The Odyssey (2026).

Review #2561: The Odyssey (2026).

Cast: 
Matt Damon (Odysseus), Tom Holland (Telemachus), Anne Hathaway (Penelope), Robert Pattinson (Antinous), Lupita Nyong'o (Helen of Troy / Clytemnestra), Samantha Morton (Circe), John Leguizamo (Eumaeus), Zendaya (Athena), Charlize Theron (Calypso), Jon Bernthal (Menelaus), Himesh Patel (Eurylochus), Bill Irwin (Polyphemus), Elliot Page (Sinon), Benny Safdie (Agamemnon), with Corey Hawkins (Polybus), Niko Nicotera (Peisander), Elyes Gabel (Elatus), Iddo Goldberg (Amphimedon), Jamie Harris (Agelus), Mia Goth and Logan Marshall-Green (Melantho and Melanthius), Ryan Hurst (Mentor), and James Remar (Tiresias) 

Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk , #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises, #1618 - Tenet, #2050 - Oppenheimer, #2322 - Interstellar)

Review: 

"Tell me, O muse, of that ingenious hero who travelled far and wide after he had sacked the famous town of Troy. Many cities did he visit, and many were the nations with whose manners and customs he was acquainted; moreover he suffered much by sea while trying to save his own life and bring his men safely home; but do what he might he could not save his men, for they perished through their own sheer folly in eating the cattle of the Sun-god Hyperion; so the god prevented them from ever reaching home. Tell me, too, about all these things, O daughter of Jove, from whatsoever source you may know them."

Once upon a time, there were old tales that people decided to freewheel their own interpretation to communicate to the masses (such as say, Samuel Butler, who stated a theory, whether 100 percent seriously or not, that the Odyssey was written by a Sicilian woman). As the seasons changed and the technology grew larger, you could see and hear other freewheeling interpretations of tales on a screen perhaps unfathomable to a person dated in antiquity. Some folks probably read the Odyssey in their youth or maybe read it online (the link I noted above is a centuries old public domain translation, which used the Latinized name of Ulysses), or maybe heard about it from other certain oral traditions (hey, Arthur was an institution for some kids), or with James Joyce's Ulysses, or, well, you get the idea. Various productions had been done of the work, with most being in Italy, such as the film Ulysses [1954] (a Dino De Laurentiis production with Kirk Douglas and others), the 1968 miniseries (known in its native country as L'Odissea), looser adaptations such as O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000), and recent ones such as The Return (2024), which started with no mythic beings or Gods with Odysseus back in Ithaca. Christopher Nolan wanted to be the guy to direct a movie that had never really been done for a large-scale production with the Odyssey, and it should be noted that he had been once tapped to direct Troy (2004), which had been loosely based on the Iliad. He wanted to tell it "in a fresh and modern way", which to him read differently from his perspective of middle age that he felt he has been telling in his films for years, simultaneously calling it a "family story, a love story, a revenge story, a war story, a coming-of-age story... a very strong foundational text". There were various inspirations that Nolan listed prior to the release, ranging from the various translations of the Odyssey (such as the Emily Wilson 2017 translation), the visual style and atmospheric tone of Kurosawa's Ran (1985) and the mythology-inspired films worked on by Ray Harryhausen such as Jason and the Argonauts (1963). It was shot entirely with IMAX film cameras, the first of its kind in a movie that already sounds like a crowd favorite*.

In a time of "apparent magic", yes, you basically get a tale of original sin. It basically is a grounded take of the sword and sandal epic with an earthy feel that feels more psychological than mythological. In some ways, it might seem bloated at 173 minutes, but actually it often feels more like a breeze to sift through as it dwells through the divide of a lead that wavers between an everyman and a superhero. The veterans of his campaigns walk the shore in life and death because only one man will end up by divine will back home and yet he still thinks defiance is the way to go. Men from the sea attack and all around a kingdom, the law of Zeus (okay, xenia) is not being abided by while others go on about a face, a fleet, and tricks to break away and burn Troy screaming to the ground. Amidst the prophets, giants, and nymphs is a story of a man realizing what his actual place is among the crumbling of foundation and realizing that what you want most may very well be what you already had (okay that came from a bit about the Sirens, but in fairness, what is a man if not one with the hubris to listen to them knowing they will survive anyway). It jumps around in the narrative with a type of curious enthusiasm that has a few moments that really do spark me to go "cool", namely with the Laestrygonian sequence (the giants clad in armor), complete with camera tricks (hey, the cyclops [Polyphemus] is cool to see too, and the witch realization is also darkly amusing, but still). Of course, the underworld sequence might be the real showstopper in seeing the true price of years spent getting on and trying to leave one particular blood-stained beach (and one horse*).

