Heat (1995).

Review #2491: Heat.

Cast: 

Al Pacino (LAPD Robbery Homicide Lieutenant Vincent Hanna), Robert De Niro (Neil McCauley), Val Kilmer (Chris Shiherlis), Jon Voight (Nate), Tom Sizemore (Michael Cheritto), Diane Venora (Justine Hanna), Amy Brenneman (Eady), Ashley Judd (Charlene Shiherlis), Mykelti Williamson (Sergeant Bobby Drucker), Wes Studi (Detective Sammy Casals), Ted Levine (Detective Mike Bosko), Dennis Haysbert (Don Breedan), William Fichtner (Roger Van Zant), Natalie Portman (Lauren Gustafson), Tom Noonan (Kelso), Niki Haris (Marcia Drucker), Kevin Gage (Waingro), Hank Azaria (Alan Marciano), Danny Trejo (Gilbert Trejo), Susan Traylor (Elaine Cheritto), Kim Staunton (Lillian), Henry Rollins (Hugh Benny), and Jerry Trimble (Detective Danny Schwartz) 

Written and Directed by Michael Mann (#1531 - Ali, #1631 - The Last of the Mohicans, #1713 - Manhunter, #2091 - Miami Vice, #2325 - Collateral)

Review: 

"I charted the film out like a 2 hr 45 min piece of music, so I'd know where to be smooth, where not to be smooth, where to be staccato, where to use a pulse like a heartbeat."

It helps to know the story a bit, admittedly. Once upon a time, a Chicago detective named Chuck Adamson kept tabs on the crew of one Neil McCauley, an ex-inmate of Alcatraz that one time saw the two end up meeting for a cup of coffee. Adamson later became a producer and screenwriter himself (where he co-created Crime Story, a show Mann was the executive producer on from 1986-1988). What interested him was the professionalism that Adamson respected in McCauley even with the recognized fact that one of them probably would kill the other. Mann had first written a draft in 1978 but he trimmed it down when NBC approached him to do a TV show. The result (filmed in less than a month) was L.A. Takedown (starring Scott Plank), a TV film that aired in 1989 that the network rejected because they didn't like the lead actor. But a few years later, with a few more moves under his belt, Mann set out to do the movie he wanted to do at last, complete with having Al Pacino and Robert De Niro being in the same movie (a relatively big deal for the time for a film that, well, has them meet twice) and one that was shot in Los Angeles that used nearly a hundred locations around the city for 100+ days of filming. Released on December 15, 1995, the film was a relative success with audiences (particularly abroad). Apparently, actual robbers took inspiration from the movie in later years to go along with video games such as Grand Theft Auto and directors such as Christopher Nolan.* In 2022, Heat 2, a novel written by Mann and Meg Gardiner was released that was both a prequel and sequel to the movie. A feature film adaptation is currently under development that may start filming in 2026.

What we have here is a movie full of intensity in the great game of choices, personal codes and the consequences that can have an effect on a wide range of people. It's a wonderful epic in the sprawling confines of a frontier that is intimidating as it is lonely. It's as much a neo-noir as it arguably is also a Western in its own respect, one that looks upon the nature of obsession and the sacrifices one makes to burnish that fire and live on the edge. A good chunk of the characters that we see throughout the near-three hour run time all have illusions about who they are vs. what really lies beneath the surface of their work, one in which it isn't so easy to just turn it off just because it's time to go home now, whether that involves cops that can't exactly tell their spouses about recently murdered people or men who believe themselves to be alone in their process or even those trying to dig their way out besides being an "ex-con". Simply put, the juice comes and goes but the work will be playing everywhere until the Earth is nothing but dust. Apparently, there was a scene that showed Pacino's character chip a bit of cocaine before it was cut out of the film. At any rate, high-strung user or not, I don't see anything wrong with where Pacino is going with such a fascinating role because, well, volatile is volatile (besides, "overacting" is only a bad thing when one wants to pick at things - the scene interrogating Azaria is delightful more than just "ham"). He handles it with such gusto that you understand pretty quickly how one can hate the sight of a horrible crime (dead hookers, robberies, you get it) and yet have the juice to want to crack it. Regardless of if one had a person like Venora or Portman in their orbit, there are just some people that need the chase because the pursuit of justice is just as addicting as the pursuit of a good score. De Niro matches that with his own type of worthwhile energy, a brooding man who values success at his craft because there is nothing better in his worldview even if he is confined by a code that might as well be a prison (such as how he lives or the ever-changing cars). One can only try to fool themselves with thoughts of being with Brenneman but really what matters to him is fulfilling his obligation to this mythic code of no excuses (and no second chances for violators) and trust for certain folks only. Pacino and De Niro basically are yin and yang in the knowing sense of "whatever it takes". It is just as well to see Kilmer and others fill the tapestry of obsession that wants to believe they are in control of their own lives in responsibility, whether that involves the disciplined (and still fallible as a character) Kilmer or the cut-rate Sizemore or even tragic side figures such as Haysbert that remind you that nothing is easy to escape. The robbery sequence obviously is the highlight of the film in its slam-bang execution of loud devastation that works to clockwork in seeing where one will go in realizing the full process of the job, right down to the eventual climax in wordless (but impactful for what is seen) resolution*. As a whole, Heat is a long burn not so much about a heist but about the people that toil in the work of people at a variety of angles that crisscross with each other in sacrifice and foibles to worthwhile staccato execution. It's a hell of a movie to see turn 30 years old.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

*Apparently, the way that Kilmer reloads his weapon during the famous shootout scene is apparently a thing that professionals tell others to aspire to do in real life.

*Honestly, it is a bit weird but not a dealbreaker at what happens to (the Kilmer character in how he just...escapes). 

Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2.

Review #2318: Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2.

