Sonic the Hedgehog 3.

Review #2323: Sonic the Hedgehog 3.

Cast: 

Jim Carrey (Dr. Ivo Robotnik / Professor Gerald Robotnik), Ben Schwartz (Sonic), Keanu Reeves (Shadow), Idris Elba (Knuckles), Colleen O'Shaughnessey (Tails), James Marsden (Tom Wachowski), Tika Sumpter (Maddie Wachowski), Lee Majdoub (Agent Stone), Krysten Ritter (Director Rockwell), Adam Pally (Wade), Natasha Rothwell (Rachel), Shemar Moore (Randall), with Alyla Browne (Maria), and Tom Butler (Commander Walters) Directed by Jeff Fowler (#1353 - Sonic the Hedgehog and #1830 - Sonic the Hedgehog 2)

Review: 

Believe it or not, there aren't that many video game movies that reach "3" that anyone is actually anticipating. Sure, the first film (as released in 2020) was a pretty decent starter in gently getting folks to be invested in a silly blue blur (as originally developed by Sonic Team in 1991) that goes fast but has to learn about friends, stuff, and, well, a villain (Carrey) being the big highlight when it comes to useful bombast. The sequel (released in 2022) expanded on the lore with two more cuddly dudley creatures for an experience that was reasonably satisfying when it wasn't too grounded in the human element (we are not going to talk about the wedding sequence). It has been a while (there apparently was a "TV series" with one of its characters, but I'll be damned if I spend any time on a streaming show), but here we are with a third movie. This one shares the same writers as before in Pat Casey, Josh Miller, and John Whittington. Evidently, a fourth film is already in development for about three years from now. 

It isn't hard to say that the best parts of the film is when it settles down with familiar characters and lets a moment of spectacle breathe. No, I don't mean a music montage or a litany of references, I mean getting to the point and having fun. It helps to have a committed cast to deliver on building worthwhile stakes and, well, making you happy to see beyond the Earth. The games were designed to play fast and loose with its environment (whether in the dimension of "2D" or otherwise) and an egg-shaped man that loves wreaking havoc in the name of science or something like that. For a movie that runs 110 minutes, it does manage to carry water in solid entertainment that delivers on its expectations in terms of execution in story beats (primarily with Carrey and Reeves). It leaves the viewer (Sonic fanatic or not) with satisfaction and curiosity to see what lurks further in the undiscovered country of further adventures. Admittedly, I was most curious about how Carrey would approach this film because, well, he was "serious about retiring" and would only consider a really good script to come back. Far more than just a money grab or a makeup trap, he manages to do well in generating amusement in the double act (Brendan Murphy played the double for scenes requiring, well, two Carreys) of eccentric geniuses that show distinct layers in terms of being shaped in the disappointment in humanity, whether that means megalomania or something worse. In other words, it isn't just Carrey playing it silly with a big suit with phoning in, he is clearly having enough fun in bombast to sell it all the way down. You might be familiar with the character of Shadow (yet another hedgehog), as first featured in the game Sonic Adventure 2 in 2001 (as created by Takashi Iizuka and Shiro Maekawa with design by Kazuyuki Hoshino for what was meant to be just one game but ended up inspiring its own spinoff game). It helps to have committed voicework from Reeves in making a capable antihero that presents useful pathos and a capable threat to match against Schwartz in beings shaped by the people ripped from them that lives in memory (whether that means throwing a wrench in the usual playful energy or coarse gun-toting coolness). Sure, there are a few worthy quips from the friendly trio (Schwartz-O'Shaughnessey-Elba), but it does find enough time to make the flashback sequences have meaningful structure that doesn't bog itself down in too much self-importance or self-awareness (okay, one duo joke to go with a "garden" is worth it), complete with semblance of having Marsden and Sumpter (fine presences but hey, we are now in the presence of further quick creatures). The action is relatively charming for those who like their sequences with relatively bright lighting and actual time spent in space before having one little rug pull to set for the future (film wise anyway, don't try and sell me on streaming, gaming is my other pastime). In general, it is a neat sequel, establishing further beats to the mythology of speed creatures that happen to reside on Earth for fun that brings charming excitement and danger for the best installment (so far) of the film series.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Well, it is nice to celebrate fourteen years on the familiar grounds of the Internet for movies. A historic October to go with worthwhile theme-months in New Directors (January)/another "A" in August/the November starters/finishers will surely mean bigger and better heights for Season XV in the year ahead. Now let's close out Season 14 with a few more bangers...

The Dead Pool.

Review #2162: The Dead Pool.

Cast: 

Clint Eastwood (Inspector Harry Callahan), Patricia Clarkson (Samantha Walker), Liam Neeson (Peter Swan), Evan C. Kim (Inspector Al Quan), David Hunt (Harlan Rook), Michael Currie (Captain Donnelly), Michael Goodwin (Lieutenant Ackerman), Jim Carrey (Johnny Squares), Anthony Charnota (Lou Janero), and Ronnie Claire Edwards (Molly Fisher) Directed by Buddy Van Horn.