For all of the stuff I say about the movie, it really is one to look upon familiar faces and find a few fun moments in Damon leading the way in the unraveling of civilization, at least if you go with someone having enough hubris to believe that they really are the, shall we say, Oppenheimer of their times. Basically, you have a complicated hero that you know is going to reach some type of home (his kingdom, wife with the stature of Hathaway, however you want to interpret it) but not necessarily will be a better man for it, and in that sense, Damon makes for a curious cipher that either grows with you or just withers away in elusiveness, and I found it was a case of the former most of the time, which I suppose is helpful when talking about the wavering road of hero or fool. Some could contend that Holland might be easy to gloss over amidst the seasoned presences around him. Well, that's a bit silly to me, mainly because that's the whole point: this is a foolish young prince that is between a rock and a hard place: old enough to maybe take on actual responsibilities but not in the position to actually rise from "son of Odysseus" (to a certain point, anyway). In that sense, Holland does pretty well with showing the vulnerability of being out of one's depth, of literally being a face in a long crowd, especially when contending with the likes of Leguizamo, who really does sink into his role with weary curiosity.  Pattinson and Morton each sell the moments that they take part in more so than the mostly okay times encountering Theron or Nyong', with Pattinson in particular seemingly having plenty of fun in towering overconfidence (as one does when citing a James Woods character* as inspiration). I just wish the film stuck the ending better, because amidst a flourish of inevitable "hey, the man of the house is among us" realization is a finish of trying to sell the closing of the loop of a man who can't really go "home" (as one does when fiddling with the ending of the original tale in, what, divine intervention?) that just...sits there as an ending more than anything. As a whole, making The Odyssey was a task that required a director willing to stamp their own interpretation on what is so special about a long trek back home in a time of myths and monsters, and I think Nolan made a pretty good rendition worth viewing on the best screen possible. It's not a great movie, but being a pretty good time is just as useful for me anyway.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Any thoughts about the casting of say, Nyong'o or Page? Yeah, conservative grifters whining about it can either watch the movie for themselves or piss off. The movie is full of Greek characters, do we care if most of them are played by Americans or Brits? No? 

*Or the dog reunion, because, hey.

*Not to be confused with the current James Woods

*It's a hard 8/10 in that I would rather go 8/10 for a movie that teeters at 8.5 rather than having subsequent regret in giving a 9/10.

Titan A.E.

Review #2386: Titan A.E.

Cast: 

Matt Damon (Cale Tucker; Alex D. Linz as Young Cale Tucker), Bill Pullman (Captain Joseph Korso), John Leguizamo (Gune), Nathan Lane (Preedex "Preed" Yoa), Janeane Garofalo (Stith), Drew Barrymore (Akima Kunimoto), Ron Perlman (Professor Sam Tucker), Tone Lōc (Tek), Jim Breuer (the Cook), Christopher Scarabosio (the Drej Queen), Jim Cummings (Chowquin), Charles Rocket (Firrikash/ Slave Trader Guard), and Ken Hudson Campbell (Po) Directed by Don Bluth (#1466 - The Secret of NIMH) and Gary Goldman.

Review: 

"A movie to me is about character, about how personalities come together, how they relate to each other and what the ramifications of that are." - Don Bluth

"I think it's the people. The crew has passion. They really want to make it work. They really want to learn more...that teaches me. My whole goal, besides trying to get more production value back into animation, was really to provide an environment like there was at Disney at one time, where you felt secure as an artist, filmmaker, contributor, animator." - Gary Goldman

