Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

Review #2408: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

Cast: 

Michael Cera (Scott Pilgrim and Nega Scott), Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Ramona Flowers), Kieran Culkin (Wallace Wells), Anna Kendrick (Stacey Pilgrim), Brie Larson (Natalie V. "Envy" Adams), Alison Pill (Kim Pine), Aubrey Plaza (Julie Powers), Johnny Simmons ("Young" Neil Nordegraf), Mark Webber (Stephen Stills), Ellen Wong (Knives Chau), with Satya Bhabha (Matthew Patel), Chris Evans (Lucas Lee), Brandon Routh (Todd Ingram), Mae Whitman (Roxanne "Roxy" Richter), Keita Saito (Ken Katayanagi), Shota Saito (Kyle Katayanagi), and Jason Schwartzman (Gideon "G-Man" Graves) Directed by Edgar Wright (#971 - Baby Driver, #1537 - Shaun of the Dead)

Review: 

"We thought it should play out like a musical in a way in terms of the fights are not dissimilar to the songs. I always thought there were a lot of martial arts films that were like musicals, so we wanted to take that further. Ya know, in a Gene Kelly film when he performs an amazing routine, at the end of the scene no one goes, 'Oh my god, that was fucking amazing!' The song is about something, and then there might be some dialogue at the end that is also about that theme. And that's kind of how this works where people have these huge fights – and it's kind of like how it is in the books – where everything goes back to normal, and there's a little reaction to what just happened, but there's no sort of mourn the dead."

Yes, it is weird to see how time flies by to say a movie from the 2010s is now 15 years old. It serves as an adaptation of the series of graphic novels of the same name that had been published in six volumes from 2004 to 2010, as written and drawn by Bryan Lee O'Malley, who had been inspired by various works ranging from Ranma 1/2, Koudelka (layouts) and other manga. Around the time after the publication of the first volume came the inklings of maybe adapting it to film, and Edgar Wright (of the then-released Shaun of the Dead, which naturally was followed up with Hot Fuzz [2007]) was approached and he liked the idea because he liked the books, with one factor being that he noted that with a few exceptions*, there hadn't been a "bigger film that dealt in sort of like a comedy comic book film...combining the mundane with the fantastical.". Wright and Michael Bacall wrote the screenplay for the film while O'Malley was involved with "bits and pieces" of the process (in particular, the ending had influence by O'Malley over the original planned ending, since the movie was coming out in the wake of the release of the last volume in July of 2010). The movie was inspired by a litany of movies ranging from Danger: Diabolik [1968] to Phantom of the Paradise [1974] (particularly with its villain, consider that). Apparently, Universal Pictures didn't know how to market the movie to audiences; the movie was first screened in July of 2010 before being released in theaters starting with America on August 13, 2010 and it was not a major success at the time. However, as one probably guessed, it has developed a following. The entire cast reprised their roles for an animated TV show (Scott Pilgrim Takes Off) that had a handful of episodes in 2023.

It probably is a movie that gets better and better for those who really like what the movie is selling in terms of light fun in an era where people still wondered what the hell was the difference between "geek" and "nerd" anymore. It probably helps that there was a pretty talented cast involved* who happens to be pretty enjoyable to view on screen. For me...it was fine. It rides a good deal of highs and a few lows for 112 minutes that generally has the enthusiasm to make one at least see themselves somewhere in the entertaining ensemble and visual sequences. You might as well call it a distinct comic or also video game movie with the fact that it actually takes the time to look like a comic (i.e. sound effect onomatopoeia) to go along with its video game logic with, well, handling action sequences. You either roll with its punches (some visual and some in jokes such as tricking a vegan into drinking half-and-half) or, well, you don't. Call it silly, but it does take a bit of time to really, truly, root for that title character. At least his hang-ups are more interesting to think about in everyman weirdness than say, Woody Allen*. Actually, I take that back, it does take a bit of time to also appreciate Ramona beyond calling her a flake (and in turn, calling Scott a little worm)*. But I like Cera and Winstead just fine, so there's that. It's an interesting push-and-pull thing where one is juggling seeing the life of our guy and the folks around him, and I think it works out pretty well in the fact that there isn't a weak spot amongst the folks. In particular, it is fun to see Culkin and Plaza every now and then because of their natural timing that just is really funny in snappy charm (look, how many folks have lines where they are censored with a black box on purpose). Chau actually is a bit funny in her own path of realization beyond just hanging around in the ides of youth and so on. Of the group of "Evil Exes", Evans and Schwartzman do stick out the best, namely because there are a handful of laughs in bravado from the former and the Phil Spector imitation in the latter that keep the movie rolling along just right. It is a movie that has a boundless charm that with the right mindset in mind for the viewer would be enough to deflect any lingering quibbles with the movie. Lack of stakes? Eh, its a movie about a guy getting a hold of himself beyond just having the same expectations of oneself that happens to need to turn opponents into pixels, stakes are for "suspense" movies. It just happens to be a movie fit for casual enjoyment, and it likely developed a cult following because people really did come around to viewing the movie for all of its little quirks that is admirable to see in commitment. Fifteen years later, we may very well see further people get latched onto the movie and its grabbing of the times it was made in a further interesting light fifteen further years down the line.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Specifically, Ghost World and American Splendor, as noted here.