Cast: 

Jon Voight (Bill Biscane/Kane), Scott Baio (Stan Bobbins), Vanessa Angel (Jean Bobbins), Skyler Shaye (Kylie), Leo, Connor and Christopher Lewis (Baby Kahuna), Justin Chatwin (Zack), Peter Wingfield (Crowe), Shaun Sipos (Brandon), Thomas Kretschmann (Roscoe), Stefanie von Pfetten (Jennifer Kraft), with Gerry and Myles Fitzgerald (Kahuna; voiced by David A. Kaye), Max and Michael Iles (Archie; voiced by Danny McKinnon), Jared and Jordan Scheideman (Finkleman (voiced by Jonathan Singleton), Maia and Keana Bastidas (Rosita (voiced by Melissa Montoya), and Joshua and Maxwell Lockhart (Alex; voiced by Rashad Hood) Directed by Bob Clark (#020 - A Christmas Story, #679 - Black Christmas, #1055 - Porky's, #1854 - My Summer Story, #2149 - Baby Geniuses)

Review: 

There really is no point in saying the obvious, but the original Baby Geniuses (1999) was a semi-success with audiences despite its ungodly idea of having babies that talk with mouth morphing. The only souls alive that really wanted another of these films must've loved the power of the dollar and also thought audiences really would be stupid enough to go with it a second time. You might remember that the genesis for what became the first film was partially at the hands of Jon Voight, who had sprung the idea of a script that had been done about intelligent babies, and that Voight showed a proof-of-concept film about babies sitting around talking. Of course, Clark eventually fiddled with things to be more about corporate intrigue for the movie that escaped onto theaters (the rare occasion when direct-to-video might have served this crap better). Voight, who was an executive producer on the film, now serves as the chief adult star to go along with one person returning from the last film. Gregory Poppen wrote the screenplay while Steven Paul (one of the people responsible for the last film's script) wrote the story and produced the film. Paul apparently really fought for the film when it came to the dawdling of actually releasing it, since as quoted by Voight, he was the who kept "awareness of it up." Truly inspiring. I can imagine that Now & Forever (2002), the only theatrical effort Clark did between the Baby Geniuses films that closed out his career before his untimely death, could be better. There were no more of these movies in theaters, but Voight appeared in three Baby Geniuses movies for the direct-to-video market. Tragically, Clark died in 2007 at the age of 67 in a head-on car crash, with this being his last feature film.

Now you have super babies with super strength to go along with brother reveals and plans about TVs making kids stay inside the house (nowadays you might as well worry about the iPads seeping one's attention span). It isn't particularly worthy to get mad and launch a comprehensive review about how this manages to be worse than the original, one that might make you wonder if you could give a -1 rating to a movie. The whole movie just seems unnatural, ugly and lifeless in ways that even mediocre movies blow out of the water in terms of actual entertainment value. Nothing changed in the five years from the first film to make one believe babies could be funny talking except for the people making it. I wonder how they came up with the idea of an apparently immortal being that will be stuck in the body of a three-year old baby that goes around protecting kids in his weird lair. Voight must've been watching too many movies about German-speaking doctors and thought it would be a neat bit for this film. There may have been movies in Voight's past and present that were actually effective, but this is clearly not one of them for a movie that would've been great to crush in the Berlin Wall. Baio has exactly one film credit that I remember with Bugsy Malone (1976), which had child actors play adult roles, incidentally. The nicest way to describe him here is "vacant". Shaye gives it a go for a movie that offers one nothing beyond a check. You know those cheesy b-movies that maybe don't have the effects or all-around acting to get the whole way across the finish line? Superbabies proves that having money ($20 million apparently) to pair Academy Award winning actors with effects made from the backside of God is not everything. Let's just throw out some words to call the movie to at least practice some alliteration for "education" about the movie: Incoherent, incompetent, insane, insecure, idiotic, ignominious, ignorant. I would rather see someone feed AI this crap just to see how it would respond to getting soullessness for a prompt (editor's note: do not do this).

Hell, I've run out of bile, so in the tradition of Thanksgiving, let me just repurpose old material for you: Getting kids (age 5-9, apparently) rather than adult voices to voice the babies (such as say, Look Who's Talking [1989]) is probably the least sad thing of the whole thing. What could possibly invite you to waste 95 minutes on a movie that never succeeds in every joke that is attempted? If there was a God, I do not believe that watching babies walk and talk would be high on the priority list. You might as well call it the film most likely to be thought of as having no soul in it. The people who made this film probably did not think much of the film either during or after production, but that doesn't give an excuse for this being one of the worst things I have ever seen. Hell, it shouldn't even be called a film, it should be put in a special garbage can that you would put expired food products in. You might think, oh, well, Monster a Go-Go (1965) is filled with more inconsistencies and worse acting. Well, maybe, but that has the label of being made in weirder circumstances of "make the best out of the footage", what kind of excuse does this Hollywood slop have? Absolutely none. Clark and his team probably thought it was one of those things you can put on for the kids and enjoy, but no, they did not. It's easy to say folks are mailing it in, but, well, yea, they are mailing it in as if this was a direct-to-video production, complete with little motivation to do much of anything. They repeat one line four times in quick succession and later do a repeat of a gag where an adult gets tricked into getting hit in the beans after talking about it. The voices coming out of those babies were never going to work with how it looked because it just isn't a useful effect that you would want to see for very long. It is a gag that has run amok for what might as well count for anti-comedy. Truly, this was a sad experience to sit through, because it means that Bob Clark may be one of few people who directed both a vaunted classic and a horrendously awful feature in the same career. Avoid, unless you like garbage.

Overall, I give it 0 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Black Friday gives you relief in boredom with the return of W. Lee Wilder and The Snow Creature.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.

Review #2157: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.