Review: 

Sure, there might be something to say about how the Dirty Harry series managed to end at probably the right time. This was the fifth and final film with Eastwood in the series as originally devised in the previous decade of the 1970s by Harry Julian Fink and R.M. Fink. Say what you will about how the film is in some sort of manner of "politics", the film was a popular one of its time and of now because, well, people do go to watch handily crafted films of action and suspense done right. Magnum Force (1973), The Enforcer (1976) and Sudden Impact (1983) were all adequate sequels to the original, even if they had their varying qualities of definition that ranged to a middling climatic punch to headline-drawing confrontations with smart remarks or heightened contrasts in the pursuit of "justice". I'm just more surprised I didn't turn cynical with any of the sequels, but it probably has something to do with the slap-bang touch that comes with that passiveness of Eastwood as the one constant, because even the directors aren't the same through and through. This was the second of three films directed by Buddy Van Horn, who had served as a second unit director on Magnum Force (1973) and had directed Eastwood in Any Which Way You Can (1980) among other various things; Van Horn's third and final effort was with Eastwood in Pink Cadillac (1989), the action-comedy flop. The screenplay (written entirely by people who never wrote a film again) was done by Steve Sharon while the story was done by Sharon, Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw. The latter two had served as scientific advisors on Eastwood's Firefox (1982) and consultants on Brainstorm (1983) but are perhaps best known for their book on life extension and smart drug movements in Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach.

It probably is a bit tough to seek out a ranking of where the sequel films lie when compared to each other, but one can at least say this one was decent enough for Eastwood to not think about going for another one. You have time to dwell on Guns N' Roses appearing in music and literal form to go with toy car bombs, a young Neeson and Carrey (one going around saying "luv" for dialogue at time and it isn't the comedian saying it) and you get the idea. Getting to 58 and still seeming at home with quips and general dry ways of handling the material is not a bad place to be if you are Clint Eastwood. It wouldn't be his last one of the action genre or the buddy stuff, because he would do variations on it with films such as The Rookie two years later. And yet, well, he is still the professional you usually see in his films (directed or what have you), which is that particular type of dryness that cares about the facts over fluff of the moment. Clarkson does fine in the rapport of media with cops that at least isn't too much of patronizing schtick. Not to spoil anything, but one really might be disappointed in just who the villain is when it comes to presence, but this isn't that new when talking about Dirty Harry sequels, but at least the climax gives some useful cat-and-mouse trickery. I sure could have had more Neeson when it comes to trying to deal in spectacle and obsession in scuzzyness. I suppose seeing nuts that want to be on television or take down folks in delusion sounds about right. The chase sequence involving little dialogue and one particular idea of dealing with explosives does the job without becoming silly. Granted, the film doesn't exactly have the best way of handling its threat to our hero, particularly with a runtime of just 91 minutes, but it all still comes together. The people that dig films like this when it comes to fun slam-bang films (with some sort of message this time around involving the media doing things like you'd see coming from the media) will be fine here while the ones who probably weren't too big on Eastwood as a whole know exactly what they have to pick at here with an inferior sequel that might make them think they are watching A View to a Kill (okay, Eastwood and Moore were each near 60 and each film is set in the Bay Area...). In a sea of decent Dirty Harry sequels, you can't go wrong with any of them as acceptable films for a look around procedure and what can be bent in the idea of justice when it comes to the cloying hands of bureaucracy and eyes all around. As such, The Dead Pool is totally fine for entertainment.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Batman Forever.

Redux #217: Batman Forever.

Cast: 

Val Kilmer (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Tommy Lee Jones (Harvey Dent / Two-Face), Jim Carrey (Edward Nygma / The Riddler), Nicole Kidman (Dr. Chase Meridian), Chris O'Donnell (Dick Grayson / Robin), Michael Gough (Alfred Pennyworth), Pat Hingle (James Gordon), George Wallace (The Mayor), Drew Barrymore (Sugar), Debi Mazar (Spice), Ed Begley Jr. (Fred Stickley), with Ofer Samra (Harvey's Thug), Elizabeth Sanders (Gossip Gerty), and René Auberjonois (Dr. Burton) Directed by Joel Schumacher (#197 - Phone Booth)

Review: 

"I have often been criticized for objectifying men and women sexually in my films. I have yet to find out what the bad part of that is."

This wasn't the first Batman movie to follow Batman Returns (1992), remember. Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993), was the big-screen spinoff of Batman: The Animated Series, and I think we all know that it was a pretty good movie. And yet, here we are with the next live-action Batman movie with Batman Forever. You have to remember that Joel Schumacher wanted to make a Batman movie that wanted to look into the growing fear of the crusade started by Batman, and he happened to be a fan of the comics as a child. In fact, this is the first Batman movie to show the origin of Bruce Wayne stumbling onto what would become the Batcave. Basically, he wanted to possibly adapt Frank Miller's Batman: Year One comic to the screen, but Warner Bros. rejected this idea, which is where Keaton decided to leave the main role. The design of Gotham would be packed more with statues and neon that seems more akin to the 1950s style of Batman rather than Tim Burton's Batman (Burton was relegated to producer). But Schumacher apparently really did want to make a darker movie, reportedly doing a three-hour cut. He also found inspiration to cast Kilmer (favored by the studio as opposed to casting William Baldwin) as Batman when he saw Tombstone (1993). Husband-and-wife duo Lee Batchler and Janet Scott Batchler were tasked to write the story for the film, although Akiva Goldsman (writer on the script for Schumacher's The Client (1994)) would be brought in to do re-writes. Reportedly, Schumacher did in fact shoot scenes for a version of the movie that would have made the film run considerably longer than its two-hour run-time that had a test screening, but it is unknown if the footage for any kind of "Schumacher Cut" could be cobbled together for anyone to see (I would naturally be in favor of the idea).

