Trap (2024).

Review #2238: Trap.

Cast: 

Josh Hartnett (Cooper), Ariel Donoghue (Riley), Saleka Shyamalan (Lady Raven), Alison Pill (Rachel), Hayley Mills (Dr. Josephine Grant), Jonathan Langdon (Jamie), Mark Bacolcol (Spencer), Marnie McPhail (Jody's mom), and Kid Cudi (the Thinker) Written and Directed by M. Night Shyamalan (#039 - The Sixth Sense, #902 - Split, #1183 - Unbreakable, #1184 - Glass, #2164 - Signs)

Review: 

"For me, being original and having certain aspects, let's say like highest quality audience movies is what I want to make, and being proud and honored to make audience movies. Maybe other people might think of genre as a lesser art form. I don't think of it that way. "

Strangely, for a month called "Acknowledged in August", this film may actually qualify as worth being acknowledged because of the apparent divide in what people think of this film. It's interesting to see the progression of interest in the films of M. Night Shyamalan, if you think about it, particularly since this month happens to be the 25th anniversary of the release of his first major film in The Sixth Sense (1999). Even among the films (Trap is the 13th of his since the release of Sense) considered as part of his "lower tier", one always seems to have plenty to say about a filmmaker that really doesn't pack as many twists in his films as people think. At any rate, Shyamalan has stated that the film was inspired in part by conversations he had with his daughter about the nature of concert and theatrical experiences being similar and what could happen if one puts those together. Basically, this is how one gets the pitch of "The Silence of the Lambs at a Taylor Swift concert". Of course, in real life, one really can find actual examples of crook-catching in say, "Operation Flagship", which was an actual sting operation that was successful in capturing a select group of criminals tricked into a giveaway involving football tickets.

Sure, I understand why this particular film will vary in enjoyment from person to person. It relies heavily on its primary actor to carry the film that is mostly enclosed in one location to go along with a third act that will probably try the patience of those who seem to have a checklist for thrillers. That being said, I enjoyed it pretty well as a psychological thriller that, well, has fun. I actually found a few parts worth chuckling along with because of the sheer curiosity that comes with positioning the whole film on a family man who just happens to be a murderer. It is a cat-and-mouse game where one is firmly watching the cat that decides at some point to just throw up the board for tongue-in-cheek enjoyment, but your milage obviously will vary because, well, heaven forbid a movie play around with what you might see in a thriller. One rolls with the concert sequence in the most singular sense from the frenzy of people to the array of cell phones that love to record the stuff they are already seeing while having the tension about just what could turn next in the mind of someone who could be called the "friendly neighborhood serial killer". To put it mildly, Hartnett is the star attraction in a way I really should've seen coming, because there are quite a few thrillers (or horror, whatever) involving actors playing against type, and Hartnett plays it with such unnerving confidence. For better or worse, his performance dominates the film where one, well, doesn't have too much to say about the cast around him, although Donoghue is about on par for what one probably expects from a starstruck person. In an industry where quite a few folks could be accused of "nepotism", I can't really fault this for being a father-daughter piece in terms of one writing and performing their own music, although I can't really say the music is any better in terms of energy (it isn't Purple Rain, to put it mildly) than her part to play in the third act, which is adequate at best. Sure, Pill and Mills are fine, but one gets the feeling that in all of the routine-playing, only Hartnett has the resolve to make the viewer care one way or the other about just where it all is going to finish; of course, with Langdon, he provides the most curious moment of the film in dropping exposition along with seeing Hartnett interact with another person not related to him (and a certain subsequent scene). In general, the 105-minute runtime makes for a pretty neat package that grips one's attention in the tension of what could and could not happen with so many people around: consider the effort taken to get an apron at one point by possibly ruining someone's life in laying oil onto a fryer and how the film briskly moves along. The third act moves it on to a different type of trail because of the fact that the movie has decided one can't have it all set in a concert, but I like the shaky feeling that comes with the blurring of family man and butcher man when it comes to figuring out what is the difference between a man of pieces and the pieces that make up a person. In the end, "the process" is what I care for in a film, and I think Shyamalan's attempts at making a thriller within a concert is an engaging one worth following all the way to the end because of Hartnett's commitment to it all. I can't say I know the work of Shyamalan as well as the next guy, but I will say that he sure made a worthy attempt at a ride for the audience to sit and absorb.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Oscar (1991), the John Landis comedy with Sylvester Stallone

Oppenheimer.