Cast: 

Eddie Redmayne (Newt Scamander), Katherine Waterston (Tina Goldstein), Dan Fogler (Jacob Kowalski), Alison Sudol (Queenie Goldstein), Samantha Morton (Mary Lou Barebone), Ezra Miller (Credence Barebone), Jon Voight (Henry Shaw Sr), Carmen Ejogo (Seraphina Picquery), Colin Farrell (Percival Graves), Ron Perlman (the voice of Gnarlak), Faith Wood-Blagrove (Modesty Barebone), Ronan Raftery (Langdon Shaw), and Josh Cowdery (Henry Shaw Jr) Directed by David Yates (#121-#124: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix / the Half-Blood Prince / Deathly Hallows - Part 1 and Part 2)

Review: 

Sometimes one just gets tired. They miss a film they probably could have seen or put it on their to-do list to throw onto the waste basket for the next year. This is one of those times, which is particularly amusing because I can say without a doubt that once Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011) came out, I seemed to just go in and out of making excuses to really go back and watch those films once it was all said and done. Hell, I read the books as a teen, and somehow the idea of a "spinoff" film that retained the same director from that film adaptation to go with a screenplay by J. K. Rowling slipped my attention (I went back to try and jog my 19-going-on-20 memory and found that I somehow had time for exactly one theater release in the month that this film was released: Doctor Strange). Anyway, why don't we start making up for lost time: this is a spinoff film conceived with David Heyman (who had produced the film series) serving as a producer alongside Rowling (who had produced the Deathly Hallows films) that shares the title of a guidebook that Rowling had written in 2001 (which, well, was about beasts one might find in the wizarding world). Development started in 2013 and went on from there. The success of the film, which was planned to be the first of five films, would inspire two sequels Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) and Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022).

You know, some things are just unbearably average. I was 15 when I last remember watching all eight of that aforementioned film series (which is now labeled as being part of a "Wizarding World" franchise that inspires a blank stare), and I think he and me can agree on one thing: even the most inferior of the films (Chamber of Secrets? Order of the Phoenix?) rank better than this one, a sponge of doing things fine with the bare inspiration to look ahead. It has some of the curiosity required when it comes to wondering aloud why one would want to spend a second watching magic-sound phrases come out of folks (either British or not), and it does hold 133 minutes of attention with a handful of wonder-inducement, one can be fair there. There is something useful to find in watching folks try to engage with the idea of silly beasts possibly causing havoc in a 1920s New York that Redmayne can handle with the sense of interest with Fogler and Waterston, where even a magical parasite could be something really curious. And yet...why is it the film finds itself trying to wedge some sort of bubbling idea of war in the middle of things? (complete with a middling amount of screentime for Jon Voight, "Man Who Can Be A Ham") You can fool me with names such as "Newt" or "Queenie", but New Wizarding Orders with guys named "Gellert Grindelwald" that like to play disguise? That takes a bit more time to really stomach. Silly little plant looking creatures are a bit cooler than newspaper exposition. The performances are serviceable to the material, mostly in the case of Fogler, who provides the "take it in stride" balance to go with Redmayne and his, uh, spirited attempts at wonder that come and go with effectiveness. At least Farrell gets to dilly dally in obviousness a bit, especially when compared with a stone faced Miller. In general, this is a film that makes idle movement towards having fun but pushes a big cloud (parasite) and trying to maintain that line between wizards and "No-Majs" (blank stare). It is mildly fun, because those little antics involving a bank and magic tricks (it works out better in some ways to have people come and go) do make things come off interesting, and I do think there is something worth looking into when it comes to magic run amok that isn't trying to play too hard into things you heard already (except one line that I hated guessing). It is the kind of film that is crafted from cloth that could have received a bit more weaving to really hit its mark, but it does the basic necessities that will make those who were really drawn into it want to wonder what could be next without being a churner for the rest.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Anaconda .

Review #2123: Anaconda.

Cast: 

Jennifer Lopez (Terri Flores), Ice Cube (Danny Rich), Jon Voight (Paul Serone), Eric Stoltz (Dr. Steven Cale), Jonathan Hyde (Warren Westridge), Owen Wilson (Gary Dixon), Kari Wuhrer (Denise Kalberg), Vincent Castellanos (Mateo), with Frank Welker (Anaconda snake) and Danny Trejo (Poacherck) Directed by Luis Llosa.

Review:

Look, you know what you are getting into with a film like this, especially one released in the late 1990s. The film utilizes a mix of computer-generated imagery and animatronics for its title creature (apparently, one can see an animatronic from the film at the California Academy of Sciences). Hans Bauer, Jim Cash and Jack Epps Jr wrote the screenplay, although it has been stated that Mark Haskell Smith provided a "production draft". The film was directed by Luis Llosa, a Peruvian film critic-turned-director (of course, being a cousin of noted novelist Mario Vargas Llosa is something to note). He got his start as director with Peruvian television shows such as Gamboa and Carmin before becoming a feature director with (where else?) Roger Corman productions such as Hour of the Assassin (1987) and Crime Zone (1989). Perhaps to the surprise of no one, there were follow ups; only Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid (2004) was released theatrically, although it retained no original cast members from the first film. Plans to make a reboot film are apparently in motion, which I'm sure is interesting news to those who are familiar with recent creature features such as The Meg (I still can't get over that title). 

