Nobody 2.

Review #2411: Nobody 2.

Cast: 

Bob Odenkirk (Hutch Mansell), Connie Nielsen (Becca Mansell), John Ortiz (Wyatt Martin), Colin Hanks (Abel), RZA (Harry Mansell), Christopher Lloyd (David Mansell), Sharon Stone (Lendina), Colin Salmon (The Barber), Gage Munroe (Brady Mansell), Paisley Cadorath (Sammy Mansell), Daniel Bernhardt (Kartoush), and Lucius Hoyos (Max Martin) Directed by Timo Tjahjanto.

Review: 

You might remember that Nobody (2021) was a bit of a delight in what one could call an "addiction drama about a man whose addiction is violence." Derek Kolstad wrote the script for that movie, and it probably is a good omen that he returns to write the script (having sole credit for the story and co-writing the screenplay with Aaron Rabin). Sure, maybe the punchline at the end of the day was that an action hero was being inhabited by Bob Odenkirk, but it was a pretty neat movie in both showing someone who did look the part for an action movie and had fun with it (and, apparently, the training regimen done for that movie probably saved his life when he had a heart issue in 2021). The movie is directed by Timo Tjahjanto, a West German-born Indonesian filmmaker making his American debut after five movies made in his native Indonesia. For the most part, a good deal of the cast from the first film reprise their roles for this film.

The movie might be on vacation a bit, but at least it does have some entertainment value for the most basic of requirements. On the average scale of action movies, it probably would be in the middle between the 2025 slate of Novocaine and Ballerina, and it certainly wouldn't top the first Nobody, but being an average sequel is not a bad thing. Instead of trying to cope with the idea of just being a dull family man, we now have a guy who just kicks ass and thinks he can simply just ride that wave for a while that really can't just have a break. I guess one's nature makes things inevitable for someone who just allows things to get nuts. Do I expect more from certain action movies? Eh....not really. In fact, sometimes an action movie beat could resemble the horror movie in where I play generous because God only knows what would happen if either genre was at the mercy of streaming.* Odenkirk is still pretty game to carry the proceedings with worthwhile believability that can look and sound the part of an asskicker (to an extent) while having the troubles that come with someone who just can't resist scratching the proverbial itch. Nielsen is relatively fine in the same way that one is accepting of a dark cloud gathering because they are clearly ready with an umbrella in hand, I suppose. Stone is actually pretty neat as the routine villain, minus the fact that one could do with most (all?) of the lines stating how scary she is meant to be (ooh, she'll kill your bloodline if you cross her, what's next, she'll clone you to kill you again?), because she just has that basic instinctual touch to seem unnerving enough already. You get a smidge of time with others that are mostly "hey, that's nice" or "sure", so there's that. The action sequences are generally satisfying in the staging that mostly keeps things fresh, as signified with having a duck boat involved to go with a few chuckles in the lingering absurdity that comes with a vacation area becoming the most evident staging area for mayhem. The ending is, well, surely a bit too familiar, mainly because it thrives on conveniences for nearly too much of its 89 minutes (the last movie also started and ended in the same place, naturally) and I'm not entirely sure this is a movie that needs a follow up to feel whole. As a whole, Nobody 2 is a casual trek through the proverbial woods of movie-shuffling, one that achieves most of what it sets out to do in vacation-based action beats. I don't really know if there is a profound desire for a third of these movies, but I can always endorse a decent time with an action movie when it seems necessary to do so, so there's that, I suppose.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Arguably, you have stuff happen to people in action movies that would fit right in for horror movies, such as say, a dart to the eye.

Miami Vice.

Review #2091: Miami Vice.

Cast: 

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

Review: 

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem

Review #1849: Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem.

Cast: 

Steven Pasquale (Dallas Howard), Reiko Aylesworth (Kelly O'Brien), John Ortiz (Eddie Morales), Johnny Lewis (Ricky Howard), Sam Trammell (Tim O'Brien), Ariel Gade (Molly O'Brien), Robert Joy (Colonel Stevens), Kristen Hager (Jesse Salinger), David Paetkau (Dale Collins), Matt Ward (Mark), Michal Suchánek (Nick), David Hornsby (Drew Roberts), and Gina Holden (Carrie Adams) Directed by The Brothers Strause.