On June 16, 2000, Titan A.E. basically was released into theaters and died a quick death. But time does heal some wounds, even if it remains the last current effort for its directors in Don Bluth and Gary Goldman. The two had met in 1972 when working at Walt Disney Productions with each at distinct stages of their animation careers: Bluth (seven years older) actually had been hired to work as an assistant animator at the Disney studio in Burbank and even did work for Sleeping Beauty (1959) but found the work "kind of boring" and jumped around to do various things that ranged from a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to local theater to studying English Literature to eventually returning to animation and, well, that led back to Disney. On the other hand, Goldman was a recent art school graduate that had been accepted to Disney's animation training program and encountered Bluth. Alongside John Pomeroy, the group shared similar ideas about animation and strived to make their own animated film (as an exercise, according to Bluth), with their first effort being Banjo the Woodpile Cat. I think you get it from there: NIMH was a big thing for the "it's not Disney" crowd and the first of a string of movies with varying levels of quality. Goldman moved from producing to co-directing with Bluth with All Dogs Go to Heaven (1989). Sure, there were misfires in their intertwined efforts (The Pebble and the Penguin [1995] was so miserable that the two wanted their names taken off it), but their efforts with Anastasia (1997), the first film for Fox Animation Studios, worked out. Coincidentally, during the time of the release of that film, the starting points for what became Titan A.E. started. "Planet Ice" was slated to be directed by Art Vitello, with November 1997 seeing concrete plans to make it animated rather than live action, complete with a voice cast all picked out (such as Bill Pullman, for example). They had a screenplay drafted up by Ben Edlund before John August came in months later to polish the dialogue and other select re-writes. The result of years of pre-production was $30 million sunk into a whole bunch of recording...and basically little to actually show for it. Where Bluth and Goldman came in is that 20th Century Fox, in need of getting a project going for the animated studio, asked the two to get involved, showing them the script. Despite their lack of expertise of sci-fi, they went with the move; incidentally, Joss Whedon was soon hired to finalize the script. It should be noted that Bluth and Goldman had $55 million and 19 months to get the stuff animated, one that saw them move the apparent focus of the film away from hardware to, well, character, which saw re-recording of certain dialogue (basically they wanted to aim for the family, right down to the teenagers rather than be a "Disney wannabee"). The result was five writers were given credit: the story was credited to Hans Bauer and Randall McCormick while Edlund, August, and Whedon were given credit for the screenplay.*

Goldman stated prior to release that "about 87% of the film is some form of CGI", and perhaps ironically, the visual effects and one certain animated sequence was done by Blue Sky Studios, who would begin production of their first animated film Ice Age the same month that this film was released. Apparently, midway though production is when Fox basically was ready to give up on 2D animation and just focus on 3D ventures, and by June of 2000, over 250 animated staff members at Fox were laid off. Just to twist the knife a bit further, the same week that this movie came out, Fantasia 2000 (1999) by Disney was finally being shown in regular theaters**. Sure, a race against time in fetching one big thing that might as well be a shaggy way to do an ark story is a bit shaky. But it is a neat ride for those who want to buy what it is selling for a movie that has an astounding look within a cobbled-together story. The 94-minute runtime somehow manages the weird effect of breezing by certain aspects (read: familiar tropes) but taking its sweet time to really make sense on other parts. In an age now where certain people seem to believe that any damn animated movie seems up to "re-made" for live action, Titan A.E. is good proof that some stuff really should stay in animation without the risk of being turned into potential slop, one that inspires awe with unwieldy adventure. Forget being generic, it seems like fresh air with its enthusiasm. The rag-tag group of voices are fairly decent, mainly because it isn't merely just picking big names for the hell of it, with Pullman in particular being pretty suitable as a rogue to go along with Damon's wavering sense of humanity (or whatever you want to call it, but burrowing hope seemed silly). The rest of the cast is fairly decent in parts, mainly with adding some levity (Lane comes to mind), which works out when having the bare minimum in characterization for Barrymore to work with. I like its general action and general mood of making sure one wants to take a look at what they are seeing beyond having mild attention (the rock soundtrack might help in that regard). The ice rings sequence is probably the key standout sequence for showing both the potential of understanding why some films just are destined for animation along with having interesting tension to really keep things drawing along. The movie may not always go along smoothly beyond some of the usual expected stuff, namely with a villain that is more interesting to look at than their actual motives, but if you are vibing with what the movie is showing in its atmosphere of trying to scrape along beyond refugees on the food chain, it will be a pretty good time anyway. Underrated and under-looked in its time, Titan A.E. deserves a cult audience willing to stick up for spry adventures in animation.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Hell of a writer's room. Edlund is best known for creating The Tick, Bauer wrote Anaconda, August wrote for a handful of Tim Burton movies, and Whedon, well, he went from co-writing Toy Story to something called Firefly... 

**For whatever reason, Fantasia 2000 had *months* of IMAX showings and concert hall screenings before you could just see the damn thing in a normal theater. Go figure, that movie didn't make too much money. The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle was released on June 30, 2000 and had live action and animation to the tune of barely any money. You know what animated movie did make money that June? Chicken Run, which was released on June 23, 2000 by Aardman Features. Funny.

John Wick: Chapter 2.

Review #906: John Wick: Chapter 2.