Honestly, the film almost overrode my low expectations. You have Ice Cube making a reference to his own songs for a line. You have Jon Voight putting on a Paraguayan accent because, well, okay, sure. You have a snake that reminds me of a gummy worm when it comes to the CG moments to go with an amusingly long snake (with sound effects by Frank Welker). Top it all off, you have a character swallowed up and regurgitated that shows a shot of them blinking right before they are shown dead. Imagine all of this coming in a film about a National Geographic crew looking for an obscure tribe in the Amazon. It sure isn't Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954), but it is the kind of goofy film that would fit just right from one of Corman's old features such as Attack of the Crab Monsters (1957). It probably goes without saying that a handful of sea creature features all seem to owe something to Jaws (1975), whether that involves POV shots or making creatures out to seem more dangerous than they are in the actual wild. Granted, the idea of going out in the jungle is a bit spooky, so having to deal with the idea of a snake that may eat or bite you is at least an idea I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. But this is about as scary as, well, looking at a snake in a picture book. It is cheesy in every way you would expect that I can only cite as a light negative assessment. Lopez doesn't exactly have much to really do when overshadowed by obvious presences in Cube or Voight, because even being a screamer would be part of a personality. The cardboard "PG-13" folks are there just to come and go, which seems hollow when compared to other cheesy movies. Stoltz is probably given the most thankless role of the whole film, since he is basically put out of commission for half of it, which makes him pale in comparison to the ones that at least get to act in fear of the gummi snake. Undeniably, Voight seems to be the only one giving it his all when it comes to ridiculous mannerisms, a preening cliche if there ever was one to the very end that I'm sure Vincent Price would've blushed at. Hyde probably is the only one of the body-count to make an impression, even if it is a mild laugh. I do appreciate the time taken to build up a killer snake only to have one victim of the film fall at the hands of a guy who chokes a person out with their legs while tied to a board. One can do better or worse with creature features, and this is not exactly a winner, but with its evident qualities of being exactly what you expect from a 90s product that stands more of its time than older-aged films of its ilk (for better or worse), well, you get what you think you get. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next: you might be wondering why Thursdays this month featured Dracula and Frankenstein films. Hell, why not? For the fourth and final time, let's get a doubleheader, starting with Blacula.

Glory Road.

Review #1664: Glory Road.

Cast: 

Josh Lucas (Don Haskins), Derek Luke (Bobby Joe Hill), Mehcad Brooks (Harry Flournoy), Austin Nichols (Jerry Armstrong), Jon Voight (Adolph Rupp), Evan Jones (Moe Iba), Red West (Ross Moore), Schin A.S. Kerr (David Lattin), Alphonso McAuley (Orsten Artis), Sam Jones III (Willie Worsley), Damaine Radcliff (Willie Cager), Emily Deschanel (Mary Haskins), and Al Shearer (Nevil Shed) Directed by James Gartner.

Review: 

"I certainly did not expect to be some racial pioneer or to change the world." - Don Haskins

Sometimes, it is necessary to do a bit of a history lesson with a film, particularly one near and dear to my interest: sports...Texas Western was the first team from my home state to have won a NCAA Tournament (and the only one until Baylor in 2021), and they did so with a historical distinction as the first all-African American lineup to play in the Championship, which they did 72–65 over Kentucky on March 19, 1966. As one should say for any movie based on a true story...send in the fact checks. After all, we are talking about a movie with the same producer behind Remember the Titans (2000) in Jerry Bruckheimer, which has its own shares of dubious playing with the facts (particularly if you had asked one particular player).  Yes, one can say "it's just a movie", but one will always want to find the truth anyway...saying that you are a movie, not a documentary is hogwash - at that point, you might as well just say you aren't a slide-show too (trust me, there are other sports movies that merit this kind of skepticism...like Rudy). Consider the first point, in that Haskins actually arrived at Texas Western (now the University of Texas at El Paso) in 1961, not 1965. Those four years are important to note, because in that time there was a trend-setter in field of college basketball in Loyola University Chicago (as coached by George Ireland) - the 1963 team was the pinnacle of a program that was the first to start an all-black lineup in the NCAA (doing so in 1962), and the title game for that year would feature lineups with a majority of African American players as starters (four for Loyola, three for Cincinnati, who went to three straight title games in five straight appearances in the Final Four); if one wants to relate this to the Southeastern Conference, one of their programs in Mississippi State didn't even play in the NCAA Tournament until playing Loyola in the Sweet Sixteen because of said prejudices against lineups like Loyola (interestingly, 25 programs played in the '63 tournament but only 22 played in the '66 tournament) - the conference did not integrate until the following year. Why stop there? The University of San Francisco won titles in 1955 and 1956 with famed players like Bill Russell, K.C. Jones and Hal Perry. Nolan Richardson, a pioneering coach in his own right for Arkansas, got his start in college basketball as a player for...Texas Western, in the same year that Haskins was hired. Consider the stage and time: the NCAA University Division Basketball Championship Game (as it was called) wasn't even broadcast on national television, instead being shown by a company called Sports Network Incorporated (thankfully, the tape of the game is intact). The slam dunk would be banned by the NCAA for a period of years starting in 1967, and there was no three-point shot (take a guess which was which with these stat-lines: 22-for-49, 28/34 free throws, 27-of-70, 11/13 free throws). Checking the score-card reveals an easy slip: Texas Western never trailed after they went up 16-11. Heck, the first game of the year for the Miners isn't even correct, as it depicts a tough four point win over Eastern New Mexico...they won that game by 49 points. Interestingly, it covers the East Texas State game as being a road game...it was actually the second game of the year (in El Paso, not two weeks before the Tournament; the university, now known as Texas A&M–Commerce took umbrage with the filmmakers for what they felt was liberties taken with them in that game/after the game)…the five point struggle was actually 22. At least it reflects the last game of the year okay, in that they lost the same day that Kentucky had lost...but it was a two point loss, instead of the runaway loss portrayed here. Honestly, if you are going to make a sports movie, perhaps don't show the scoreboard with blatantly wrong scores - I don't care if it was done to add drama or not, it just seems ridiculous to make such bizarre moves. The nail in the coffin is the game versus Kansas (the third of five games played by Texas Western), for which it depicts the blunder by Jo Jo White as ending the game...nope. Besides, Haskins and his team wasn't exactly a Cinderella story. By the time Haskins had started his fifth season as head coach, he had led them to appearances in the postseason three times while going 78-25 (Haskins, in over three decades of coaching, would go 719–353 as coach; incidentally, if you are curious about Rupp and his own legacy, he went 876–190 in four decades as coach for Kentucky, who after years of trying to recruit to integrate with a great talent and not simply one for the bench, managed to do so in 1970, the season before his retirement).