**Imagine saying a film had two future Academy Award winners in its cast and it is located in the supporting cast with Culkin and Larson.

***I will state that I did know exactly one person who liked changing their hair color to blue. She liked women and even shacked up with a married person. It's too bad she was a flake, she seemed like a friend at one point in time.

****Speaking of people with an "interesting" attraction to young women. Okay, I stretched that joke, but I don't like that little cretin.

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse.

Review #2015: Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse.

Cast: 

Shameik Moore (Miles Morales / Spider-Man), Hailee Steinfeld (Gwen Stacy / Spider-Woman), Brian Tyree Henry (Jefferson Davis), Luna Lauren Vélez (Rio Morales), Jake Johnson (Peter B. Parker / Spider-Man), Jason Schwartzman (Dr. Jonathan Ohnn / The Spot), Issa Rae (Jessica Drew / Spider-Woman), Karan Soni (Pavitr Prabhakar / Spider-Man India), Daniel Kaluuya (Hobart "Hobie" Brown / Spider-Punk), Oscar Isaac (Miguel O'Hara / Spider-Man 2099), Shea Whigham (George Stacy), Greta Lee (Lyla), Mahershala Ali (Aaron Davis), Andy Samberg (Ben Reilly / Scarlet Spider), and Amandla Stenberg (Margo Kess / Spider-Byte) Directed by Joaquim Dos Santos, Kemp Powers, and Justin K. Thompson.

Review: 

You know, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse grew on me. I mean, it was a pretty good movie when I first saw it in the winter of December 2018, but the fact that it became the type of movie I found myself wanting to watch it as some sort of annual tradition makes it especially apparent in how entertaining it was. It was an entertaining animated comic book movie that felt vibrant and different from not only animated adventures but also Spider-Man films in general. It did do references when it came to citing the various incarnations of the character (such as say, a cartoon parody with Spider-Ham or ones based in 1930s noir or anime) without losing what really mattered in the end: anyone can wear the mask. Undeniably, a sequel was going to happen. My surprise (aside from it winning the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, because hey, when do comic book movies win awards?) was that not only would it take five years for a sequel to come out but that there would also in fact be another Spider-Verse film after that (of course, don't take my word for it, since I also thought Halloween (2018) would be a one-off, and then they proceeded to make two ridiculously mediocre back-to-back sequels). The film was written by Phil Lord, Christopher Miller, and David Callaham (Lord co-wrote the first film while also serving as co-producer on both Spider-Verse films with Miller), and it is the fact that they wrote such an expanding story that necessitated a third Spider-Verse film which will be called, wait for it, Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse.

