High Fidelity.

Review #2333: High Fidelity.

Cast

John Cusack (Rob Gordon), Iben Hjejle (Laura), Jack Black (Barry Judd), Todd Louiso (Dick), Catherine Zeta-Jones (Charlie Nicholson), Lisa Bonet (Marie DeSalle), Sara Gilbert (Anaugh Moss), Chris Bauer (Paul), Lili Taylor (Sarah Kendrew), Joan Cusack (Liz), Tim Robbins (Ian "Ray" Raymond), and Joelle Carter (Penny Hardwick) Directed by Stephen Frears.

Review: 

“I liked the idea of it being in America. It had a sort of, this sort of more optimistic way in which Americans live, seemed to me to add something to it, rather than taking it away. So it lost some of its stoicism and became slightly more romantic.”

Yes, movies from the new millennium are soon to turn 25 years old, so it seemed apt to cover a movie just as much a result of the writers as it is the director. In 1995, essayist Nick Hornby (probably best known already for his 1995 memoir Fever Pitch), had his first novel come out to the frenzied attention of British audiences who apparently found something in themselves with a setting at a London record shop and a distinct inner monologue. There were rumblings of doing a film as soon as the book came out, with plans ranging from having a draft script done by Scott Rosenberg set in Boston or having Mike Newell involved as a director. Eventually, it was sprung to have John Cusack take a crack at writing a film screenplay, one done in collaboration with D. V. DeVincentis and Steve Pink, who each had worked on Grosse Pointe Blank (as released by Buena Vista Pictures Distribution in 1997). It was through Hornby's permission that they could change the setting to Chicago. Basically, Cusack and Pink/DeVincentis would each go through the book and write what they structured from the book and eventually edit what they saw by basically approaching it as "a checklist of things we need to get done". Cusack suggested trying to approach Stephen Frears to direct. He had actually studied law at the University of Cambridge before electing to work as an assistant to Lindsay Anderson at the Royal Court Theatre (he also worked as an assistant to Karel Reisz as well) and he soon honed his skills for British television. He became a feature director with Gumshoe (1971), but he became a name with My Beautiful Launderette (1985). Hornby was apparently quite satisfied with the adaptation, mostly because a good deal of the dialogue addressing the audience is basically straight from the book. In 2020, a television adaptation of the book came out that lasted one season.

There is something strangely comforting about a comedy that doubles as a sort of male confessional. It is the kind of movie made for people who besides having a certain interest in music maybe, just maybe, need to grow up. The love affair one can have with music in all of its meaningful depths and reaches is palpable with the people we experience in the film that actually end up feeling like people we know in some way or form. Maybe we don't all make top five lists, but we sure do stew on something in the great book of lists and hang-ups. Strangely, it reminds me of Annie Hall (1977), which also handles the anatomy of a breakup through a lead that likes to address the audience (of course, one actually feels the pulse of a tolerable human being in terms the direction and in the acting with High Fidelity, so chew on that). From the jump, it is quite understandable to see Cusack at his most curious and possibly his most effective role. He corrals the movie with a certain kind of slacker (one can operate a store and still slack) charism that really does come through in a manner that we follow along with in ways that a lesser actor would've simply just made a muddled mess. I posit that while some people are self-absorbed, we call them friends anyway because there is a difference between terribly behaved people and people with terrible behavior (i.e. the type that needs to hear "shut up!" once in a while), and some movies win out with weirdos like this. We chuckle and recoil at what we see and hear of a person in all of his bewildering aspects because Cusack just happens to have the voice to carry that drumbeat of weirdness to finding something to do besides just looking back. Of course, it just so happens that there is a pretty capable cast right behind Cusack to make things work beyond just a grandstand for music. Black and Louiso are a dynamic pair of amusement because each just happen to have their own distinct type of humor that connects from the jump in terms of timing and general energy for the material that is palpable in more ways than one. Hjejle goes along with the proceedings that arise from being presented in the prism of one-sided weariness that works in parts. There are a few other little surprises to be found in small moments to see someone such as Robbins take one on the chin in one particular scene of imagined confrontation or one particular cameo to raise a chuckle. I like the overall mood of the film, one that doesn't just dally to conventional means to try and say something about weird hangups or the people you see along the way, and doesn't overstay its welcome at 113 minutes. In general, what we have is a film made by people who clearly had an interest in making a confessional for the hang-ups in all of us that has a distinct love for Chicago and enough charm to make one mix themselves into seeing it play out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Grosse Pointe Blank.

Review #1859: Grosse Pointe Blank.