Amidst all of this is the fact that we have a rookie director in James Gartner at the helm. It is the only credit that he has in feature films, as he is generally more known for work within commercials. The film takes material from the 2005 novel of the same name that was written by Don Haskins and journalist Dan Wetzel, with the screenplay adaptation being done by Chris Cleveland, Bettina Gilois, and Gregory Allen Howard - you may recognize the latter name as one of the key writers behind Remember the Titans (2000) and Ali (2001), for which we have mentioned before has its own little quibbles in facts.  One thing that I can personally say is this: It is irresistible, at least for me anyways, to see a team take a blue-blood program to the cleaners and win as Texas Western did, because one has to have their little moments, albeit with a very formulaic movie. It tries to find a balance with its cast and the significance of the moment in the struggle against prejudice over something as simple as just playing the game of basketball on their terms. In that sense, some players will stand out better than others, such as Luke or Kerr, who each prove quite entertaining in charm and in awareness when it comes to showing the degrees of college life, which makes one take perspective. Probably the one interesting scene that involves the team comes before it gets rolling, which involves a game of playing trash cans for fun - curious, yet far more interesting than something like the scene of the night before the title game with Lucas telling his team who he will start and why (I included that quote in the beginning of this review for a reason, and that is because Haskins picked his five on who was best to play and that was it). Lucas seems to follow the lines of Disney sports movies with tough-minded coaches (such as Remember the Titans and Miracle (2004), for example), one that feeds upon discipline that proves quite laconic at times. It is a decent performance, one that reflects Haskins that just seems to also reflect other sports movies of its ilk for better or worse (Deschanel, his on-screen wife, might be confused for a shadow with how the film shows Haskins at home with his family in those small moments, but that is neither here or there). Voight (remember him from his turn in Ali? Here's another makeup show) certainly has an interesting task at hand. He isn't exactly an adversary to the main task at hand but rather is like the dragon waiting at the end with a fire to win that can be seen from the drawl and expressions. I think he does fine with the role, one that provides a contrast and similarity with Lucas in the pursuit of victory with bare tinges of anything other than desire for victory. Look, at the end of the day, we have a movie that is 106 minutes that is okay with what it does. One gets a feeling for the feeling of the time without being smothered in patronization for it, and the basketball action is engaging enough for those who care about that sort of thing. If it makes folks want to check further into basketball history within the context of its times and pioneers to go with it, I think that will prove more than enough in generating solid entertainment.

Congratulations go out to Baylor University for having won the NCAA championship tonight. It took a bit longer to get this review out in order to accommodate a bit of research, but I am sure you folks will understand.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Ali.

Review #1531: Ali.

Cast: 
Will Smith (Cassius Clay Jr / Muhammad Ali), Jamie Foxx (Drew Bundini Brown), Jon Voight (Howard Cosell), Mario Van Peebles (Malcolm X), Ron Silver (Angelo Dundee), Jeffrey Wright (Howard Bingham), Mykelti Williamson (Don King), James Toney (Joe Frazier), Jada Pinkett Smith (Sonji Roi), Nona Gaye (Belinda Boyd / Khalilah Ali), Michael Michele (Veronica Porché), Joe Morton (Chauncey Eskridge), Paul Rodriguez (Dr. Ferdie Pacheco), and Bruce McGill (Bradley) Directed by Michael Mann.

Review: 
"The accomplishment of Will Smith in that movie is extraordinary: It’s not just the movement and the boxing — that’s difficult enough; it’s having your head in 1964, which came from sitting where you’re sitting and talking to Geronimo Pratt. That’s the challenge, because that’s what’s really, sincerely exciting — to get things to the point where they become emotionalized and real, so hopefully they have an impact upon audiences.”

It takes a life as big as Muhammad Ali to have two big names behind a biopic about his crucial years, which is why Michael Mann and Will Smith seemed destined to make this film together. The Chicago-born Mann studied English at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, but it was the viewing of films by F. W. Murnau and G. W. Pabst along with the release of Dr. Strangelove (1963) that influenced him about becoming a director and making a film with an individual statement with successful appeal for serious cinema without needing to be niche. He attended London Film School and subsequently made commercials and shorts before eventually moving back to the United States to do television, which led to his TV breakthrough with The Jericho Mile (1979) before a feature film breakthrough with Thief (1981). Known for his focus on his work with detail and style, this is the seventh of his eleven directorial efforts, and he would also serve as a co-producer and co-writer on the screenplay (with Eric Roth, Stephen J. Rivele, and Christopher Wilkinson, while Gregory Allen Howard got credit for the story). As for Smith, he had risen to fame through various media, which included hip hop in the late 1980s and television with The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (1990-96) before carving a breakthrough in film with Six Degrees of Separation (1993). Smith had his hesitations of taking on Ali in part because of uncertainty about the script but also in if he was ready to be involved in the feature. He went through months of training in learning about boxing and Islamic studies while gaining weight for the role for a project that ultimately ballooned to over $100 million in budget.