Irrational or not, a sequel has to overcome the thought that nags in my head all the time: how does the film go in the various aspects that matter beyond originality? One thing is for sure is that the film is about the same level of enjoyment as I hoped to have in a pretty good sequel, one that has to balance the double-edged sword of being a sequel and also basically being half of a two-parter. There are a handful of Spider-Verses visited here, each meant to look like a different artist drew them, which goes to show that one can make scope in a comic book film without clouding it in similar shades of CG. I think being just a notch below the sequel territory of films like The Empire Strikes Back (1980) is a compliment. It presents a new step in the arc of trying to maintain oneself after making the step from having a suit and actually being able to use it: just what does it mean to be a hero, especially when it means to be Spider-Man? Power this, responsibility that, but how does one handle a situation you may not be able to solve regardless of how prepared you are? The film is a visual treat in the manner you would expect from filmmakers and animators that clearly want you to pay attention to what is on screen and what strikes out from the various locations and also the various characters, particularly with Spider-Punk. The film has its share of humor to go along with the growing chemistry between the two leads as played by Moore and Steinfeld and the set-up to bring each of these Spider-folks together and how one exactly sees a cliffhanger coming in a film series that says that anything is seemingly possible. In that sense, it makes a suitable adventure for 140 minutes that shows the benefits of animation (which, you know, is just as much a form of film as live-action) that ironically shows up yet another earlier Spider-Man film made by a certain cinematic universe (which actually tried to do their own "multiverse" film) that liked to do their own "easter eggs". The action (when seen among the various locations) is vibrant and interesting to follow without seeming blurred in staging or in overwrought timing, which is par for the course for what you hope animated films (or films in general) would do. 

Moore (as the fourth theatrical Spider-Man, remember) has proven well in this title role, with his charm always managing to come through even when balancing the lingering doubts that still arise from, well, you know, and the doubts ahead. His scenes with his on-screen family in Velez and Henry feel just as interesting as ever in establishing the differences that matter between parent and child (particularly with Velez in a scene where she tries to understand just what is going on with her son as he tries to grow up and maybe tell her something important). Steinfeld proves just as worthy in her own type of wavering confidence, wrapped up in trying to make her own choice in what is most important in terms of saying vs. doing. Among the new folks is folks played by Rae and Soni (each are fine) with the stick out being the one with firm punk elements (no labels) in Kaluuya, who is actually pretty entertaining. Issac (now with a starring role after being shown briefly in the end-credit scene of the last film) makes for a quality balance among the spider-folk in the art of logistical force, which given the amount of screentime could certainly be thought of as just as adversarial as Schwartzman, who does hold his own in the sudden shifts from would-be villain relief to creepy threat. The confrontation sequence between Moore and a "Spider-Society" in what really matters when handling what seems like fait accompli is especially important to understanding the film at its heart, if you think about it. Of course, Johnson does return from the earlier film as well, having emerged from the cocoon of mentor-in-theory to parenthood, which does lend itself to a few amusing moments. As a whole, I think the first film is probably a bit better, maybe because it managed to endure quite well in my head over the years, but the second film will likely have its own worthy place in viewing without trouble. Of course, sticking the other part of the cliffhanger next year would certainly help, since nobody likes to be left hanging without a net. It is a vibrant and effective sequel that makes all the right moves in what you would expect from an animated film or a sequel in general that has plenty of spectacle and heart to make one curious for what could be next.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Marie Antoinette (2006).

Review #1823: Marie Antoinette.

Cast: 

Kirsten Dunst (Marie Antoinette), Jason Schwartzman (Louis XVI of France), Judy Davis (Anne de Noailles, "Countess of Noailles"), Steve Coogan (Florimond Claude, Count of Mercy-Argenteau), Rip Torn (Louis XV of France), Rose Byrne (Yolande de Polastron, Duchess of Polignac), Asia Argento (Madame du Barry), Molly Shannon (Madame Victoire), Shirley Henderson (Madame Sophie), Danny Huston (Joseph II of Austria), Marianne Faithfull (Empress Maria Theresa), Mary Nighy (Princesse de Lamballe), Jamie Dornan (Axel von Fersen), Al Weaver (Charles, Count of Artois), Sarah Adler (Maria Theresa, Countess of Artois), Sebastian Armesto (Louis Stanislas, Count of Provence), and Clémentine Poidatz (Marie Joséphine, Countess of Provence) Directed by Sofia Coppola (#700 - Lost in Translation)

Review: 

“I’m so happy it has an audience now because at the time it was not successful. People didn’t go see it; they didn’t really know what to make of it...It means a lot to me that it continues to live on.”