Cast: 

John Cusack (Martin Q. Blank), Minnie Driver (Debi Newberry), Alan Arkin (Dr. Oatman), Dan Aykroyd (Grocer), Joan Cusack (Marcella), Jeremy Piven (Paul Spericki), Hank Azaria (CIA Agent Steven Lardner), Barbara Harris (Mary Blank), Mitchell Ryan (Mr. Bart Newberry), K. Todd Freeman (CIA Agent Kenneth McCullers), Michael Cudlitz (Bob Destepello), and Benny Urquidez (Felix La Poubelle) Directed by George Armitage.

Review: 

Yes, this was a movie script that was first written by a man who received an invitation to their 10th high school reunion. Michigan native Tom Jankiewicz worked as both an advertising copywriter, a substitute teacher and cashier when he was developing a script that would become this movie, which he started in 1991, which had a variety of characters that were based on people he had known (no, not the lead character). The script, when finally picked up for production, would feature re-writes that saw three people credited alongside Jankiewicz in the final version: John Cusack, Steve Pink, and D.V. DeVincentis. In the end, this was the only feature script that Jankiewicz would see made into a film, although he did serve as a script doctor on a handful of scripts while working primarily as an advertising copywriter and news-writer. In 2013, while participating in a question-and-answer session with college students about the movie, he collapsed and died; he was 49. Now, a film does need a solid director, which is where George Armitage comes into the picture, since Cusack sent him a copy of the script to see if he was interested. Born in Hartford with a move to California as a teenager, he started the road to filmmaking as a film fanatic who happened to study political science and economics at UCLA before being offered a mail room job at 20th Century Fox. He would do work for the studio on television while writing his first scripts in the mail room, most notably with Peyton Place. It was Roger Corman, who was there at the studio to make The St. Valentine's Day Massacre (1967), that helped inspire Armitage on his way to become a filmmaker, particularly his style of letting the actors improvise while getting his day in of shooting; he would write Gas-s-s-s (1970) for Corman (while also serving as an associate producer), and he was impressed enough to have Armitage direct his first film with Private Duty Nurses (1971). Armitage, when presented the script by the four writers, found himself having to guide them to cut down the script in pre-production in order to get it right for shooting (in a sense, he was doing un-credited script work, although he did not want to deal with the Writers Guild and their way of handling credits). It was shot three ways: the written version, a mildly understated version, and an over-the-top version, with the latter being generally utilized to go alongside actor improvisation. This was the fifth feature he directed in his career.

It's funny how you can make a movie about a morally flexible assassin trying to not satisfy their urge and end up having to do so anyway for a solid and clever movie, one that manages to get the finer points of what it really means to try and go home again. It is a coherent black comedy that rewards its viewer with solid characterization in the art of detachment and wry behavior that happens to also have a soundtrack by a member of the Clash. The strength comes from Cusack, wrapped in curiosity and well-placed timing in a character role that requires someone who can eke out something worthwhile in a mess of a character that isn't simply just a calm and collected mercenary. It all comes with the eyes of watching someone who has seen the other side of life and wants to come back, with a little bit of shooting on the side. Driver makes up the other part of the captivating chemistry that comes with the movie in passionate cynicism that has tried to re-invent themselves again and again only to find frustration and hesitancy, complete with sharing a kiss with Cusack from the get-go only to throw a mic on him to do on-the-air blasting in ten years of irritation. Of course, the other members of the cast lend a hand in curious charm, whether that involves Cusack and Cusack sharing brief scenes together or on the phone that matches stoic and chipper attitudes. Arkin makes a reluctant pairing with Cusack that results in a few good moments in the art of attempted conventional therapy. Aykroyd is enjoyably deranged here, making for a quality (union man) ham that makes a quality contrast to Cusack without overstepping him. The setup to get to the climax might be a bit convenient, but one could also find a variety of situations to be a series of convivences and coincidences, which it is really a dandy way of saying that some things are just fun enough to go with things. The 107 minute run-time makes for a pleasant breeze, one that carries its time back home with memories and long-gone people with select moments of action, most notably with a locker-room fight that is executed effectively. As a whole, Armitage and company cultivated a movie with plenty of lasting appeal that has not diminished in the 25 years that have followed the release of this film, one with capable wit and timing from its characters that make it a lingering classic worth checking out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Ice Harvest.

Review #1616: The Ice Harvest.

Cast: 

John Cusack (Charlie Arglist), Billy Bob Thornton (Vic Cavanaugh), Connie Nielsen (Renata Crest), Randy Quaid (Bill Guerrard), Oliver Platt (Pete Van Heuten), Mike Starr (Roy Gelles), Ned Bellamy (Sidney), T.J. Jagodowski (Officer Tyler), and David Pasquesi (Councilman Williams) Directed by Harold Ramis (#138 - Bedazzled (2000), #208 - Caddyshack, #342 - Groundhog Day, and #804 - National Lampoon's Vacation)

Review: 

"This movie is about people who've lost any sense of meaning in their lives."