Ali had been prominent on and off the ring, with his pursuits involving writing, music, and acting, which included features such as a.k.a. Cassius Clay (1970, documentary), which had archival footage and interviews with Ali about his exile from the ring, The Greatest (1977), in which Ali starred as himself detailing his life from 1960-1974, and When We Were Kings (1996, documentary), which detailed the "Rumble In The Jungle" fight with archival footage. One could likely do multiple projects on the life of Ali or study him and his prominent life through simply seeing him near a boxing ring. However, this is a film that details the most important years of his life that go from 1964 to 1974, detailing his holding to his principles through a rise, fall, and rise again to the ring and what matters to him most when it comes to holding his principles in religion and against war. In this sense, Ali is a decent film, packed to the prim with observation and some of the confidence and curiosity that made Ali such an icon while perhaps dragging its feet in covering all the fine points of what it wants to show in its vision, a man filled with idiosyncrasies that made him a courageous rebel with struggles and human flaws. In this sense, Smith pulls off a wonderful performance, wrapped in confidence that does well in bravado and stature that works as a tribute to the man portrayed without seeping into hagiographic worship, elevating the material beyond putty if in lesser hands. Foxx proves just as well in delivering someone wrapped in hype and mystery with the right kind of conviction and timing when he is needed for the experience. Voight, wrapped in makeup, pulls off a pretty convincing performance, one with enterprising presence that likely captures the blustery confidence of the real Cosell (in my vague awareness of him the film did actually teach me something I didn't know, namely that he studied law before broadcasting) without just seeming like a pale imitation. Others do fine, but they generally seep in and out of the film as time goes on that make it a bit difficult to really grab a hold on (aside from one might know about them, as is the case with figures played by Van Peebles and Williamson), although at least the film never detracts from its time period with something distracting. The boxing sequences are generally well done, handling the plight of what it means to get beaten pound-for-pound with flourish and careful cutting. Even though the film was not a success with audiences at the time, it shouldn't erase what turns out to be a useful experience to see on screen. One's enjoyment of the film comes from how much of the material will resonate with a viewer when it comes to being a celebration of Ali and what he went through in a decade of fighting others from the ring onto the system that go from place to place with a fair bit of impact for its surroundings that make a decent achievement for both Mann and Smith to be proud of.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Midnight Cowboy.

Review #1431: Midnight Cowboy.

Cast: 
Jon Voight (Joe Buck), Dustin Hoffman (Enrico Salvatore "Ratso" Rizzo), Sylvia Miles (Cass), John McGiver (Mr. O'Daniel), Brenda Vaccaro (Shirley), Barnard Hughes (Towny), Ruth White (Sally Buck), Jennifer Salt (Annie), and Gilman Rankin (Woodsy Niles) Directed by John Schlesinger.

Review: 
"I like making films that have question marks in them and are not all tied up beautifully with a pink ribbon, even though that's what the audience seems to want, and if you give it to them there's more assurance of commercial success, perhaps. But that's never the way I've seen life or reflected life in what I want to put on the screen."

If there was ever a time for a film to come out with a sense of grimy honesty and capable performances to make a tale of New York City from its lower edges come alive, Midnight Cowboy is definitely the film to do it. The changing of the times in what content could be touched upon or shown in films led at last to an film rating system by the Motion Picture Association of America in 1968, which had found initial ratings in G (General), M (Mature), R (Restricted), and X (no admissions under 16, adults-only). This film is known as the first and only X-rated film to have won an Academy Award for Best Picture, although it should be noted that it was later reclassified under the R-rating with no edits done. With that said, it should be no surprise to see such a provocative film come from British actor-turned-director (both feature and short films) John Schlesinger, who made his mark with urban dramas such as A Kind of Loving (1962), Billy Liar (1963), and Darling (1965). Accompanying him is Jon Voight, who had just two film credits before taking on this film and the effort to play a Texan (with the native New Yorker studying tapes of Texans incessantly) and Dustin Hoffman, a method actor that became part of a new generation of actors with versatile performances of varying vulnerability (he convinced the filmmakers to do the film by going out in a dirty coat and blending in with the surroundings). This was an adaptation of the 1965 novel of the same name from James Leo Herlihy. Responsible for the adaptation to film was Waldo Salt, who found a way to shift focus from the first half to the second half of the novel through flash-present sequences that would show the past of the main character through the eyes of a present scene as memories (shown either in color or in black-in-white). Despite anxiety over what people would think of it before release, Schlesinger ultimately felt that he made a film that while it couldn't be made today, captured a "mixture of desperation and humor which I found all along Forty-Second Street." Accordingly, both Salt and Schlesinger would win Academy Awards for their work on this film.

It is clear to see how one made such an interesting film that lurks in the cesspool with such tremendous acting from its main stars with a lasting power of sorts in detailing the underbelly of a city with misfits that make try to forge their way in the big city. There is a tender story worth viewing with Voight and Hoffman that reaches out to the loner in us, the person who yearns for more than what we see in the mirror or what we see in our soul. Hoffman achieves a grand scuzzy quality to his role, one that seeps into the underside without seeming comprised of any frills or distractions to make us believe anything other that we hear and see of him. He is the man perpetually on the outside of even marginal living, selling a character that you might bat an eye at if he was just "walkin' here". Voight matches in line with a curiosity and dandy nature as a would-be hustler that makes for a stirring performance in his pursuit to find somewhere (or someone) to belong with, and the scenes with Hoffman are the most dynamically compelling in interest, particularly when the film starts rolling down to the end of its 113 minute run-time. They may snipe at each other and they may both have plenty of trouble with a city like no other, but there is still a level of warmth beneath all the cold, which is still something to look back upon. A group of eccentrics make for an interesting supporting cast, each of whom get their own little scene with Voight, for which McGiver does the quirkiest and most interesting one as a gay religious fanatic. The film clicks more often than not as a gritty piece of work that breaks innocence of a dream into several little pieces to dissect. It is a tender and somber film to its fateful end, hustling about with no compromises but hard-life choices to make that leave its viewer with something to think about as a key piece of its time and a highlight for its stars that make it a daring and welcome film for those are mature enough for it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Manchurian Candidate (2004).

Review #1254: The Manchurian Candidate.