Cast:
Keanu Reeves (John Wick), Common (Cassian), Laurence Fishburne (The Bowery King), Riccardo Scamarcio (Santino D’Antonio), Ruby Rose (Ares), John Leguizamo (Aurelio), Ian McShane (Winston), Bridget Moynahan (Helen Wick), Lance Reddick (Charon), and Thomas Sadoski (Jimmy) Directed by Chad Stahelski (#905 - John Wick)

Review:
For #32 in the Theater Saga (and the first film reviewed of a movie released in 2017), it only makes sense to the sequel to John Wick...considering I just did the first one four days ago. I had planned to do this ever since this film had come out last week, and I'm happy to say it worked out well. While this sequel may not be as gripping with emotional depth as the first film, this film certainly has enough top-notch action and fine work by the cast to make for an exceptional sequel. The film doesn't fall to the trap of trying to emulate the previous film nor try to settle itself in a familiar hole. Reeves does a fine job once again, being a capable action hero in part because he once again manages to make Wick a compelling character (who isn't merely a killing machine) again. Common and Fishburne show up around the second half of the film, but they both are entertaining in how professional they are, with the former having two great action scenes with Reeves and the latter being enjoyable to watch interact with Reeves, with pigeons included. Scamarcio is a decent villain in part due to being realistic while being capable in action scenes. Rose is also a pretty good standout, a wordless but efficient performance with good timing for her action scenes. The rest of the cast is also pretty good when the movie needs them (such as with McShane), much like how the action shines when required. It's hard to say what is the best part, but the scenes in the subway and the final fight in the art museum are pretty good highlights, with a good deal of brightness and high paced fun. Even within the blood is a bit of lightheartedness, and it's always nice to see that pitbull dog (when you own a dog, you love seeing dogs on screen a bit more) on screen. The action and story work well with each other to make for an entertaining sequel that will surely open the door for another installment of Wick that I wholeheartedly approve of.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

John Wick.

Review #905: John Wick.

Cast:
Keanu Reeves (John Wick), Michael Nyqvist (Viggo Tarasov), Alfie Allen (Iosef Tarasov), Willem Dafoe (Marcus), Dean Winters (Avi), Adrianne Palicki (Ms. Perkins), Omer Barnea (Gregori), Toby Leonard Moore (Victor), Daniel Bernhardt (Kirill), Bridget Moynahan (Helen), John Leguizamo (Aurelio), Ian McShane (Winston), Bridget Regan (Addy), and Lance Reddick (Hotel Manager / Charon) Directed by Chad Stahelski and David Leitch.

Review:
On Valentine's Day, what better way to celebrate the day of passion with...a pretty good action thriller film. From the execution to the quick action to a wonderful cast, John Wick is an excellent movie in part because it doesn't take the easy way out nor cheat its audience while having a fairly engaging story. This isn't the kind of action film that seems reliant on CGI, with fine cinematography by Jonathan Sela. Reeves does a great job in part because of how realistic he is. Though the character is talented when it comes to being a hit man, Reeves manages to make the character stand out and not just be an unstoppable killing machine, where you can see the emotion and tension with the character, even among all the action, which is plentiful without being too gratuitous. There is a good story within the film as well, revolving around a legend that isn't built up to ridiculously over-the-top levels. Nyqvist is also good in the movie (as the de facto villain), having the right sense of gravitas and charm that elevate a role beyond what could've been a cliche big bad. Allen plays the rich kid punk with the right sense of arrogance as well. Dafoe does a fine job playing a hardened role as this, with a good deal of mentoring. Winters has the right kind of smarminess (and humor) to sell the role, and Palicki is stone cold cool. The rest of the cast is quirky in the way they stand out in a strange world of assassins, excluding Monyahan, who does fine in the time she has on screen. The movie flows at a great pace, never losing steam while also never letting go of the fun and logic. There are a good deal of highlights, with the church scene and the nightclub scenes being particularly good standouts, each using the right tone of color and dialogue to move through nicely with everything. This is a neat movie that kicks enough keister and tells a good story at the same time, shining on a good deal of effort.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Super Mario Bros.

Review #736: Super Mario Bros.

Cast
Bob Hoskins (Mario), John Leguizamo (Luigi), Dennis Hopper (King Koopa), Samantha Mathis (Princess Daisy), Fisher Stevens (Iggy), Richard Edson (Spike), Fiona Shaw (Lena), and Mojo Nixon (Toad) Directed by Rocky Morton and Annabel Jankel.