Review #2050: Oppenheimer.

Cast: 

Cillian Murphy (J. Robert Oppenheimer), Emily Blunt (Katherine "Kitty" Oppenheimer), Matt Damon (Leslie Groves), Robert Downey Jr (Lewis Strauss), Florence Pugh (Jean Tatlock), Josh Hartnett (Ernest Lawrence), Casey Affleck (Boris Pash), Rami Malek (David Hill), Kenneth Branagh (Niels Bohr), Benny Safdie (Edward Teller), Dylan Arnold (Frank Oppenheimer), Gustaf Skarsgård (Hans Bethe), David Krumholtz (Isidor Isaac Rabi), Matthew Modine (Vannevar Bush), David Dastmalchian (William L. Borden), Tom Conti (Albert Einstein), Michael Angarano (Robert Serber), Jack Quaid (Richard Feynman), Josh Peck (Kenneth Bainbridge), Olivia Thirlby (Lilli Hornig), Dane DeHaan (Kenneth Nichols), Danny Deferrari (Enrico Fermi), Alden Ehrenreich (Senate aide), Jefferson Hall (Haakon Chevalier), and Jason Clarke (Roger Robb) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk , #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises, and #1618 - Tenet)

Review: 

“I’m always pushing various things forward, but this is one where a lot of different planets aligned. Los Alamos, this place that will always live in history or infamy, was first a place where Oppenheimer and his brother loved to go camping. Suddenly, like a bolt from the blue, I’m looking at the most personal possible connection between a character and a massive change to the world that couldn’t be undone.” - Christopher Nolan

There is no way to state how damn good the film is besides saying it is a really great achievement that should be seen. Blah blah Barbie, you could see that any time in the next couple of weeks but consider Oppenheimer as early as one could possibly do. No really, see it as quickly as you can, the three-hour runtime is worth the time presented, and I am sure you will be rewarded by the experience that makes for a fascinating biopic. The story of J. Robert Oppenheimer has been argued to be one of a modern tragedy, and this film proves that very point by the time it even has built two-thirds of the scope required of three hours of breathtaking film. Lord do I wish it was easy to just say what I mean in less than a handful of paragraphs, but if one can say roughly over 900 words for a film involving humans and dolls, clearly one has to make sure to put in the hours to articulate the importance of watching a film (specifically Nolan, who wrote the screenplay) that took its inspiration from the 2005 biography of the famed Oppenheimer in American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin (incidentally, some of the subjects interviewed by Sherwin had been featured in The Day After Trinity, such as Haakon Chevalier). Oppenheimer is seen in various places besides Los Alamos in New Mexico, of course, such as his time as professor at thee University of California, Berkeley and his time spent after the war at the Institute for Advanced Study, while one other moment in history is seen under the cloud of Oppenheimer with the 1959 confirmation hearing of Lewis Strauss for the Secretary of Commerce, after having taken office via a recess appointment the previous year (the film obviously doesn't have time to mention everyone, but the scuttling of the confirmation had help from Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, whose disagreements with Strauss drove him to drive such an effort, complete with an ally in fellow Senator and committee member dealing with commerce in Gale W. McGee). You can thank the efforts of folks such as J. David Wargo and James Woods (both executive producers) for getting this film to the finish line, since plans for doing one based on the book had muddled for over a decade; the only film to feature Oppenheimer in a prominent role was Fat Man and Little Boy (as played by Dwight Shultz for a film released in 1989), which absolutely nobody remembers fondly, at least when compared to say, the 1980 BBC TV serial Oppenheimer, which had Sam Waterston as star. Nolan has stated the purpose of having scenes in black-and-white is meant to present an objective view of the story of Oppenheimer from the point of view of the one most seen in these scenes with Strauss.