Honestly, while I can see why the director would wanted to try and maintain some of the dark elements from the previous two movies, I can appreciate what managed to come out from a comic book's comic book movie. Schumacher wants a world with black lights, pastel colors and rave lighting that makes a curious studio product, and it actually managed to grow on me from the nine year difference since I saw it. In other words, if you can't beat doing the Burton look, why not just go for a different kind of distinct look? I think it does just fine in that regard, keeping Gotham in the spotlight of distinct staging that one even sees a knockoff Statue of Liberty for a brief scene. Apparently Kilmer found the movie packed with "kitschiness". He isn't particularly wrong, but it is interesting to look back at the movie in the past and present tense, particularly with what was to come from Schumacher and company two years later. Kilmer takes the lessened reclusive approach to the dual act of the main role, to moderate interest. Granted, he won't be considered better than the previous approach by Keaton, but he basically tries to pull a cheap James Bond impersonation that kind of works in a weird sort of way where folks either want to love him or be him while he tries a bit of dry deadpan alongside a bit of psychological profiling about why he just can't quit being a man dressed as a bat. Kidman seems seeped right in for camp with the offbeat attempts at building chemistry with Kilmer, which only work on a marginal level (i.e. around the level of what you saw from Kim Basinger matched with Keaton in the '89 Batman, only with Kidman being the loony one). I had forgotten to mention that Marlon Wayans was the name considered for the role of Robin when Batman Returns thought of having the character in mind. It did not work out, but at least the idea of Robin being in one of the films was retained, seemingly influenced by the other incarnations of the Robin character (such as Tim Drake). O'Donnell is only marginally useful in the movie, reminding one that the Burt Ward interpretation matched the lead star with striking effectiveness in general timing that O'Donnell (playing a "teenager" while in his twenties) wishes he could do rather than the mediocrity presented here.

It is probably amusing to see Jones and Carrey trying to play villains together, since the former apparently hated the latter because he could not "sanction his buffoonery". Jones had previously worked with Schumacher on The Client, and the director had him tabbed as the first choice. Warner Bros. had to pay out their contract with Billy Dee Williams (cast as Harvey Dent for the 1989 Batman movie) just to get Jones, and I honestly can't see what was such a good idea about doing this. Jones isn't terrible in this movie as it just happens to be a misguided approach to material that seems a bit ripped from Jack Nicholson's Joker from 1989. One needs a better introduction to the character of Dent rather than just have him thrust upon you for the opening action sequence...kind of like having that courtroom scene (shown on TV as exposition) but expanded rather than just being there for a minute (hence the deleted scenes, with one apparently showing how he had escaped from an asylum). The suit he wears begs for the grotesque, but he instead is plastered there like a rabid dog trying to move around with three good legs. Jones is a fine actor well worth talking about, but this isn't exactly one of his shining achievements. Carrey wasn't even the second name thought to be up for the Riddler, since Robin Williams and Steve Martin each turned it down. At any rate, the success of Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (1994) helped attract Schumacher to casting Carrey. He is the star of the show, which works out for some general interest when it comes to seeing someone try to flaunt their intellectual superiority in a brain drain scheme. He has managed to cultivate some of the charm brought out by Frank Gorshin's portrayal of the villain in the 1960s version while still maintaining his own distinct habits to useful results (some might say too useful if one finds the movie as a Jim Carrey movie rather than a Batman movie). 

In total, the plot cohesion is roughly the same as the other two movies, albeit with more of a James Bond type of villain plot involving guys taking people's IQ with a device to get smarter just to get back at rejection. Besides, the deduction to finally put it together on the identity of the Riddler (M-R-E, get it, because it's a mystery?) is not as hard of a leap as when it was done in the 1960s.  The idea to tie a hero's motivation for revenge because the character just happened to kill their parent? Are we talking about Batman (1989) or this movie? The only difference is that the lead hero isn't going around potentially leading henchmen to their doom. In this sense, I appreciated it more in its offbeat manner that is a weird product of its time in the same sense that '89 Batman swept people in its own brand of Batmania. Sure, that movie didn't have anything as...striking as having the Batman costume feature codpieces and rubber tips, but I think you understand what I mean when I say that the movie managed to turn a corner with me. It may be loud and it may sometimes be dumb, but there is something striking about its off-center style that proves a curiosity in the right places to succeed more so than when it strikes out. It won't please everyone that follows the caped crusader in film/television, but it ekes out as a suitable winner in my mind.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Sonic the Hedgehog 2.

Review #1830: Sonic the Hedgehog 2.

Cast: 

James Marsden (Tom Wachowski), Jim Carrey (Dr. Ivo Robotnik), Ben Schwartz (Sonic), Tika Sumpter (Maddie Wachowski), Idris Elba (Knuckles), Natasha Rothwell (Rachel), Adam Pally (Wade), Shemar Moore (Randall), Lee Majdoub (Agent Stone), Colleen O'Shaughnessey (Tails), Melody Nosipho Niemann (Jojo), Tom Butler (Commander Walters), Brad Kalilimoku (Drench), Krista Alvarez (Faucet), and Donna Jay Fulks (Longclaw) Directed by Jeff Fowler (#1353 - Sonic the Hedgehog)

Review: 

You remember the Sonic the Hedgehog games, I am sure. I know I do, because I am quite a fan of these games (as created by Yuji Naka, Naoto Ohshima, and Hirokazu Yasuhara), which have been published by Sega since June 23, 1991 that generally involves quick gameplay alongside springs and loops; not every game has been great, but it has a special place among video games (to the point where June 23 is a special day among folks like me). Of course, I'm also sure you remember the first Sonic film, if only because it was just two years ago (released on Valentine's Day right before you-know-what in 2020) that one got to see a reasonable adaptation of a video game series that I am a reasonable fan of, even if had a weird road to adaptation, such as a loud response to the original design of the title character. It was fine, although I would maintain that all the hubbub about a design would have been for naught if it had been an animated film rather than live action when it comes to capturing some sort of imagination. I decided to re-watch the original film before seeing this one, and honestly the quality of the film was basically the same as I remembered it, which was average, one that played it a bit safe with some of its actions that tried to cultivate a down-to-earth feel to the character that probably benefitted most from Carrey and Marsden being around. The writers for the original film in Pat Casey and Josh Miller return, with each writing the screenplay and story while John Whittington co-wrote the screenplay. 

