review: 
"The accomplishment of Will Smith in that movie is extraordinary: It’s not just the movement and the boxing — that’s difficult enough; it’s having your head in 1964, which came from sitting where you’re sitting and talking to Geronimo Pratt. That’s the challenge, because that’s what’s really, sincerely exciting — to get things to the point where they become emotionalized and real, so hopefully they have an impact upon audiences.”

It takes a life as big as Muhammad Ali to have two big names behind a biopic about his crucial years, which is why Michael Mann and Will Smith seemed destined to make this film together. The Chicago-born Mann studied English at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, but it was the viewing of films by F. W. Murnau and G. W. Pabst along with the release of Dr. Strangelove (1963) that influenced him about becoming a director and making a film with an individual statement with successful appeal for serious cinema without needing to be niche. He attended London Film School and subsequently made commercials and shorts before eventually moving back to the United States to do television, which led to his TV breakthrough with The Jericho Mile (1979) before a feature film breakthrough with Thief (1981). Known for his focus on his work with detail and style, this is the seventh of his eleven directorial efforts, and he would also serve as a co-producer and co-writer on the screenplay (with Eric Roth, Stephen J. Rivele, and Christopher Wilkinson, while Gregory Allen Howard got credit for the story). As for Smith, he had risen to fame through various media, which included hip hop in the late 1980s and television with The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (1990-96) before carving a breakthrough in film with Six Degrees of Separation (1993). Smith had his hesitations of taking on Ali in part because of uncertainty about the script but also in if he was ready to be involved in the feature. He went through months of training in learning about boxing and Islamic studies while gaining weight for the role for a project that ultimately ballooned to over $100 million in budget.

Ali had been prominent on and off the ring, with his pursuits involving writing, music, and acting, which included features such as a.k.a. Cassius Clay (1970, documentary), which had archival footage and interviews with Ali about his exile from the ring, The Greatest (1977), in which Ali starred as himself detailing his life from 1960-1974, and When We Were Kings (1996, documentary), which detailed the "Rumble In The Jungle" fight with archival footage. One could likely do multiple projects on the life of Ali or study him and his prominent life through simply seeing him near a boxing ring. However, this is a film that details the most important years of his life that go from 1964 to 1974, detailing his holding to his principles through a rise, fall, and rise again to the ring and what matters to him most when it comes to holding his principles in religion and against war. In this sense, Ali is a decent film, packed to the prim with observation and some of the confidence and curiosity that made Ali such an icon while perhaps dragging its feet in covering all the fine points of what it wants to show in its vision, a man filled with idiosyncrasies that made him a courageous rebel with struggles and human flaws. In this sense, Smith pulls off a wonderful performance, wrapped in confidence that does well in bravado and stature that works as a tribute to the man portrayed without seeping into hagiographic worship, elevating the material beyond putty if in lesser hands. Foxx proves just as well in delivering someone wrapped in hype and mystery with the right kind of conviction and timing when he is needed for the experience. Voight, wrapped in makeup, pulls off a pretty convincing performance, one with enterprising presence that likely captures the blustery confidence of the real Cosell (in my vague awareness of him the film did actually teach me something I didn't know, namely that he studied law before broadcasting) without just seeming like a pale imitation. Others do fine, but they generally seep in and out of the film as time goes on that make it a bit difficult to really grab a hold on (aside from one might know about them, as is the case with figures played by Van Peebles and Williamson), although at least the film never detracts from its time period with something distracting. The boxing sequences are generally well done, handling the plight of what it means to get beaten pound-for-pound with flourish and careful cutting. Even though the film was not a success with audiences at the time, it shouldn't erase what turns out to be a useful experience to see on screen. One's enjoyment of the film comes from how much of the material will resonate with a viewer when it comes to being a celebration of Ali and what he went through in a decade of fighting others from the ring onto the system that go from place to place with a fair bit of impact for its surroundings that make a decent achievement for both Mann and Smith to be proud of.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Any Given Sunday.