One wonders where the time goes when it comes to films that can be defined by one word: "should". But why don't we do a few pleasantries first, since this does fall somewhat into the yuletide spirit (a sort of alternative to the alternative of films set on Christmas Eve), and it can be said that there are some promising names involved. This was the tenth of eleven films directed by Harold Ramis, although it is one of four that he did not also write the script for, with writers Richard Russo (a fellow novelist in his own right) and Robert Benton responsible for the script (they had worked together previously on Twilight seven years prior, since Benton directed that film alongside adapting one of Russo's books into a film). They wrote the film as an adaptation of the novel of the same name by Scott Philips, which was written in 2000 as his first work (incidentally, the Wichita native had done a brief spell as a screenwriter), which he thought was unfilmable (he ended up liking the adaptation, so that is one relief). A book review from the New York Times had attracted Benton and Russo to doing a script, and Ramis eventually was brought in to do a film made with cheaper budgeting than usual for director and stars for Focus Features (who greenlighted it after six weeks for $14 million). There were a few differences made from novel to screen, such as the time (originally 1979) and the dynamic between Cusack and Platt's character (which went from brother-in-laws to friends who each were married to the same person).

So yes, there is that magic word that goes for this film. It should be better, honestly. Namely, it should be funnier, but if that option seems a bit locked out, then one should hope for a darker movie instead. This was the only film Ramis did that resembled a film noir, and it sure is a shame to see those results play out here. Simply put, it is a shaggy dog noir that seems to parade itself for 89 minutes with pacing equivalent to a fish in a tiny glass bowl. Dissapointment has never tasted so cold, particularly because one should know better when it comes to making an interesting experience with a cast like this. The performances are here and there, fleeting in those moments of actual, meaningful, useful, time to highlight. Cusack does fine in digging through the molasses, one who mixes smarm with dogged hope in the face of seedier folks around him. In other words, he comes off fine being the most likable one of the group. Thornton comes and goes with a lead heart towards scuzziness that seems to merit more interest, as if somehow he seems more interesting to see in the seen/unseen aspects of below-the-belt demeanor. Nielsen is okay, but one doesn't really seem grabbed by her as any sort of fatale presence, where one feels that they are instead waiting for the train to come in instead, as if vacancy is the one thing needed in a quasi-noir. Platt turns out to have the most presence in the film (obvious when playing a drunk), but while he is amusing in parts, one tunes him out gradually in the same way they might do if having to see an intoxicated fellow around them for nearly an hour. Of course there is Quaid, who in theory could have an interesting performance in booming presence....he doesn't show up until the last twenty minutes, and one wishes for something more from seeing him in one room and just that. Starr and Bellamy do fine in those small parts of amusement (with the former relegated to mostly voice duty, such as a bit when trapped in a box), so there is that for a positive, in the sense that mediocrity doesn't strike in every aspect of the movie. As a whole, it is an okay movie that should know better, one that seems vacant in either comic or dark aspirations, a movie that will come and go for 89 minutes with the bare minimum in shaggy dog ambition that is more bland than bleak to really be interesting to talk about beyond just the simple word of "should" to describe it. In other words, it should be more interesting, it should have a better pace, it should be anything else than it ultimately turns out to be, and it should be recommended for those who have an average streak with talented folks that should do better.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Being John Malkovich.

Review #1308: Being John Malkovich.

Cast: 
John Cusack (Craig Schwartz), Cameron Diaz (Lotte Schwartz), Catherine Keener (Maxine Lund), John Malkovich (John Horatio Malkovich), Orson Bean (Dr. Lester), Mary Kay Place (Floris), and Charlie Sheen (Himself) Directed by Spike Jonze.

Review: 
Have you ever wanted to be someone else? Did you ever find yourself with an opportunity to step into someone else's mind for a moment? The first question is an interesting one to think about, while the second is certainly imaginative enough for a film to make for quite a ride, one that is full of desires, interesting imagery, and plenty to talk about after it ends. Writer Charlie Kaufman had written the script for this film in 1994, a combination of separate ideas he had, one involving a man falling for a woman that wasn't his wife, and the other being a discovery of a portal into John Malkovich. His attempts at selling it to studios were not successful, but it eventually reached the hands of Francis Ford Coppola, who showed it to Jonze (who was involved with his daughter Sofia) in 1996. Jonze, who had been known for his work on music and skate videos, agreed to direct the film (which served as his feature debut). 