Oppenheimer the man is presented in all of his epic qualities of contradiction of brilliance. He is the namesake for both a process and approximation in science (with collaboration with other scientists, naturally) that is also wracked in paradoxes that make the heart of the film. Pride really does come before the fall, especially for someone who was under constant surveillance by the FBI before and after the war. The man is presented as a man with qualities and flaws apparent to all of us, a man of brilliance, a man of guilt, a man of womanizers, a man fit to argue as one of great tragedy. There are so many performances in this film that one can't mention every single person that portray these figures (some of whom only appear for a time such as Gary Oldman as President Harry Truman or James Remar as Henry Stimson). It is easy to state however, that Murphy and Downey Jr rein in the best performances of the whole film, with each of their stories being told in such compelling detail. Murphy has the weight of the title role on his shoulders, but he handles it with such clear conviction that one sees him as Oppenheimer with perfect efficiency that makes it so one never sees an actor playing a man but just the man and all of his qualities thrust upon us, and it takes a most exceptional person to give the role justice with such persuasive power. We live in a world created by Oppenheimer's actions and we feel it firmly with his performance. Downey Jr is practically the mirror of Oppenheimer when it comes to how he handles being cast into the light of his own hearing. All great villains believe themselves to be in the right, ones who believe that power stays in the shadows because only amateurs chase the sun, and Downey Jr plays this with such devastating power that is conniving and breathtaking in the time he is on screen. His arrogance is breathtaking in the greatest of ways possible, one filled with pique that is accompanied in moments with Ehrenreich for fascinating interaction. Murphy and Downey Jr clearly deserve all the recognition they have gotten for this film already and I am sure they will endure in the years to come. Of course, the rest of the performers are magnificent as well in conveying the players to destruction necessary, mostly in the case of Damon and Blunt. The clash of hard-driving practicality in Damon clashes with the philosophical Murphy for such riveting tension and even more riveting in the respect you see between the two that comes out because of how effective it all is played out. Blunt and her own contradictions make for a worthy pairing with Murphy, one with razor-sharp timing and unwavering confidence that goes well when you consider how Murphy is presented with Pugh on the other side of feminine curiosity (which in of itself is useful to watch). You get the point about these performers, they are useful in all the ways that matter without distraction, which is bookended by Conti but also sees people such as Hartnett and Safdie shine too.

Nothing is more exhilarating than seeing Lewis Strauss not become a member of a cabinet. Nah, just kidding (fun fact: he was the first person not confirmed for a cabinet seat by the US Senate since 1925 - never let it be said that Movie Night does not try to deliver "education" beyond rambling), because the buildup to the Trinity test is one for the ages. The buildup to the bomb and the accompanying music by Ludwig Göransson is absolutely worth the price of admission, complete with the moment itself in its beautiful destructive quality (the film was done with minimal computer-generated imagery). Of course, other sequences such as expressing certain scientific aspects (remember that the real Oppenheimer made contributions to various theories such as black holes) is a reminder that seeing this film on the biggest screen possible really can be a rewarding time for all involved. The guilt is crushing in all of the ways that matter when it comes to the level of involvement one has in forming a bomb and seeing it go away from your hands or seeing the results of it. Of course, since the film includes the noted scene of President Truman mocking Oppenheimer of just who has "blood on their hands", the fascination will endure further in discussion of ethics and beyond. Far from just a biopic that goes from point A to point B, the film flourishes from the very get-go and never lets up in conveying the wonder that comes in seeing the Manhattan Project meet its destiny that intertwine with the destinies of both Oppenheimer and Strauss with their hearings. God do I love this film, and I can't say enough about just how brilliant it is or how devilishly well-timed it is to make the three hours pass by without a single complaint. It serves as both an informative feature of the time and also a warning to the danger that comes with living in a world that Nolan believes is one shaped by Oppenheimer, whether we like it or not.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Halloween H20: 20 Years Later.