Cast: 
Denzel Washington (Major Bennett Marco), Meryl Streep (Senator Eleanor Prentiss Shaw), Liev Schreiber (Congressman Raymond Prentiss Shaw), Jon Voight (Senator Thomas Jordan), Kimberly Elise (Eugenie Rose), Vera Farmiga (Jocelyn Jordan), Jeffrey Wright (CPL Al Melvin), Simon McBurney (Dr. Atticus Noyle), Bruno Ganz (Delp), Ann Dowd (Congresswoman Beckett), Ted Levine (Colonel Howard), Miguel Ferrer (Colonel Garret), and Dean Stockwell (Mark Whiting) Directed by Jonathan Demme.

Review: 
One could say plenty about the idea of remaking classic films, particularly when it comes to one as classic as the 1962 film The Manchurian Candidate. As much as one could want to deride yet another remake for the sake of remakes, the idea to try and update the Richard Condon novel for the current age does show enough promise to make things seem palpable. The original film was a neo-noir/suspense thriller that had plenty of power within its cast and other elements that inspired plenty of shock and biting satire that one would assume continues as much the second time around. The key differences between the original and this version involves updating the enemy from nefarious communists to an equally nefarious private equity firm alongside making both Shaw and his mother politicians along with one crucial twist involving the climatic assassination. In general, this film also seems more paranoid and aware of its surroundings of when it was made, which stands fairly firm even after fifteen years since its release. Those who are familiar with the work (novel or film) will see where it is going to end up, but it doesn't mean the surprises aren't still there waiting to pounce, most of which land just fine. It surely must've proved a challenge for director Jonathan Demme and writers Daniel Pyne & Dean Georgaris to try and make a follow-up worth the impact that John Frankenheimer and George Axelrod did with direction and writing the first time around. I do think that the final result is a fairly welcome one, deserving of existing alongside its predecessor as a capable if imperfect political thriller.

At least one can say the main foundation of cast members is sturdy to try and hold things together, whether they have time on screen to make a lasting impression or not. In this sense, Washington does a fine job with what is given, taking a different road from what was tasked before, showing plenty of conviction in trying to hold things together enough to grasp at the truth behind what he experienced and what hides behind with what isn't know. Streep shows plenty of fierce vigor whenever she enters the screen, whether when dealing with her on-screen son or with other forces at work, with her ruthless presence being felt handily. Schrieber handles his task without too much difficulty, where you can see the manufactured side of who he has been made to be alongside the vulnerability of what comes out at the surface that can't be meshed out. Voight and Farmiga don't have as much to do here as before, in part because of the fast-tracking that means the nomination goes without too much difficulty (with the rivalry between Voight and Streep not picking up as much steam as it probably could have). Elise's character also undergoes a bit of changes (mainly to add a bit of connective plausibility to how she just happens to be on the same train as Marco besides just being a supermarket clerk), and she does okay with being in the margins of the plot, I suppose. The other members of the cast (including a criminally underused Stockwell) do okay, with Wright making the most impression in his one scene in the beginning, a shadow of himself that serves to cast against the light of heroism shown in the initial scene. After all, the brainwashing sequences (involving an influx of science-fiction) are spread out in the film as opposed to being laid out from the get go, which does tend to work out in the film's favor without being too hokey. Maybe it isn't as subversive as it wants to really be, but at least it does reach some sort of thoughtful levels in its end. It isn't a film that will inspires many re-watches, but I would postulate that it is at least worth one look of consideration, having a cast that clings to a cynical update on what was done before with a little bit of polish and shock to go with it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Deliverance.

Review #975: Deliverance.

Cast: 
Jon Voight (Ed Gentry), Burt Reynolds (Lewis Medlock), Ned Beatty (Bobby Trippe), Ronny Cox (Drew Ballinger), Ed Ramey (the Old Man), Billy Redden (Lonnie, AKA the Banjo Boy), Bill McKinney (Mountain Man), Herbert 'Cowboy' Coward (Toothless Man), James Dickey (Sheriff Bullard), and Macon McCalman (Deputy Sheriff Arthur Queen) Directed by John Boorman (#565 - Zardoz)

Review: 
It's interesting that the film (released 45 years ago this month) was adapted onto the screen by the writer of the novel himself, James Dickey, who also has a minor role in the film as well. Notably, the stunts were done by the actors themselves, with insurance not being given in order to cut costs. It is evident early on how rough the film looks and feels, and there is a haunting sort of tone to the environment and atmosphere of the movie, right down to the river. The use of Dueling Banjos (arranged and recorded by Eric Weissberg and Steve Mandel though without the permission of the original writer, Arthur "Guitar Boogie" Smith) in the beginning of the film is incredibly fitting. This is a brutal film that manages to be consistent in its pace once it gets the ball rolling by the first hour, with its run-time of 110 minutes being an acceptable length.

The core four cast (Voight, Reynolds, Beatty, and Cox) do a fine job in how well they play off each other, particularly during the beginning parts and the scenes in the rapids; there is never a moment where their actions feel fake or unnatural, with their fear seeming quite real, with the most famous scene involving the group and the people they find in the mountains. Coward and McKinney are fine villains; stereotype or not, they definitely evoke a good sense of realistic fear. The rest of the cast doesn't have much time on screen, but they certainly do leave an impression, such as Redden and his banjo performance along with Dickey and his appearance near the end. The ending of the film is poignant in how it goes in line with the rest of the film in terms of its shock and awe, with the final shot of the film reflecting that. For some, the film likely detracts from its theme with the amount of violence it has, but I found that the movie was fairly focused enough with its characters and sense of timing that it falls as a classic.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Mission: Impossible.

Review #801: Mission: Impossible.

Cast
Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Jon Voight (Jim Phelps), Emmanuelle Béart (Claire Phelps), Henry Czerny (Eugene Kittridge), Jean Reno (Franz Krieger), Ving Rhames (Luther Stickell), Vanessa Redgrave (Max), Kristin Scott Thomas (Sarah Davies), and Emilio Estevez (Jack Harmon) Directed by Brian De Palma.