Look, it does okay as a sequel. It manages to include a few more references to the video games that it admires well while also doing a useful job in satisfying the family-friendly crowds. The bar for video game movies is still pretty low to begin with, but I think one can say this film is slightly above the previous film despite the fact that it only just manages to scratch the surface of where one could go with actually making a film of this material that doesn't seem like a smaller adventure of the games. I find it quite odd that a film series focused on the message of family and working together works best when it actually allows itself to breathe with its video game characters rather than straining in references. The two films are quite similar in their styles, for better or worse: they have decent action pieces, a decent cast, and yet each have a weird imbalance of trying to do humor. Besides, now we have a movie of 122 minutes (twenty-three minutes longer than the first one), which only proves that some movies do need trimming - if one needs a dance contest in their movie, send a strongly worded letter to me, since I rolled my eyes.

At any rate, Schwartz maintains the engaging appeal that comes with this title character is playful in a manner that keeps the spirit of the games around without too many childish annoyances. O'Shaughnessey & Elba make an interesting pair of voices to join along the small furry video game creature crowd, since the former has voiced the character for a number of years and the latter is a fairly recognizable name actor. In that sense, they fit fairly well for the roles in general charm, one that doesn't have to force the lines through for humor (such as with Elba, who seems to have fun with it). Marsden & Sumpter may not have as much to do, but at least they fill their time in the family angle with reasonable conviction that doesn't make one waver when it comes to trying to make one believe that movies about fast blue hedgehogs need families. Carrey has continued to hone-in the heightened egomaniac that he was going for in the first film, which results in a satisfying performance, absurd enough in bombast that continues to make a proper foil (now, the part at the end with him turning into a special effect in a green-lined suit, that is debatable). Rothwell is part of the most puzzling sequence of the film, which involves a wedding played as fake that "sort of" moves the plot along (which is where Moore and Butler come in), but it only reminds me to make sure I don't check my watch often (this is also true for Pally). I should mention that even with all these little quibbles, there is at least a semblance of adventure and promise that is filled, one that yearns to keep its audience engaged without insulting them. If one expects a movie around the same quality as the Sonic film before it, they should be reasonably satisfied, and I suppose that is more than enough.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Truman Show.

Review #1519: The Truman Show.

Cast: 
Jim Carrey (Truman Burbank), Laura Linney (Hannah Gill / Meryl Burbank), Ed Harris (Christof), Noah Emmerich (Louis Coltrane / Marlon), Natascha McElhone (Sylvia), Holland Taylor (Alanis Montclair / Angela Burbank), Brian Delate (Walter Moore / Kirk Burbank), Paul Giamatti (Simeon), Jen Taylor (Contralto Singer), Peter Krause (Laurence), and Harry Shearer (Mike Michaelson) Directed by Peter Weir (#960 - The Year of Living Dangerously and #1185 - Witness)

Review: 
"I'm still amazed how you can put your pen down and think not a line can be changed... You've finally got it right. You pick it up ten days later, and it's all so bad."

Intuition matters in a director, and Peter Weir has made an accomplished career built on that in his native Australia and beyond. He was inspired by people he met while studying law at the University of Sydney to take up film, and he soon became part of Ubu Films, a short-lived filmmaking collective in the region, with it being morphed into the Sydney Filmmakers Co-op that favored independent filmmakers both in the region and abroad with a focus on experimental work. When he was 24, he started in film by making his first shorts with The Life and Times of the Reverend Buckshotte (1968). Weir added television to his foray with Man on a Green Bike (1969), and his next contribution was the segment "Michael" in the TV/film anthology 3 to Go (1971). He then made his first true film with the 50-minute black comedy Homesdale later in that year. The Cars That Ate Paris (1974) later found a cult following, but it was Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) that proved his first triumph in Australia and abroad. The script had been done by Andrew Niccol (known for writing/directing Gattaca in 1997) over the course of several years (with the first treatment being done in 1991) and numerous re-writes, which originally featured prominent elements of science fiction in a New York City setting, which Weir (recommended by Niccol after failed considerations of directors like Brian De Palma) felt should be lighter. Also contributing to a wait in filming was Carrey's busy schedule, but it ultimately proved worth it as a comedy-drama triumph for Carrey that differed from his usual comedic work.

We gravitate to comfort because sometimes we are afraid of the truth that stares us in the face. People can get absorbed into the lives of others because it gives us something that we can gravitate to as a community - imagine watching someone's life at a bar. Creepily enough, the film depicts an aftershow to the main subject - I mean, how many after-shows are there about discussing the show that you literally just watched on television (or streaming, if one is into that)? In that sense, this is a very prescient winner, one that fascinates itself in tender enjoyment held in place through a dynamic Carrey and a good sense of timing in terms of harrowing reality satire. Carrey is enjoyable and convincing for our curiosity to focus on because of the fact that he draws us in through simplicity of the heart: we warm to him with no hesitation or desiring some sort of cheap gag or rubbery movement - in other words, an average Joe that draws humor from what we the audience know at first. Linney does pretty well in generating humor through a retro-inspired act of dubious normalcy that generates an amusing one-two punch with Carrey when there. Harris (hired after Weir let Dennis Hopper go a few days into production) comes along for the second half with an aura of visionary exploitation that pulls in a craven nature of wanting to show entertainment with complicity and conviction without even needing to go past the viewing room like a scientist looking upon his specimen with fascination. Emmerich makes for an adequate assuming pal, while McElhone does okay in small parts involving being the one sane person in this land of television.