Review: 

You remember Alien vs. Predator (2004), don't you? The crossover movie between Alien and Predator that ended up being more average than Alien: Resurrection (or perhaps a predicator of further predictable fare like Predators) Well, if you liked seeing Paul W. S. Anderson cobble together a story with Ronald Shusett and Dan O'Bannon, too bad, the sequel just has Shane Salerno, who had given a re-write to the prior movie to go along with his occasional contribution to scripts for films such as Armageddon (1998). Oh, and now the director is a pair of brothers named Greg and Colin Strause. The brothers were born in Waukegan, Illinois but were raised in Chicago. They liked to experiment with computers from a young age, such as with the Amiga computer, and they convinced their parents that a Silicon Graphics Indy processor and software was something they wanted to work on and use for their interests in effects. This led to them moving to California in the 1990s (with inspiration for making movies coming from Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991) along with making their own company with Hydraulx, which did work for 20th Century Fox productions such as Volcano (1997) and The X-Files (1998). They also did music videos (like for the song "Californication") and commercials. So, when it came time to do a sequel of "AVP" without the service of Anderson, it should only make sense that Fox thought the Strause brothers would be suitable to carry an effects show for the sequel, and they were hired in 2006 for an eight-week shoot to direct their first ever feature, and it should be noted that they had pitched their own version of Alien vs. Predator years before that was rejected.

For reference, I watched the 101-minute unrated cut of the movie, although the theatrical release was only 94 minutes (rated R). If you thought that the first film took things a bit far with ridiculous spectacle, the sequel only proves to embiggen the failures present in the prior movie. Now one gets to see creatures in the old familiar format: in the dark, but not as clever as earlier and better movies, where perpetual rain falls down for the climax that might as well make me wish I had a shower less predictable than this movie - even the lead character from the last one would've been a more useful focus to return to. I get having actors that aren't exactly household names, but I just can't get behind a movie that is murky as hell to watch, where the one bright (subjectively speaking) sequence is a scene in a hospital. Yes, the movie actually features people in a hospital (and babies) having an encounter with the creatures. The scene may be disturbing, but it also might be the only noteworthy scene in the movie (complete with a pregnant woman involved), one that has the bright idea of introducing multiple plot threads of people with no sense of depth or interest besides being inevitable creature fodder. You know what would have been better? Throwing your action figures in a box while pouring ketchup all over it. There just isn't anything to draw on with Pasquale or Aylesworth, who might as well be playing broom-sticks when it comes to leads that are there just to engage in action and other things that are possibly too flat for name actors to get going. The focus is on the creatures and the "Predalien", but it kind of just falls by the wayside in generating actual curiosity for these creatures beside saying "well, they look nice, so?" It is like taking a rusty old car (i.e. the equivalent of the first movie) and giving it a paint job that somehow broke all the windows. Honestly, nuking the town in the climax is probably an apt description for what happens in the movie, since plans for a third film (complete with awful sequel-baiting) were scuttled despite its marginal success at the box office. In the end, one would best skip this hodgepodge of boredom.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Ad Astra.

Review #1277: Ad Astra.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (Major Roy McBride), Tommy Lee Jones (H. Clifford McBride), Ruth Negga (Helen Lantos), Liv Tyler (Eve McBride), Donald Sutherland (Colonel Pruitt), John Ortiz (General Rivas), Greg Bryk (Chip Garnes), Loren Dean (Donald Stanford), John Finn (General Stroud), and Kimberly Elise (Lorraine Deavers) Directed by James Gray.

Review: 
Admittedly, the interest for this film was fairly mild, with tinges of interest revolving around the approach of making a hostile space sci-fi movie, which one could probably see resembling Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. If the film is at least halfway accurate to reality with regards to space, that also helps too. Really though, one film I did see some parallels with was First Man (2018) with its focus on a closed off astronaut who holds in his fear for an important mission. Then again, that film didn't have a lead that voiced over several parts of the film, wonderful shots of other planets, killer baboons, or moon pirates. Really, with all that in mind, this likely could have been one of the most interesting space adventure films to come out in the past few years (this said for someone who hadn't encountered Interstellar first). It sure turned out to be an unbelievable movie - one that is so unbelievably average to the point of frustration. This feels like a film that needed another re-draft (for a film co-written by its director alongside Ethan Gross), and this is for something that reportedly had re-shoots that drove its budget higher than the initial $80 million - but does one need to know the budget to care about a movie? No, but it sure helps to make a movie that looks good and entertains just as well too.