Oh sure, the Coppola name may be a connected one in cinema, but it doesn't hurt to see the promise of another Coppola making their mark on film. Born in New York City, Sofia Coppola actually became involved in film from a young age, dabbling with a number of appearances in the background of several films done by her father Francis (her first film credit as writer would be as co-writer with her father on "Life Without Zoë", a segment for the anthology New York Stories in 1989), although she also had plenty of her own interests (such as design, photography, and music) while growing up in California; her most notable film role was in The Godfather Part III (directed by F. Coppola) in 1990. She had a handful of interests, but filmmaking would prove to unite all of her interests in a way she wanted, and her first film was Lick the Star, a short done in 1998. Her first chance to direct and write in features came with The Virgin Suicides in 1999 (with F. Coppola's encouragement as co-producer); the film received notice on release in the festival circuit, and her next film would go further. Lost in Translation (2003) won Coppola an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay (to go alongside a nomination for Best Director and Best Picture). The film utilizes the 2001 novel Marie Antoinette: The Journey by Antonia Fraser as the historical material used for the story of Antoinette, and Coppola wanted to make a portrait of the historical figure that did not aim for a traditional biopic and instead aim for a more intimate look of the world of that time; in other words, both the novel and film would end up telling the story of Antoinette without anticipating her ending or reference the sentence she is unfairly associated with ("let them eat cake", a phrase she never said at any point in time). In addition to writing the screenplay, Coppola also served as a co-producer. This was the third film that Coppola has directed over her two-decade career. The film made $61 million on a budget of $40 million while cultivating a divided response from audiences. Fraser noted the differences between her book and the film while saying that she adored the film, for what it's worth.

If you did not know, Marie Antoinette was the Queen of France from 1774 to 1792, having been sent from her native Austria to France at the age of fourteen to secure an alliance between the two countries, which resulted in marriage to Louis XVI (they would not consummate the marriage for eight years); she died at the age of 37 under the French Revolution by guillotine (as was the case with her husband Louis XVI). The storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789, the state prison by the kings of France, is commemorated as the country's national day (France would have a long history of changeover in the next century, which included three Republics and two Empires as Louis XVI was not the last French monarch). Look, do you want a cast's cast for this film or not? Any movie that dares to have Rip Torn play a king and dabble on for moments to chew on as a "randy" King in the first half is clearly on the right track. Dunst makes for a splendid lead performance, one that captures the contradiction that comes with being a young royal with expectations thrusted upon them, one who is whisked away from all she knows to serve strange people in a country that seems so far away when kept in a palace where people are expecting you to have children before you are even 18 while gossiping about you and your "foreign" status; there is a certain angst present within all of the glamour seen, if only because one can only do so much to distract themselves (whether that means wanting candy or not), and Dunst shows the patience required from balancing impulse and dignity, whether that involves life in the Palace of Versailles trying to play nice or time spent in the Petit Trianon for ease away from burdens (such as with supposed affairs). Schwartzman plays well in the curiosity that comes with tenuous chemistry shared with Dunst that reminds one of a janitor trying to find the right broomstick (or in this case, key) for the task required, which results in a few laughs for useful effect, since he seems more adept for locks and hunts rather than the prowl of the bedroom. There is a handful of faces to see through the film that provide a few useful or amusing moments, and this mostly falls on the shoulders of Coogan or Torn, which works out without distraction. Davis and the others do fine in carrying the background among all the pomp and circumstance that make for a worthy paradox (or satire), because Shannon and Henderson essentially remind one of high school gossipers. The film is quite wonderful to gaze upon as expected, most notably with the costume design by Milena Canonero and cinematography by Lance Acord, as each help to make the film an arresting experience to view in a way that movies are meant to do.

As a whole, I think this is actually a pretty underrated movie, one that seems quite relevant and interesting despite the passage of over fifteen years and other costume dramas. Yes, it is a glossy historical movie, but it is a glossy historical movie that manages to be an engaging look into the world of 18th century France and the royalty that feels more apart of the country rather than actually part of it (of course it isn't like the film is a defense of the kingdom over rioters); it is a film that utilizes a stylized interpretation of the doomed queen and privilege to worthwhile effect. It captures both aristocratic fun and the loneliness that comes on the other side to useful effect. It never wastes its 123 minute run-time on sanctimony, serving instead to show its lavish atmosphere (rising and falling) in all the right places with a charming lead that makes for a curious film involving womanhood that makes for a modern hidden gem and a worthy third effort from Sofia Coppola.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Well, we have reached another end of March. It was quite interesting to do another themed March involving women directors, one that saw a handful of captivating perspectives that one would only hope we will see some of again next year. Suggestions are always welcome when it comes to theme months, so we shall see where the wind blows next time. 