Sometimes you really have to just keep an open mind and let the film go where it feels like going in its run-time, and this sure is one of them, where one does not get left off the hook easily in its 112 minute run-time when it comes to overt sympathy for these characters and their human nature when it comes to choices. Being someone else isn't just wish fulfillment or a case of touch and go, really. In that sense, there is a fairly picked trio to go along with the dimensions of finding themselves with a portal to a famous person's mind: commercialization and experimentation, where they are not so much easy to like as they are just people we can at least understand on a basic level. Cusack does a fine job in that regard, capturing someone with plenty of self-involvement and neurotic devotion to his craft of puppeteering (in whatever form it may take itself) without becoming wrapped in too much pity. Diaz sinks into a homely role without much hesitation, a quirky person that is seemingly trapped in their marriage but finds their own means of escape and actualization. Keener is the bold part of the triad, filled with self-confidence and desire, which serve as a pretty clear contrast to the other two from the very moment she is introduced to the film. Malkovich (playing Malkovich) had initially wanted to just produce the film and find a different star to be the focus before ultimately signing on. In that sense, he serves as the highlight of the film, a man faced with the task of playing a version of themselves that happens to be intruded by people in your head alongside the usual trappings of being famous. He composes himself well in each scene is in, most notably when faced with being in his own head. Bean and Place prove quite eccentric when needed, and Sheen is exactly the kind of off-balance cameo one needs for a fantasy comedy-drama, really. 

Once the film gets itself going, it moves with weird confidence, appropriate for delivering useful entertainment without tricking or angering its target too much. This is a film with plenty of weird things to say and show that handles itself without too many bumps in the road, where offbeat seems to meet The Twilight Zone (such as with its ending, a can of worms that goes off fine for discussion) and conventions aren't all necessary. On the whole, this is a fairly good movie, utilizing its imagination to fine heights through a well-rounded cast and careful execution that make for quite a debut for its director and writer.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Eight Men Out.

Review #1287: Eight Men Out.

Cast: 
John Cusack (Buck Weaver), Clifton James (Charles Comiskey), Michael Lerner (Arnold Rothstein), Christopher Lloyd (Bill Burns), John Mahoney (Kid Gleason), Charlie Sheen (Happy Felsch), David Strathairn (Eddie Cicotte), D. B. Sweeney (Shoeless Joe Jackson), Michael Rooker (Chick Gandil), Don Harvey (Swede Risberg), and James Read (Lefty Williams) Written and Directed by John Sayles.

Review: 
Yes I know, not a horror film. However, today is the start of the World Series, which incidentally features my Houston Astros, so how could I resist covering a baseball movie? This one had been on my list for quite a while, so it only makes sense to do it now. Enjoy, and let's hope for a wonderful World Series result.

It is interesting to note the passing of 100 years since the Black Sox scandal, in which eight players of the Chicago White Sox were accused of throwing games in the 1919 World Series in conspiracy with gamblers. A public trial ensued in 1921, for which none of the accused players were convicted of any crime, although they were banned from playing professional baseball for the rest of their lives. A tale as old as time for baseball (a sport I adore) undeniably has inspired writers to adapt it into stories. Eliot Asinof wrote an account of the scandal in 1963, while W. P. Kinsella's wrote a magic realist novel with Shoeless Joe (1982, which was adapted into Field of Dreams the same year as this film). It isn't hard to say that baseball fans will certainly have interest in seeing this tale come to life in film while non-baseball fans will have a little harder time getting behind what this movie wants to show with this (questionably accurate) period drama. When it comes to baseball movies, this is probably safe middle ground stuff, doing just fine with its look and some of its ensemble moments while being a bit lacking when it comes to making everything really stick (particularly when it comes to some egregious liberties taken with real events, which is just as true with the novel and its combination of fictional characters into what is meant to be a non-fiction narrative). It clocks in at just a few seconds under two hours, for which the first half proves more favorable than the latter half (what better way to combine baseball cliches than courtroom cliches), seeming to have a few amusing moments with its cast. As such, the highlights include Cusack, Strathairn, Sweeney, and Rooker, with each actor of the conspiracy sticking out, such as Cusack and his bright disposition (even when faced with a bunch of crooked teammates), or the calmness of the others in their belief of that allure one calls more money. Minor highlights include James and Mahoney, making crucial points count just fine. How much guff can one give about accuracy about adapting the scandal to film with source material that took its own liberties with the facts (the Internet sure does help occasionally when it comes to finding tidbits of information, such as Society for American Baseball Research (SABR), who recently had made an article detailing numerous myths about the scandal, such as the White Sox actually having a high payroll (for 1919), or the gamblers being approached by the players (as opposed to the other way around), or the grand jury testimony being stolen (which they simply re-created later on anyway, which didn't have a big effect on the trial). If you really wanted to go further, the Internet is your friend for finding things to pick at (for better or worse). For me, it does tend to rankle me, in part because a film should know a little better about getting more than basic concepts right, especially stuff like Christy Mathewson (famed baseball legend) being the one that helped out the journalist investigation as opposed to Lardner (played by Sayles himself). In the end, I find that the film does best when letting the players speak for themselves along with its baseball action, with its foundation having quite a few cracks that can make this a hit-or-miss kind of movie. For me, it is a fair single, worth a look if one is curious enough for an old-timey but fair-minded day at an old ballpark.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.