There are highlights to be found here, such as the opening sequence involving a free fall to Earth. It is quite mesmerizing, seeing someone fall and fall to the Earth, even if you know that they will come out of it in at least one piece. The lunar rover scene with pirates on the Moon (or in other words, star pirates) is pretty captivating, interesting to view through the lens of space. The film also does have plenty of wonderful shots of other worlds, including when it finally encounters Neptune and its lovely rings. It just so happens that the film nearly collapses with the parts besides the ones I just mentioned. The loneliness of space sure seems like an interesting concept to go with, a better concept would be to make one that has two consistent halves to it. It does roll just fine for its first half in setting up its one useful lead and getting to Mars, but it sure does seem to seem less steady after that point. The baboon fight beforehand should've proved a worry already, but it barely even inspires a concern that our hero (I guess) will come out of it alive. By the time the film trudges to its climax, its attempts at inspiring some sort of spark of hope through an undeniably bleak and cynical foundation comes off as an utter joke. This is a film that makes cracks at having restaurants on the Moon with pricey blankets for the flight over there. It also seems to have shock for its main character that he won't get to go from Mars to Neptune to actually confront his kooky father (take your pick on how he reacts to that). Pick one tone and stick with it, especially since it probably could have just shown some actual moments around the locations it wants to go. But no, one really needs to see the plight of the sad lone space man again and again. The benefit is that a less competent director might have made these seem downright maudlin as opposed to mildly sobering. You know what did better as a one-man space film? Moon (2009), which actually knew where to go with its main character and his own crisis within the human element for a sci-fi film.

Nobody delivers a terrible performance, but they sure look constrained by what the script requires, especially a criminally wasted Jones. His scraggly beard and weary nature beg for more to do than this. Oh sure, Pitt looks to be gnawing at the idea of a literal one-man show where you can see his stoic nature to space travel and accompanying voiceover over being alone just fine. One can only take so much before wanting to just find something else to view alongside him, especially since nearly every other character is hopelessly incompetent or a shadow. Jones may be wasted, but Tyler and Sutherland make their own captivating contention for being underused. You could take Tyler out of the film and barely anything would feel different. Sutherland only seems to be there just to spew plot points before his 20 minutes are up. Maybe I am being a bit too harsh on these folks, or perhaps this is exactly the kind of film that deserves better and should do better. Mediocre movies can be tiresome, high-priced ones that can't live up to their own premise without nearly poisoning its own foundations with a big d'oh are especially tiresome. On the whole, Ad Astra does deliver on some of its promises when it comes to spectacle and a decent one-man show from Pitt. It proceeds to bewilder and frustrate for two hours by being as ridiculously self-serious as it wants with such amusement that it almost becomes parody. Perhaps a re-watch could give a bit of clarity and understanding to what makes this film tick, but one could just re-watch other better sci-fi films of its ilk instead. On a ranking scale, it would get a C, but since I use numbers, I suppose it averages out to being one to recommend, if only by slim margins. It is watchable, if not one to grumble at sometimes.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Kong: Skull Island.

Review #919: Kong: Skull Island.

Cast:
Tom Hiddleston (James Conrad), Samuel L. Jackson (Preston Packard), John Goodman (Bill Randa), Brie Larson (Mason Weaver), John C. Reilly (Hank Marlow), Corey Hawkins (Houston Brooks), John Ortiz (Victor Nieves), Tian Jing (San Lin), Toby Kebbell (Jack Chapman), John Ortiz (Victor Nieves), Corey Hawkins (Houston Brooks), Jason Mitchell (Glenn Mills), Shea Whigham (Earl Cole), Thomas Mann (Reg Slivko), and Terry Notary (King Kong, motion capture performance) Directed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts.

Review:
It's easy to admit that the idea of doing a Kong reboot could be regarded as unneeded, if put in the wrong hands. Having the film be set in 1973 (one could almost nickname the movie "VietKong", actually) is certainly an interesting choice. For me, I thoroughly enjoyed this film and everything that it wanted to be: a fun good time. It's easy to admit that this is a popcorn movie, with a great amount of entertainment and characters that would be right at home in a explorer movie. For me, this might've been just a bit better than the 2014 Godzilla film (#582), as this film definitely lets one see more of Kong - right from the beginning, in fact. Obviously there is more to the movie than just Kong (with some fine CGI and some fine motion capture from Notary), there's also the fine effects of the Skullcrawlers and enough eye-candy (with regards to how the movie is shot) and cinematography that I appreciated. There isn't any kind of cop-outs nor teasing, it flat out goes for the thrill and chills - and it succeeds. Hiddleston is a fair enough lead, but obviously the big standout is Jackson, who just hams it up in such an adversarial manner that just clicks. Larson is also a fair lead as well, with Goodman being as gruff and relatable as ever. Reilly is also pretty fun, having an eccentric but likable presence. The rest of the cast does a fine job, being useful enough. Honestly the best kind of lead are leads who act and move convincingly without just being screamers/stilted glory hogs. They aren't too developed, but they also aren't too one dimensional either. There is a good mode of pace and design, with monster fights that manage to be riveting. Obviously this is a movie that works as fun entertainment (and something to try and get one ready for a Godzilla/Kong matchup a few years down the line), and there's nothing wrong with that. It achieves what it wants to accomplish without derailing itself at any point, while letting Kong be Kong.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.