Review #1148: Halloween H20: 20 Years Later.

Cast: 
Jamie Lee Curtis (Laurie Strode / Keri Tate), Chris Durand (Michael Myers), Michelle Williams (Molly Cartwell), Josh Hartnett (John Tate), Adam Arkin (Will Brennan), Jodi Lyn O'Keefe (Sarah Wainthrope), LL Cool J (Ronald "Ronny" Jones), Adam Hann-Byrd (Charlie Deveraux), Janet Leigh (Norma Watson), Nancy Stephens (Marion Chambers-Whittington), and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Jimmy Howell) Directed by Steve Miner (#761 - Friday the 13th Part 2)

Review: 
Hmm, a Halloween film review? Must be that time of season again - or perhaps there is a new Halloween film out, complete with ignoring continuity of the previous few films and having it star Jamie Lee Curtis being stalked by Michael Myers yet again. Obviously I wanted to be a bit thorough with this review and some of its background, so I hope you enjoy the final result.

There is something to be said about doing another Halloween film, as this is the seventh film of this franchise that reached its highest point of suspense and terror with its original installment in 1978. Although I do find some enjoyment from some of the sequels that followed (whether for a few cheap scares or laughs), it is weird to see an attempt to try and capture the magic in the bottle once again after seeing how the franchise had progressed in the previous three installments, which reached the bottom of the barrel in scares. The fact that this film washes away the continuity of those films should mean that there is some hope for a good horror film that doesn't delve into a cheap shadow of what had made the original (and to a somewhat lesser extent, the sequel) so effective. Having Curtis back also pulls a point in that hopeful direction, since she had expressed in bringing back people from the original, such as John Carpenter. However, he expressed a demand for a starting fee of $10 million that was rejected, which led to him not directing. The film was based on a story by Kevin Williamson (writer of Scream who is credited as one of the executive producers for the film) that would develop into a screenplay written by Robert Zappia and Matt Greenberg, although Williamson would do un-credited re-writes for certain parts such as character dialogue, and it was his idea to come up with the story-line involving the paramedics that would be followed up in the sequel that was filmed after shooting had ended. The working title for the film was "Halloween 7: The Revenge of Laurie Strode", and there was a version of the script in which the events of 4-6 were actually acknowledged at one point, but somewhere along the way it was decided to go with a title that is actually more ridiculous to say out loud than reading it on a screen. But I suppose the idea for titles in this series were running low, owing to the films that followed - alongside the idea to release it in August, clearly the month one thinks of for horror films.

With all of this, how does the actual product pan out? On the one hand, it doesn't go as low as Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers in terms of execution, but there isn't anything here besides the climax that is particularly interesting, and it doesn't approach the levels of either the original, Halloween II, or even the fourth one, which was really more of a cheap thrill made ten years after the original. Ten years after that, and they still can't make a Halloween installment that actually has some sort of real scares or interesting side characters. Oddly enough, the easiest sticking point I have with this film involves Myers. For the second film (which the film doesn't ignore), he had burnt to a cinder, while having his eyes shot out. With this one, you see too much of him and his eyes (particularly when trying to fake out the audience), which only cheapens his presence for actual moments to try and spook the audience. This is made especially weird by the fact that there is a scene involving Myers in a CGI mask meant to cover up the original mask used for the scene. It's just weird in general that there were numerous masks used for the film in general, as if it was really hard to pick one and just stick with it. By the time the fourth or fifth jump scare happens, the film seems to glue itself into mediocrity. I suppose the best trick this movie has up its sleeve is to try and have jump scares and comic relief bits (such as LL Cool J talking to his off-screen wife about some ambitions to write romance novels) as if they will make up for the already stacked cliches that seem to date this film more than the original. Perhaps they wanted to out-do the original in cheesy dialogue. I can understand what they were trying to do with the focus on Laurie and her trauma and how it affects her after twenty years, especially with her son. However, the writing doesn't make this go anywhere besides cursory moments. However, the climax makes it nearly worth it in a ridiculous yet weirdly satisfying way, a venting out of frustration by Curtis' character that leads to an action that would have perfectly encapsulated the end of this franchise...but of course, that is not quite the case. At least its somewhat tolerable at 86 minutes.