The look of the film is certainly very interesting. It was filmed primarily in the master-planned community of Seaside, Florida, which Weir found about due to his wife telling him about Seaside, which falls in line with the inspiration of old-style postcards and paintings and a surveillance-like touch to certain shots. Perhaps it is no surprise that there is actually a delusion suffered by people that relates to the film, one in which people that believe their lives were reality TV shows (such as climbing the Statue of Liberty in the belief that it would release him from the show). If you believed that people all over the world were watching you, would that be a comforting feeling or outright horrifying? Imagine the people you loved or were friends were actually liar-I mean actors. I bet there's probably at least one person who really would like to be on television for the masses to see, or if that fails, stream it to the Internet for unchecked audiences. Perhaps people might really just might watch anything if you give them something to look at, whether that involves surviving on an island, or living on the shores of Jersey, or other representations of supposed "reality television." It lingers for 103 minutes with a fair hand on the wheel in prescience of human satire without becoming consumed in just showing off its premise to pull cheap tricks or diverge itself from keeping its adventure on point right to the very last moment of choice. In the end, we see a lot with our eyes, but it is our choices with what we see and hear that means the most to being free.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Sonic the Hedgehog.

Review #1353: Sonic the Hedgehog.

Cast: 
Ben Schwartz (Sonic), Jim Carrey (Dr. Ivo Robotnik), James Marsden (Tom Wachowski), Tika Sumpter (Maddie Wachowski), Lee Majdoub (Stone), Natasha Rothwell (Rachel), Adam Pally (Wade Whipple), and Neal McDonough (Major Bennington) Directed by Jeff Fowler.

Review: 
Honestly, I had meant to do this film earlier last month, but getting Tribute to the Decades to be completed in time felt more important at the time, and this applies to another 2020 film review in the future. 

As the cliché goes, looks can be deceiving. This is a film that was delayed from its original intended release of November 2019, with trailers being released in April (coincidentally two months before another film with a video game fur creature would come out with Pokémon: Detective Pikachu). However, negative reaction to the design of the main character (which had more humanoid features, particularly with the small eyes) led to a five-month redesign and a February release. It is interesting to think about comparisons about this film with its effects to the aforementioned Pikachu film, since both are based off video game properties with fur characters with varying success over three decades, with one film being set in a murky city and the other being a rural town (with some of the climax being in San Francisco). The Sonic series was developed by Sega through Sonic Team, with two main creators in programmer Yuji Naka and artist Naoto Ohshima. I have been a fan of the series for a few years, mindful of the critique and occasional ridicule that the games have had over the past two decades but appreciative of the charm brought by its main character that makes it just as interesting as say the Mario franchise, which had its own oddball movie adaptation. Video game films haven't had the greatest track record, perhaps because they can't quite hold up adapting the source material into something worth seeing as a movie. There is one easy thing to say about both films: they are incredible in mediocrity (with Sonic perhaps being slightly better), being silly charming films that are in need of more ambition for such PG material. The action proves as okay as watching an actual Sonic game. You know most of where it is going to go because you have been through most of these beats before, unless one really is a kid watching these films fresh of mind. If one enjoys the ride, then they'll be fine with where it dashes to. The most interesting thing about the film is not so much the title character itself but with Carrey. He exudes a manic energy that chews scenery like it is candy, which is important for a super-genius tech villain with only a few basic characteristics that desires camp from someone like Carrey to really generate interest. Sure, Schwartz does a fine main voice, one that makes a few charming quips and makes for a useful presence that evolves with the film for its 99 minute pace without too many hobbles. Marsden, as the straight man to a nut and a blue blur, proves fine. While the film seems more interesting in its brief moments not on Earth than in it, Marsden and the others hold water enough. The film may think it is clever to have bits about loneliness with its title character, but one just wants to see a snappy adventure (beyond quasi-road movie tactics, at least). If the film had been released with the original design, it would've been an average film to ridicule a bit at. Now it is just an average film, successful at entertainment that will hopefully inspire a follow-up more rewarding.

Next Review: The Bank Dick.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Review #1201: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Cast: 
Jim Carrey (Joel Barish), Kate Winslet (Clementine Kruczynski), Kirsten Dunst (Mary), Mark Ruffalo (Stan), Elijah Wood (Patrick), Tom Wilkinson (Dr. Mierzwiak), Jane Adams (Carrie), David Cross (Rob), and Deirdre O'Connell (Hollis Mierzwiak) Directed by Michel Gondry (#451 - The Green Hornet)