Review #1523: Any Given Sunday.

Cast: 
Al Pacino (Tony D'Amato), Cameron Diaz (Christina Pagniacci), Dennis Quaid (Jack 'Cap' Rooney), James Woods (Dr. Harvey Mandrake), Jamie Foxx (Willie Beamen), LL Cool J (Julian Washington), Matthew Modine (Dr. Ollie Powers), Jim Brown (Montezuma Monroe), Lawrence Taylor (Luther 'Shark' Lavay), Bill Bellamy (Jimmy Sanderson), Andrew Bryniarski (Patrick 'Madman' Kelly), Lela Rochon (Vanessa Struthers), Lauren Holly (Cindy Rooney), Ann-Margret (Margaret Pagniacci), Aaron Eckhart (Nick Crozier) Directed by Oliver Stone (#095 - Wall Street, #1090 - Platoon, and #1265 - Natural Born Killers)

Review: 
"I love intelligent films that come at you fast. I don't have attention deficit disorder, my mind moves fast. There's a lot to deal with in my films. We had so many facts to go through, so the governing style was flash, cut, flash, repeat."

One needs to see a bit of distinct vision every now and then from a director, and Oliver Stone closed out his 20th century with another distinct focus in football. He had been a student at Yale University before doing service in Vietnam first through teaching students English in Saigon to wiping Merchant Marine ships to dropping out of Yale and enlisting in the United States Army. He went into New York University after that and graduated with a film degree in 1971. He made his first film as a director with the cheapie Seizure (1974) before getting the chance to write Midnight Express (1978), which resulted in an Academy Award for his script despite inaccuracies of the depiction of the real-life prison story. The Hand (1981) followed for Stone as a director, but the five years between this and his next was crucial, since he wrote Conan the Barbarian (1982) and Scarface (1983) in that time. He rocketed to further prominence with Platoon (1986) that kept him busy over the prevailing years, with this being his 15th as director/writer. He has touched subjects such as war with Salvador (1986), biopics with The Doors (1991), to crime with Natural Born Killers (1994), all seeming distinct in their provocative nature by Stone.

I wonder if Stone wanted to make the ultimate football film. What we have here is truly a hodgepodge of clichés and assumptions you can have in a sports film, right from an upstart rookie becoming a star and then needing to not become consumed in arrogance, a wearied wise coach (perhaps like Tom Landry?), action montages, and even having actual athletes as stars (of which there are several notable ones of the past like Lawrence Taylor or Johnny Unitas). Stone had first expressed an interest in a football project with an early 1980s script about an old linebacker he wrote in mind for Charles Bronson. Years later, he met journalist Richard Weiner. He had developed a script with former player Jamie Williams about a black quarterback. This would be combined with scripts done by John Logan and Daniel Pyne alongside inspiration from You're Okay, It's Just a Bruise by Robert Huzienga Jr (former team physician of the Los Angeles Raiders detailing player injuries); Stone and Logan would get screenplay credit while Pyne and Logan got story and Weiner and Williams were consultants. This frenzy also applies to editing, since there are four listed as part of the film. Stone clearly was under the mindset that football was somehow like war, particularly with how it marched on as a team together as opposed to individual only, while also seeing the other sides of football life (like the pain and egos). On a basic level, I would say that this is a decent movie, wrapped with making an involving film packing an ensemble worthy of carrying most of its weight that Stone wants to put on them on and off the field that can be fairly entertaining. Of course it also is considerably lengthy at 162 minutes (157 for the director's cut, in which twelve minutes were cut for pacing while adding six minutes of other scenes) with a self-importance like no other in its presentation of football players as the modern gladiator (complete with a brief flash of Ben-Hur to drive home the point) with all of the excesses that come from Stone's view on the matter. It is firmly a film of the 1990s in all the right and weird ways, one that I chuck a smile at when it stops doing flashes of editing and focuses on just the basics.