Review
Today is the 20th anniversary of the release of this film, and I decided to honor that by reviewing it, since it has been a while since I actually watched one of the five films (#128 - Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol). While I will admit I have never watched the television series Mission: Impossible, I went into the movie with the expectation of watching something that would at least be entertaining, not necessarily going into it expecting a completely loyal version of the show. As it turned out, that was probably the right idea, because the original cast did not exactly have a positive reaction to the movie, and Peter Graves (the original Jim Phelps) rejected the offer to play the role again. With all that in mind, the movie was still pretty good for me. Cruise does an excellent job, seeming very comfortable in the role, with his action scenes (and stunt-work) being enjoyable to watch. Voight, while not exactly up to Cruise's strength, is at least a capable villain, with at least some sort of motivation (honestly though I think I would probably take up a hobby instead of well, doing an elaborate ruse). Béart doesn't get much to do, but she is at least decent. My favorites are Rhames and Redgrave, with the former being cool to watch who works well with Cruise, and the latter being an interesting character who's not necessarily a villain, just a middle-man in all of this. The action is well done, being entertaining along with feeling real enough. The movie's story seems destined to try and twist itself almost too much, but it manages to come off as serviceable, with enough spy elements to make for what is at least a fine experience that has spawned four sequels in the 20 years that have passed since this movie's release

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Four Christmases.

Review #772: Four Christmases.

Cast
Vince Vaughn (Brad McVie), Reese Witherspoon (Kate), Robert Duvall (Howard McVie), Sissy Spacek (Paula McVie), Jon Voight (Creighton), Mary Steenburgen (Marilyn), Kristin Chenoweth (Courtney), Jon Favreau (Denver McVie), Tim McGraw (Dallas McVie), and Katy Mixon (Susan McVie) Directed by Seth Gordon.

Review
This movie is awful. If I wanted to, I could leave it that. But if I did, then someone might wonder why I only said it was awful and watch it for themselves (just go with the idea that people actually use these reviews as an influence). If you watch about 10-20 minutes of the movie, you will start to have a few questions:

1. Why do Vaughn and Witherspoon look really miscast as a couple?
2. Why can't they arrange the four families to meet at one place instead of having to go to all four in one day?
3. Why did I decide to watch this?
4. Are all romantic comedies like this?
5. Have you ever put a spending limit of $10 for each Christmas gift you gave someone?
6. Are there any likable characters in it?

The answers to the questions are as follows: Pass, Pass, Pass, Maybe, No and...Yes (Jon Voight, who is only in the movie for the last 20 (or so) minutes, and manages to be not only the least annoying character, but also the one who has the least screen time. Go figure.). None of the situations that are set up here are really that funny, feeling either standard or just downright odd. Tell me if this sounds like a goldmine of hilarity: Our main character getting tackled and wrestled with by his two other brothers, and this isn't just one time, no it happens (I think, I lost count) twice more. Of course the movie tries (read: tries) to phone in a happy ending, because I guess having the movie end with them not getting back together seemed not "cheery" enough for Christmas. This a movie that manages to be unlikable at times, but more often than not it's just boring. Why should I care about anything that goes on with these people? It fails as a comedy, it fails as a romance (chemistry clocks in at zero), it fails as a drama (read: last half hour), and its greatest failing is that it fails as a Christmas movie. This isn't a movie you watch to be cheerful around the holidays, this is a movie for people who honestly want to find any reason not to visit their relatives, because they very well may just be as crazy this year as the people in this laugh-forsaken movie. That, and apparently being married and having kids is the only way to be happy. I'd advise you to eat fruitcake before watching this over literally any Christmas movie. Except Deck the Halls. (Yes, I would watch Santa Clause Conquers the Martians again. Even Jingle All the Way). Stay away from this garbage.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Lara Croft: Tomb Raider.

Review #458: Lara Croft: Tomb Raider.

Cast
Angelina Jolie (Lara Croft), Daniel Craig (Alex West), Iain Glen (Manfred Powell), Jon Voight (Richard Croft), Noah Taylor (Bryce), Christopher Barrie (James Hillary), Julian Rhind-Tutt (Mr. Pimms), and Leslie Phillips (Wilson) Directed by Alex West.

Review
The first video game movie reviewed here, and...eh? There's not much to say about Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, it's not terrible, but it's not good either. The actors are okay, except for Jolie, who is probably one of the better actors in this film. The action is a mixed bag, sometimes it looks interesting, but the decent action is undercut by the occasional slow motion shots, which is unnecessary and adds nothing to the film other than making the film about 5 seconds longer. The plot is muddy, and feels like a rejected Indiana Jones script, which either makes Kingdom of the Crystal Skull better or worse in comparison. The film doesn't last too long, though I do wonder how you can make a villain so obvious in the first 15 minutes. It's a mediocre film, it strives for adventure and only that, succeeding easily, yet emotionally vacant, so I guess it works for some.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Holes.

Review #187: Holes.

Cast,
Shia LaBeouf (Stanley Yelnats IV), Khleo Thomas (Hector Zeroni), Sigourney Weaver (Louise Walker), Jon Voight (Marion Sevillo), Patricia Arquette (Kate Barlow), Tim Blake Nelson (Dr. Pendanski), Dulé Hill (Sam), Henry Winkler (Stanley Yelnats III), and Eartha Kitt (Madame Zeroni) Directed by Andrew Davis (#176 - The Fugitive)

Review
Holes is based off the 1998 novel by Louis Sachar, and the film follows it pretty well. There is one thing to distinguish it a bit from most book to film adaptations, and that is that Sachar wrote the screenplay for this film, which gives some of the good part in the film, with the rest just being the acting, atmosphere, wit, and charm. LeBeouf *sigh* can be a good actor, with the films he has been in on this show (#057 - Transformers and #058 - Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen), this is a good one by him. The others in the cast such as Weaver, Voight, Thomas, and Kitt all do a good job in the time they're given. Good cast with good direction make...well, a good film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.