Review: 
Memories are a funny thing. Whether they are ones that we prefer to reminisce about or ones that we look back on with a tinge of regret, this is a film that likes to play with memory while dealing what it means to live with emotions that can come from a relationship - whether it involves pain or pleasure. Imagine a person in your life that you loved or cared for at one point in time and having them disappear from your memory just like that; the film certainly creates a world where it feels pretty routine (with one line involving someone trying to have the procedure for a third time in a month), where people map out memories of someone, go to sleep and then awaken to the disappearance of the heartache and faded memories left behind. With different hands, one could probably have made a horror film with the concept of erasing someone from your mind (or perhaps a straight-forward romcom), but it is the handiwork of Charlie Kaufman, Michel Gondry and Pierre Bismuth that make such a clever and original story worth spending time with. It plays itself into numerous genres, such as romance, science-fiction, and comedy-drama. It is a fascinating film to watch play out, particularly with its main performances from Carrey and Winslet. It plays with the audience and their expectations without feeling like a cynical (or sappy) cheat, having plenty of emotion alongside a few interesting effects and a bit of improvisation. Carrey, playing against type, does a wonderful job, being quite entertaining to watch in a shy yet capable role that never seems too sullen or annoying to be around. Winslet is quirky, unpredictable, unfiltered, and quite right for her role, having plenty of range and intensity to her performance, whether when interacting with Carrey in memories or beyond; their chemistry is what makes the film work as well as it does, being snappy and interesting without falling prey to cliches or being undeserving of its moments, particularly with its final scene. The rest of the cast is also quite good, with Dunst and Ruffalo being charming in their scenes together (such as when they jump on the bed in the middle of the memory procedure; Wood and Wilkinson are fine to watch, both handling their parts in memory erasure with varying results that make them handy to see. What makes the film stick out is its willingness to play with its structure and unfold the way it wants and have the audience make sure to pay attention and not simply let things pass by. It doesn't present high stakes, but that is because it wants to aim for something engaging in actuality - to paraphrase from a quote from the film, it is looking for its own peace of mind. Films can often inspire debate and discussion over its meaning or intent, and this is an easy one to inspire exploration for. Fifteen years after its release (which resulted as a mild success with audiences and an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a wildly entertaining ride that proves just right for numerous types of curiosities and tastes, tugging with emotion without going overboard in all the right places to make a winner.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events.

Review #1182: Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events.

Cast: 
Jim Carrey (Count Olaf), Liam Aiken (Klaus Baudelaire), Emily Browning (Violet Baudelaire), Kara and Shelby Hoffman (Sunny Baudelaire), Jude Law (Lemony Snicket), Timothy Spall (Mr. Poe), Billy Connolly (Dr. Montgomery), Meryl Streep (Josephine Anwhistle), Catherine O'Hara (Justice Strauss), and Cedric the Entertainer (the Constable) Directed by Brad Silberling (#267 - Casper)

Review: 
When it comes time to turn books into film, I suppose the best ones to use are the ones meant for children, particularly ones with entertaining qualities that will give plenty for the audience to go for - this book series certainly has some of that, along with a defining dark mysterious feel throughout the thirteen book series done by Daniel Handler (under the pen name Lemony Snicket). With so many books to adapt, it's pretty easy to see why one would combine the first three books (named The Bad Beginning, The Reptile Room, and The Wide Window) when making a feature film, although perhaps the best way to adapt these books would be through television (which occurred a decade later). The film obviously intends to replicate the dark style of the series with its look, using only a small range of colors (such as green or black) while being filmed on sound-stages, which certainly is an interesting way to give the film something to stick out. It certainly reminds me of a Tim Burton film with its look, and at one point he was considered to direct the feature (along with Barry Sonnenfeld) - in fact, Handler was hired to write a script for the film, but setbacks (such as concerns over the budget, which ultimately was over $140 million) and delays led to an eventual change from Handler (who had done numerous drafts) to Robert Gordon for the screenplay.

With all of that in mind, the film that comes from it is an okay product that reaches entertainment level more often than not, but it ultimately is a muddled movie that perhaps needed a bit more focus to really reach its full potential. It seems the film works best when it actually is trying to have a plot than with some of its offbeat characters. Honestly, the highlight of the movie is Carrey, who chews as much scenery as one could possibly do under makeup (done by Valli O'Reilly and Bill Corso, who ended up winning an Academy Award for it) without falling too much into self-parody, in part because he is pretty amusing with a good touch of sinister nature to him that keeps the film moving at times. Aiken and Browning are fairly decent, although I wonder if they would've been more interesting with further portrayals for more adaptations. Law is alright in the occasional moments that he chimes in with his voice. The adult characters (besides Carrey and Law) are each fairly silly, oblivious to the the plan of the villain (much like with how it worked with the books), but I feel that each don't really have the kind of presence to make them feel anything other than just okay, as if the episodic nature of the film makes the flow of the film a bit inconsistent, particularly with the end of the second story and the beginning of the third one (serving as the climax). At least the film seems to have a good touch of faithfulness to its source material, and it seems to work just fine at 108 minutes long, but it never really seems to be too comfortable with its tone, trying to do dark aspects with touches of humor that is okay at best. The style is nice and dandy, but the story perhaps needed something more. Perhaps if the film had inspired a desire to have further sequels (which did not come to pass despite being a moderate success), this one would've have came off a bit better, but as a whole this is just an okay if not too exceptional piece of entertainment, one that can be recommended for a fan curious for more from the series or perhaps someone wanting a bit of style within some mystery.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Me, Myself & Irene.

Review #979: Me, Myself & Irene.

Cast: 
Jim Carrey (Charlie Baileygates/Hank Evans), Renée Zellweger (Irene P. Waters), Chris Cooper (Lt. Gerke), Robert Forster (Colonel Partington), Richard Jenkins (Agent Boshane), Zen Gesner (Agent Peterson), Michael Bowman (Casper), Rob Moran (Trooper Finneran), Daniel Greene (Dickie Thurman), Anthony Anderson (Jamal Baileygates), Mongo Brownlee (Lee Harvey Baileygates), Jerod Mixon (Shonté Jr. Baileygates), Tony Cox (Shonté), Steve Tyler (Delivery Room Doctor), Traylor Howard (Layla Baileygates) Directed by Peter Farrelly and Bobby Farrelly.