Pacino does quite well with the material required in garnering a leader one could rally around in all of the moods required, whether that involves weary loneliness or stubborn dominance that seems fairly convincing in rally curiosity. Diaz matches him in cleverness that never seems like a doorstep to forget about, a figure of new-school arrogance that does seem quite amusing. Quaid does fine with a man on his last leg of fame (and perhaps health) - respectable without being drowned in pity. Woods doesn't have too much to really do, but he is quite a conniving figure behind the lines that has one really good scene to munch on involving him being caught in a lie about the health of the players. Foxx (picked after Sean Combs lost the role apparently because he couldn't throw a football) captures the bravado of a rising star and all that comes with it in good detail, whether that involves brimming confidence or sparring words with anyone. Others such as Cool J and Taylor make the best of their time on screen in charm and coarse acting that resonate the siding of the football action in its business and excess. It can't quite keep every thread going without being a bit lost, but at least its numerous showing of games do look fairly convincing (hits and all) within a fictionalized football league (in the year 2001 no less). It still has a punch when it comes to the TV-infected sensationalism and other various topics, and it definitely seems willing enough to want to inspire a thought without bashing your head with it. On the whole, it lumbers to points about football gladiators and its exploitation a bit too much, but it does work itself enough to win out in the end.

Next Time: We venture into the 21st century.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Stealth.

Review #1089: Stealth.

Cast: 
Josh Lucas (Lt. Ben "Big" Gannon), Jessica Biel (Lt. Kara "Guns" Wade), Jamie Foxx (Lt. Henry "E-Z" Purcell), Sam Shepard (Capt. George Cummings), Joe Morton (Capt. Dick Marshfield), Richard Roxburgh (Dr. Keith Orbit), Ian Bliss (Lt. Aaron Shaftsbury), Ebon Moss-Bachrach (Tim), David Andrews (Ray), and Wentworth Miller (EDI) Directed by Rob Cohen (#043 - The Fast and the Furious and #924 - The Boy Next Door)

Review: 
For a movie that is called "Stealth", the film's only real secret is that it is terrible within the first twenty minutes. From its preposterous plot to the underplayed characters that are followed up by equally underplayed acting, this film was a notable failure upon original release, making just over half of its reported budget of $135 million dollars. It would seem they put more thought into spending money for the effects than anything else, for the movie's detriment as it turns out. The effects aren't terrible, but there isn't a moment where you really feel the need to appreciate what is being shown on screen, with the action sequences being the worst offenders at this, feeling like bad cut-scenes that never cease to try and stymie the eyeballs. I was reminded of Broken Arrow (1996), a film I covered five years ago, while watching this flick - and that is not a compliment, seeing how that one was actually more riveting in comparison, where even Top Gun (1986) would be embarrassed at this thing. The movie uses the "set in the near future" excuse as a way to try and throw lingo (such as quantum computing) and the concept of AI, which is even more amusing if one has seen 2001: A Space Odyssey and its version of AI with HAL 9000, which was thought of in the 1960s as opposed to the 21st century like with Stealth, with the AI here seemingly placed to make it seem a little less like a generic action film and more like a generic science fiction action movie, but there is no way that any sane person would consider this sci-fi. This is more the kind of movie you would reject for $1 at the pawn shop than a worthwhile thing to watch.

There is something about this movie can't generate excitement beyond a chuckle at how over-the-top it presents itself that makes it a chore from start to finish. The acting is the nail in the coffin for this film, with our main trio of Lucas-Biel-Foxx being ridiculous to follow through with, in part because their characters are relentlessly generic and none of them are really up to the task of elevating them to watchability. The closest to entertainment value is Foxx, who has a few moments of amusement. Lucas and Biel have zero chemistry with each other, and they equally add zero charisma to these roles, coming off as boring people to follow that aren't entertaining even in the action sequences. Shepard doesn't do too bad, but the film seems to be beneath him, reminding me of how much more fun I had with him in The Right Stuff (1983). The most amusing voice is Miller, playing the "rogue AI", a trope that you can see coming nearly five minutes after he is first introduced. The plot is all over the place with stuff that you can readily expect and stuff that you wouldn't dare expect, but the most amusing aspect is a line of dialogue referring to the AI, in that it apparently downloaded all of the songs from the web. Yes, an rogue AI that not only goes against commands but also is a pirate of music companies. Oh, the horror. Trying to analyze the film or tear down its flaws piece by piece would be just as exhausting as watching the movie, only less time-consuming. By the time the film has the gall to end with a post-credits scene, you will have already started the process of trying to forget what you have seen, in the hope that it won't bore you to death any further than it already has in its 121 minute run-time. Even as a bad flick, it isn't enjoyably bad, managing to be a relentlessly dull and plodding piece of dreck.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Baby Driver.