Curtis, in her third go at the role, is the best part of the film. You can see her effort to try and give this role some sort of growth in the time elapsed since the original two films that make her someone worth following. It's easy to see why she wanted to be back for another one of these films (later expressing her love of the film despite calling it a payday movie), and she is easily the best part of the final showdown, taking control of how this film uses its one effective trick. The other actors aren't terrible, but most of them are fairly wooden, with the teenagers not being at all interesting to be with, especially with Hartnett. I suppose they thought it would be really clever to have Leigh (mother of Curtis) be in the film for a few scenes - complete with the same car used by her in Psycho (1960). At least we get to see Stephens (present in the first two films) in the opening sequence, the first in a few ways to invoke memories from the past - for better or worse. By the time Myers starts terrorizing this group, you don't really care who survives or not, and the deaths seem pretty hollow this time around. Maybe its the fact that there is no character in the vein of Dr. Loomis (played by Donald Pleasence until his death in 1995) besides a reference in the opening scene that makes this film feel hollow with its pursuits. Ultimately, this is a Halloween product that only serves as a pale shadow of the original two films that should have served as the end for this series.

But of course, that's not the case, is it...?

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Hollywood Homicide.

Review #1075: Hollywood Homicide.

Cast: 
Harrison Ford (Detective-Sergeant Joseph "Joe" Gavilan), Josh Hartnett (Detective K. C. Calden), Lena Olin (Ruby), Bruce Greenwood (Lieutenant Bernard "Bennie" Macko), Isaiah Washington (Antoine Sartain), Lolita Davidovich (Cleo Ricard), Keith David (Leon), Master P (Julius Armas), Gladys Knight (Olivia Robidoux), and Martin Landau (Jerry Duran) Directed by Ron Shelton (#381 - Cobb)

Review: 
If you have a film with two actors who seem to want to make the best of their time on screen and elicit some sort of chemistry with each other, you'll likely have a good time. It's a shame that is not the case with this movie, however. Ford and Hartnett manage to star in a film where they don't seem to share any kind of chemistry with each other, not eliciting many particularly amusing moments nor anything that seems remotely connecting. Ford does a decent job performance wise, but he doesn't seem to be the best type for this role, seeming a bit out of place that might've been better suited for someone like John Travolta (who originally was meant to star in the role), particularly with the real estate "dealmaking" parts. Hartnett doesn't fair much better, somehow looking too young to play this detective role while also seeming to be the wrong fit to go along with Ford, seeming a bit too relaxed for this part - and the parts with him playing a would-be actor also not hitting the notes correctly either. In any case, they don't make for a particularly inspiring duo. Washington doesn't particularly inspire much as the villain, mostly because the plot-line doesn't give him much room to actually seem compelling (especially with the climax), whereas Greenwood sells his adversarial role and scenes with Ford. Olin does a kooky but serviceable job, with her parts with Ford being nothing too special. The other members of the cast are all okay at best. It might interest you to note this was written by Shelton and Robert Souza, a former homicide detective in the LAPD Hollywood Division who also happened to moonlight as a real estate broker in his latter years. I'll give the film credit for having some sort of semblance of reality, but I didn't find the end product to be too particularly effective. The numerous subplots and how things seem to just connect out of thin air makes for a convenient but somewhat tiresome pace, complete with a somewhat long but somewhat effective climatic chase sequence. There isn't too much to the action, but it will likely be pleasing enough. The film never seems to get itself into high gear, seemingly stuck in a loop of a mediocre story and a buddy duo that doesn't live up to carrying the movie. The end product is something that can be mildly enjoyable as a late night flick watch, but it won't be anything regarded as anything too good in its action or comedy. Take this misfire for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.