Review: 
Admittedly, I didn't have high hopes for this film, in part because I had remembered seeing the first five or ten minutes on television roughly a few years ago and not really being interested enough to watch it all the way through. Years later, it only makes sense that I watch it in a month as middling as this film turned out to be. Carrey does exactly what you would expect in terms of his facial expressions and mannerisms, which can be amusing or at worst tedious, depending on your view of Carrey as a comedian. He works best when playing the Jekyll aspect of his character, having more amusement (and charm, which applies when subject to different kinds of abuse) than when playing the Hyde aspect (diagnosed as advanced delusionary schizophrenia with involuntary narcissistic rage...yes I'm serious), which doesn't really feel funny to watch nor particularly welcome to watch dominate over the other persona (with ensuing times of revenge over people) for a good majority of the film. Seeing him change personas also isn't particularly funny, though that may be because of how many times he shifts throughout the film, such as when he argues with himself in the climax.

Much like the plot, Zellweger's character doesn't really have much depth (though she is fairly charming enough), with the film also not doing fairly well either as a black comedy or a road movie, mostly because the jokes themselves aren't really that special. Obviously there is a market for gross out comedies, but for me it just didn't work most of the time. Sure, there's a decent sequence with a cow, but other jokes feel longer than they should (such as the case with Bowman and his character). The narration by Rex Allen Jr (whose father did the narration for The Incredible Journey - #917) is fine. Did I mention there was a plot? Yes, something involving the EPA and crooked cops, but it all feels secondhand along with not particularly interesting (with Cooper not being given much to do as the de facto bad guy along with Greene). His three children (Anderson, Brownlee & Mixon) are somewhat amusing, though they can't really lift the movie towards anything too clever. The film runs at 116 minutes and even longer on television, but in any case it feels too long. This isn't a terrible experience, but it is also is not a fun experience, at least for me anyway.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls.

Review #525: Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls.

Cast
Jim Carrey (Ace Ventura), Ian McNeice (Fulton Greenwall), Simon Callow (Vincent Cadby), Maynard Eziashi (Ouda), Bob Gunton (Burton Quinn), Damon Standifer (Wachati Chief), and Sophie Okonedo (Wachati Princess) Directed by Steve Oedekerk.

Review
I thought the first film (#148 - Ace Ventura: Pet Detective) wasn't all too bad. It had its moments that worked and while of course it could have been better, it wasn't that bad. The sequel though, just stinks. Ventura was mildly enjoyable in the first, but in this film, the patience and level of joy wears thin, really, really fast. It seems that the movie itself thinks its pretty funny, it laughs at its own jokes, but if you ever were wondering why this is the only sequel to a film starring Carrey in which Carrey reprised his role, this is why. Carrey seems to just be trapped in the role, and while he certainly seems to be trying, the movie can't make up for being so tiresome, yet so short. The cast isn't awful, but they seem to want to watch Carrey act as Ventura then make an impression. It doesn't have much of the spark, if any of the original, and it is somewhat forgettable. Maybe it's better for others who have better patience then I do, but I just didn't find much to enjoy.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Horton Hears a Who!

Review #483: Horton Hears a Who!

Cast
Jim Carrey (Horton), Steve Carell (Mayor Ned McDodd), Carol Burnett (Sour Kangaroo), Will Arnett (Vlad Vladikoff), Seth Rogen (Morton), Amy Poehler (Sally O'Malley), Dan Fogler (The Councilman and Yummo Wickersham), Jesse McCartney (JoJo), and Isla Fisher (Dr. Mary Lou LaRue) Directed by Jimmy Hayward and Steve Martino.

Review
When my enthusiasm after watching The Day of the Doctor today finally quieted down, I found something to watch, another familiar friend from the past. I've reviewed films based off the works of Dr. Seuss before (#210 - The Cat in the Hat and #301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas), which ranged from mediocre (but understandably fine at Christmas time for others) to being awful enough to inspire me to make a poem about it. But anyways, making a Seuss story adapt to animated form is a really good idea, given that making effects for things like say, a speck, or an elephant, are more convincing then say...the makeup that made up the Cat in The Cat in the Hat for example. Then there's the film itself, and it's...okay, I suppose. Shockingly (I know, right?), it's probably the best Seuss film adaptation I've seen (excluding The Lorax, which hasn't been reviewed), but that's also kind of sad, when you think about it long enough. Once again, Jim Carrey stars in a Seuss film, and he...I don't know what it is, but his performance bugs me. Maybe it's the script, or possibly the multitudes of times where it seems he loses all subtlety, but he doesn't provide too many laughs. Steve Carrell on the other hand does bring me joy, and he makes me wonder why I haven't ever reviewed anything else he appears him. Carol Burnett does a fine job as...the villain, I suppose. I don't know if you can call her a villain, but she makes the best of it. The film is fine in the acting department and the visuals are excellent, and despite the brooding attempts of the pop culture references to get in the way, this is a fairly decent film that while not exactly a good film, it's probably the only Seuss film that I can recommend. That, or you could stick to the book, but oh well.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: How the Grinch Stole Christmas.

Review #301: How the Grinch Stole Christmas.