Review #971: Baby Driver.

Cast: 
Ansel Elgort (Baby), Kevin Spacey (Doc), Lily James (Debora), Jon Hamm (Buddy), Eiza González (Darling), Jamie Foxx (Bats), Jon Bernthal (Griff), Flea (Eddie "No-Nose"), Lanny Joon (JD), and CJ Jones (Joseph) Directed by Edgar Wright.

Review: 
Admittedly, I took some time before getting to see this film (roughly three weeks after its release), but I figured that it would be worth the wait. This is a fairly cohesive action flick that is fast and efficient in its style and pacing, with the characters and music corresponding to that. It has a level of mayhem and excitement that is undeniably interesting to watch, taking elements from other heist flicks and making them feel fresh and reliable to see carried out on screen. It has its shares of thrills, but it also is a movie that doesn't sacrifice the plot to get to the highs that it rises to, with fine editing from Paul Machliss and Jonathan Amos and cinematography from Bill Pope as well. It's a movie that can have some nice blend of music (like "Brighton Rock" by Queen, for example) but also have some nice scenes with Elgort and Jones in sign language. Elgort certainly fits in line with the movie, having a cool but careful demeanor that certainly makes him easy to watch, and his chemistry with James reflects that, with their scenes together working fairly well. The other core four (Spacey, Hamm, González and Foxx) are also pretty good together, with Spacey and Hamm having their own kind of arcs that have payoffs that the movie earns. Foxx does a fine job with this unhinged but always watchable character, and Gonzalez does a fine job with her role as well. The climax of the film is like a roller coaster, having a few twists and turns (much like other good flicks of its genre) that manage to keep one on their toes at what happens next. There is a good amount of flash to the film, but it has a substance of reality and reliability that makes it shine as an acceptable and unique action flick with enough wit and class to spare.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Dreamgirls.

Review #339: Dreamgirls.

Cast

Jamie Foxx (Curtis Taylor, Jr), Beyoncé Knowles (Deena Jones), Eddie Murphy (James Early), Jennifer Hudson (Effie White), Danny Glover (Marty Madison), Anika Noni Rose (Lorrell Robinson), Keith Robinson (C.C. White), Sharon Leal (Michelle Morris), and Hinton Battle (Wayne) Directed by Bill Condon.

Review

It's been a while since I've reviewed a musical, so I decided to watch this for hopefully some good entertainment. So how is it? It's fine. I'd mention that this was apparently based off a musical based on real events, but trying to review a film with that history never ends well for me, but oh well. Knowles does a fine job, bringing some good depth. Hudson does an excellent job, working very well, especially when paired with others in the cast. But strangely the two I seem to like for this film are Eddie Murphy and Danny Glover, as they seem to bring a lot of depth and a lot of excellence. That or the fact it's a good job by Murphy, which seems to be a bit rare in the 2000's. And then there is Jamie Foxx as our (spoiler alert) villain. I get it, he is one of the main contributors to the group's success...even though yea, he's the villain. He does a good job, but somehow I feel he is a bit off. There's something about having a villain in a musical that could work...most of the time. The songs are good, having some soul, though I find it to be a bit awkward to have the cast sing some of their lines when their is no people to listen to. While it does have some small flaws, this is not a bad film. It works well and it does have some use for the most part.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.