Fantastic Mr. Fox.

Review #1553: Fantastic Mr. Fox.

Cast: 
George Clooney (Mr. Fox), Meryl Streep (Felicity Fox), Jason Schwartzman (Ash Fox), Bill Murray (Clive Badger), Willem Dafoe (Rat), Michael Gambon (Franklin Bean), Owen Wilson (Coach Skip), Wallace Wolodarsky (Kylie), Eric Anderson (Kristofferson Silverfox), Jarvis Cocker (Petey), Wes Anderson (Stan Weasel), Robin Hurlstone (Walter Boggis), and Hugo Guinness (Nathan Bunce) Directed by Wes Anderson.

Review: 
"I like to do things that are a little surrealistic but with characters who are real. So that, even if things are a little unusual, the emotions will come through anyway.”

The auteur filmmaker is one that knows and controls his style to create a distinct film of his own merit. Wes Anderson certainly has proven himself worthy of the label alongside a variety of others with his level of filmmaking. The native Texan made films from a young age - making his first films with a Super-8 camera. He liked films such as Star Wars and directors like Alfred Hitchcock, even working as a projectionist when studying philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. In 1992, he directed a short film with friend Owen Wilson called Bottle Rocket (which he wrote with Wilson that was inspired by films like Mean Streets). A submission to the Sundance Film Festival (which James L. Brooks, upon viewing it was "dazzled" by) resulted in an opportunity to direct a feature film based on the short (with time spent re-working the script and filming) - released in 1996, it received notice but was not an audience hit. His next film in Rushmore (1998) proved more successful; after these two films, he already had one significant fan in Martin Scorsese (who called both films "very funny, but also very moving"). His subsequent films have received a good deal of notice that have made for nine released features in nearly 25 films of filmmaking. Anderson is noted for his distinct style of films, which he described as "very personal movies in a way", built with quirks in his characters and with the choices of music and look of each film, while also featuring a variety of recurring actors (such as Schwartzman, Murray, Dafoe, Wolodarsky, and Wilson). For this film (which he co-wrote with Noah Baumbach along with serving as co-producer), it would be done in stop-motion animation with figurines that were made out of fur (with tailored clothing of fabric that he designed himself).

Sometimes a film can be just a bit more than just a fine adaptation of another work. This was based off the 1970 children's novel of the same name by Roald Dahl (who many will recognize as writer of works such as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda, and The BFG, each of which I read as a child) - it was apparently the first book Anderson remembers owning. The film is mostly faithful to the novel, aside from having a focus on the relation of Mr. Fox to his family (which cut the four children to one) that expands upon the narrative (in other words, more than just a fox stealing chickens from a bunch of weirdos), in addition to a tweaking of the ending and a few added scenes. Sure, one could have the voices done in the booth, or they could have them done at a farmhouse as is the case here with such a marvelous film like this proves to be. It never wavers from delivering an interesting story with plenty of whimsy and skill with performances to go along with entertaining voices and design that make a wonderful classic worth 88 minutes. It all falls first to Clooney, who does quite well in brimming confidence that weaves interest and curiosity that generate subtle amusement fitting for that particular timing and character. Streep goes along with reserved grace that makes a well-tuned chemistry with Clooney in their scenes shared together. Schwartzman does well in generating interesting angst and smart remarks for when it is necessary that drives the film in those careful moments handled with his counterpart in E. Anderson (illustrator and author, who had made cameo appearances in his brother's films). Murray makes a few funny moments count without needing to hear too much of him badger on, while Dafoe equally makes his dandy moments count well in amusement. The film hits its stride early and never lets go in examining the nature of longing, alienation, and ultimately togetherness within a worthwhile adventure. I am dazzled by the animation of the film, as it looks quite intricate and rightly executed in creating a world of dazzling charm and palate (with a distinct lack of blues or greens) that never looks excessively gaudy or too much for enjoyment. I like the entertainment it brought to a charming work that honors the original book with its own flourish of humor and narrative for a resplendent achievement for animation alongside its era and director.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.