Cast
Jim Carrey (The Grinch), Taylor Momsen (Cindy Lou Who), Frank Welker (Max), Jeffrey Tambor (Augustus May Who), Christine Baranski (Martha May Whovier), Bill Irwin (Lou Lou Who), Molly Shannon (Betty Lou Who), Clint Howard (Whobris), Mindy Sterling (Clarnella), and Anthony Hopkins (Narrator) Directed by Ron Howard.

Review
In my review of The Cat in the Hat (#210), I mentioned the How The Grinch Stole Christmas film in one line of the rhyme (don't ask) Even the Grinch has a better film. 91 reviews later, the being known as irony has come, and so here I am reviewing this. Does it live up to the so called rhyme? It certainly is better The Cat in the Hat, but this can't escape the reaches of the thing known as criticism. To be fair, Jim Carrey (Who is very familiar here: Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, The Mask, Batman Forever, Mr. Popper's Penguins) does a show stealing job, even if sometimes he is a bit grating on the ears. The rest of the aspects varies severly. There are some decent performances by the supporting cast (Let's face it, in any Carrey film (That I've reviewed), he pretty much overshadows the entire cast), but there are some...oddities. Let me get this out of the way, but I loved the 1966 animated special and the 1957 book (By Theodore Geisel [Also known as Dr. Seuss]), but this isn't really in terms of...love. The makeup, while admirable for the effort, isn't really necessary. I do wonder if there is a Doctor in Whoville though. And then there's the main problem that in a way is connected with the other Seuss film adaptation. It's that the characters are radically changed from their original inception. While in the special the Whos were not really characterized other then just citizens who loved the spirit of Christmas, I could at least get their motivation and admire it. Here, the Whos are just...mean spirited. And that even extends to the Grinch's origin (Due to the Who's. Oh hey, that rhymed. But I don't have time.), which feels souless. Perhaps it was meant to be that way, instead of the Who's being happy with what they had, make them the opposite to try and make an interesting story. Then I realize that violates the spirit and soul of Dr. Seuss and his books. The last 20 or so minutes do attempt to be more like the book, but that doesn't help as much. In the end, while their is some sort of dialouge with a bit of comedy, it is hampered by a flawed script that doesn't capture much of the book of the lesson at all. But I will indulge you in a rhyme once again.

The Grinch is indeed better then the Cat,
But it really isn't much better then that.
Jim Carrey does a decent job,
But this still might make you sob.
Not in a good way,
But in a head shaking foray.
The spirit of the book is messed with,
It will give you an absolute fit.
Go watch the special instead,
You won't have the feeling of dread.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Mr. Popper's Penguins.

Review #236: Mr. Popper's Penguins.

Cast
Jim Carrey (Thomas Popper), Carla Gugino (Amanda Popper), Madeline Carroll (Janie Popper), Maxwell Perry Cotton (Billy Popper), Angela Lansbury (Selma Van Gundy), Desmin Borges ( Daryl), Philip Baker Hall (Mr. Franklin), Dominic Chianese (Mr. Reader), and Clark Gregg (Nat Jones) Directed by Mark Waters (#151 - Mean Girls, #204 - Freaky Friday)

Review
Based off the book by Richard and Florence Atwater, the film attempts to be a good-natured adaptation, and...it languishes in parts. Carrey does a standardized act, almost pulling "The Eddie Murphy Act" The rest of the cast do a standard job as well, not really going one way or the other. While it isn't really much of anything, I don't feel any hate for it, I really can't find much hate for something I hadn't heard much of in the first place. If I had to list something else for this film, I'd list the penguins are not "Stuffed Animal Approved" by my stuffed penguin. *snickers* Alright, alright, I kid.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Mask.

Review #157: The Mask.

Cast
Jim Carrey (Stanley Ipkiss/The Mask), Cameron Diaz (Tina Carlyle), Peter Greene (Dorian Tyrell), Peter Riegert (Lt. Mitch Kellaway), Jim Doughan (Detective Doyle), Richard Jeni (Charlie), Amy Yasbeck (Peggy Brandt), Jeremy Roberts (Bobby), and Ben Stein (Dr. Arthur Neuman) Directed by Chuck Russell.

Review
It's funny how I watch three films in one day (From 6:30-12:00). The Mask is an cartoonish wham-bam film that delivers on all fours. Jim Carrey, like in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (#148) (With the Mask being the 2nd of three films with Carrey in 1994) does an excellent job making both characters joyful and excellent. Diaz does a sizzling job of allrightness. The rest of the cast do a reasonably decent job. The action is cartoonish in tone and that's all it needs in this excellent film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Ace Ventura: Pet Detective.

Review #148: Ace Ventura: Pet Detective.

Cast
Jim Carrey (Ace Ventura), Courteney Cox (Melissa Robinson), Sean Young (Lt. Lois Einhorn / Ray Finkle), Tone Lōc (Emilio), John Capodice (Sgt. Aguado), Dan Marino, Noble Willingham (Riddle), and Troy Evans (Roger Podacter) Directed by Tom Shadyac.

Review
Jim Carrey has made some good films (The Mask, Bruce Almighty) and some bad (Yes Man, When Nature Calls) Wait, this line feels familiar...Anyway, this film is actually good (See, this line isn't that familiar to...Norbit after all) There are some good gags and lines all throughout the film. The plot may seem a bit off the wall, but it's decent enough to not be a major effect on the film. Carrey is a bit like Murphy. Both can do comedy and drama (Dreamgirls for Murphy and The Truman Show for Carrey) It's funny how both of these films are connected due to the fact that I haven't reviewed a flick with either one of these actors until now. One I regret and one I will at least remember. Countdown to 150: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2...

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.