Review
Since today's the 30th anniversary of the release of Super Mario Bros, I decided to review the movie based off the video game. Before talking about this movie, let me talk a little about Super Mario. Let's be honest: The plot of the original game is simple: A plumber named Mario tries to rescue a princess from Bowser (also known as Koopa). To make a movie out of it, you have to have more plot. Whatever Super Mario game you played first (Mine was Super Mario Bros 3 on the NES, which my dad bought at a sale five years ago), Mario's legacy is one that can never be stopped, and it is has crossed over into the realm of television, cereals, anime, comics, and of course, this movie.

Yep, this one. The one from the same people that worked on Max Headroom (never heard of it)...which has had a reputation. Not just from people, but from the actors themselves. Dennis Hopper described this film as a nightmare that went over budget. Bob Hoskins said it was not only the worst job he ever did, he also said it was both his biggest disappointment and the one thing he'd change about his past. Leguizamo said in his own memoir that he and Hoskins got drunk constantly while filiming this. It's strange that Mario and Luigi's last names are both Mario (I guess that explains the Mario Bros. part)...but that's not the least of the movie's problems. The main problem is that the movie really doesn't have much of a focus to it in terms of tone. Is it supposed to be a comedy? Light hearted family flick? Adventure? Sci-fi? Dark fantasy? What is it? The lack of consistency with the tone clouds a movie that is already pretty strange. I do kinda like the idea of an alternate dimension for the Mario Bros, but it's still not done very well because it just flies by too quick to make an impact. The acting is certainly...notable. Hopper looks like he doesn't care. Now whether that means that he doesn't care about the movie or his performance in it is the question. Hoskins and Leguizamo evidently did not enjoy their experience in the movie, and it shows. Pretty much every actor is just there to say lines...though Stevens & Edson provide occasional moments of mild enjoyment

Let's talk about some of the video game stuff briefly, because I know at least something about video games. I wonder if the Princess is named Daisy because of Super Mario Land (released four years earlier) or because being known as Princess Toadstool (The name she was referred to as in the US prior to 1993) would be too weird. The Goombas are an okay effect, though them being taller than the Mario Bros doesn't make too much sense, given that in the game they are the easiest to kill. I find it very strange that Toad is now a guitar playing rebel...but then again Toad wasn't exactly endearing in the video games to begin with. Yoshi...is there for about 20 seconds. Apparently Yoshi was an animatronic effect controlled by cables and radios. It's not a bad effect, but he's only there briefly.  Koopa (also known as Bowser) is now evidently half-human, half-lizard. Nuff said. Remember Big Bertha? That fish from the third game? Big Bertha is now a big woman. The Bob-omb at least resembles the one from the game, and is probably the only thing in this movie that is loyal, sadly enough.

The movie's effects are hit and miss. The design of the city is okay, but you could honestly confuse it for any movies with a  The portal effects look more like soup and the Goombas have a certain washed out pale look to them. The movie ends on a cliffhanger...that will never be resolved. Super Mario Bros was a flop at the box office, and rightfully so. It's a movie that tries to cover too many bases to focus and please everyone while managing to be a tangled mess with no clear focus. It's sad how it seems no one who made this had fun making this, but at least it's not unwatchable. It's not a terrible movie, it's just isn't any good either. I did find it interesting that there's actually a comic strip dedicated as a "sequel" to this film, so at least something came out of this. Ultimately, this a movie that lags alongside other weird 90's movies, though not the good kind. Happy 30th, Mario. You deserved better than this.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Romeo + Juliet (1996)

Review #103: Romeo + Juliet.

Cast
Leonardo DiCaprio (Romeo Montague), Claire Danes (Juliet Capulet), Brian Dennehy (Ted Montague), John Leguizamo (Tybalt Capulet), Pete Postlethwaite (Father Lawrence), Paul Sorvino (Fulgenio Capulet), Diane Venora (Gloria Capulet), Paul Rudd (Dave Paris), and Vondie Curtis-Hall (Captain Prince). Directed by Baz Luhrmann (Moulin Rouge!)

Review
Well, well, well, look what we have here. This is a "modern retelling of the classic story by William Shakespeare. And it is not a great retelling really. The casting is allright, especially with Romeo and Lawrence. However, at points it gets silly and stupid, such as the beginning scene, in which shouting is the only thing heard (And guns, so there ya go) It's a weird little film that uses the same dialouge from the play, cuts things out (such as the servent scene and others), and yet doesn't feel like a retelling. It feels like someone wanted to make Romeo and Juliet, but they were too lazy to just use the city of Verona, so they just used Verona Beach and messed around with the naming. It doesn't satisfy the modern audiance much in terms of making it big extravagence, and it doesn't impress the buffs of the play, making this an odd experiment that's point was...I don't know. Maybe it was to jump start plans for Hamlet 2000...

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.