The Long Walk (2025).

Review #2419: The Long Walk.

Cast: 

Cooper Hoffman (Raymond Garraty [#47]), David Jonsson (Peter McVries [#23]), Garrett Wareing (Billy Stebbins [#38]), Tut Nyuot (Arthur Baker [#6]), Charlie Plummer (Gary Barkovitch [#5]), Ben Wang (Hank Olson [#46]), Jordan Gonzalez (Richard Harkness [#49]), Joshua Odjick (Collie Parker [#48]), Mark Hamill (The Major), Roman Griffin Davis (Thomas Curley [#7]), Judy Greer (Ginnie Garraty), and Josh Hamilton (William Garraty) Directed by Francis Lawrence.

Review: 

“To me, that’s what the whole thing is about. The whole thing is about the two of them bonding, and kind of falling in love in a weird way. The conflict of what they’re there for and what they’ve been through in the past only brings them closer together. The sacrifices they make for one another, to me, is the whole movie.”

There are many Stephen King stories that have been turned into a film or adapted for television, but, yes, The Long Walk finally gets its due for the first time ever. Apparently, the book was the first that Stephen King wrote, as he started writing it in high school (which he has stated was not done "consciously" about the ongoing carnage of the Vietnam War) and finished it by the time he started attending the University of Maine in 1967. Years later, having become an established writer, The Long Walk was published in 1979 (under his pen name Richard Bachman, because authors weren't expected to release books so quickly). A cursory glance at a summary of the book reveals a few distinct details that the film is different from: 100 participants are walking on a road that must average a pace of four miles per hour (no I am not correcting that to kilometers) that gets warnings if they miss the threshold for 30 seconds. And yes, you can't stop for anything (in real life, you could last a few days without walking, albeit with growing levels of severe damage to one's insides). Apparently, there had been quite a few filmmakers that wanted to do a film adaptation that ranged from George A. Romero to Frank Darabont before it came together in 2023 under the direction of Francis Lawrence, who you might remember as the director of The Hunger Games follow-up films; the movie was written by JT Mollner.

We live in a nation that seems to love watching suffering, don't we? The age of the Internet accelerated our curiosity to overdrive for watching people do damn near anything out of desperation (this of course extends to watching "political streamers", because hey, if you are going to hear about the news, you might as well be angry too). Debate all you want where it all may go in the future in terms of bloodlust when it comes to how we treat the deaths of others, it probably correlates with people complaining that their country has sucked for several decades now. So, in a movie with a dystopian setting that wants to fight against a malaise of laziness with the ultimate expression of fitness, it only makes sense for me to treat it as basically a horror movie* where the greatest enemy is inevitability. Everyone dies, but some will suffer far more than others in that last moment spent on the great rock. With that in mind, this is a pretty good movie in the execution of tension and brotherhood that comes out even with all the inevitable qualities that come with its 108-minute runtime. Most of its time is spent on that one road with only cursory glances at the countryside (one member of the landscape seen is a cat with no eyes) to go along with the sights and sounds of people being shot. In that sense, the ensemble is exceptionally talented to hold up the task of a movie that could've easily had a chance to go off the rails with less confidence to hold things together (really I'm more surprised someone had not made a low-budget cheapie of this before). Hoffman and Jonsson each carry the film with a bond that is fascinating to see build and build as the film goes on, selling the curdling fear that comes with seeing people die and die that might as well make the possible winner the biggest victim of them all. Sure, you might find moments of levity within the road of gloom, but you have a group that sells the tension that comes with knowing and losing people who it might hurt more to remember their name (as opposed to the numbered tag they wear, which seems to fit the times more if you think about it). You get to see the personalities of these people wither down to the logical conclusion, be it a bully who sees death right in front of them, wisecrackers or a self-realization about one's perceived value. Calling it a cross between Stand by Me and a war movie is probably not as far off as it may seem, and there isn't a weak note among the cast. Hamill pops in from time to time with one specific type of presence (namely never taking off those sunglasses), which is fairly effective in authoritative menace. To say nothing of the ending, it provides its own distinct take on the meaning of having a wish versus actually realizing it in the wake of the road getting there that is pretty solid when you see it play out.* As a whole, it is a tense burner of a movie, having a worthy execution of suspense within the horror of inevitability within death in brotherhood that may very well become a curiosity to view in the coming years.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

*What? People try to label movies clearly in the horror genre as musicals or "psychological thrillers", change my mind.

*I wouldn't call this a "both sides" thing, there are people who just brush aside school shootings, so you know where they can shove the "decency card".

*Spoiler (in lighter text): The book has McVries die (sitting at peace) before Stebbins, who then dies so Garraty wins. The book ends with Garraty wandering to catch a figure he sees in the distance, ignoring the victory. The movie ends with McVries being the winner after Garraty stops moving before the prize is awarded. You might debate whether anything after the victory is really real, but I'll go with the literal ending just for the hell of it: shooting the Major dead and McVries wandering into the distance...

War for the Planet of the Apes.

Review #2209: War for the Planet of the Apes.

Cast: 

Andy Serkis (Caesar), Woody Harrelson (The Colonel), Steve Zahn (Bad Ape), Karin Konoval (Maurice), Amiah Miller (Nova), Terry Notary (Rocket), Ty Olsson (Red Donkey), Michael Adamthwaite (Luca), Toby Kebbell (Koba), Gabriel Chavarria (Preacher), Judy Greer (Cornelia), Sara Canning (Lake), Devyn Dalton (Cornelius), and Aleks Paunovic (Winter) Directed by Matt Reeves (#1038 - Cloverfield, #1814 - The Batman, and #1888 - Dawn of the Planet of the Apes)

Review: 

"I wanted to push us into the realm of the mythic. I felt like this was the thing that was going to create the legend of what Caesar would be to future generations of apes. That if he was going to be a seminal figure in their history, this had to be a Biblical epic – the final test that he must pass to have this mythic ascension into the pantheon of apes."

Sometimes you really have to respect the tenacity of a film series, particularly one as distinct as Planet of the Apes, which has managed to go forward and back again with a trilogy of films that served as reboots to those offbeat sequels that had arisen after the original 1968 film (imagine making any more sequels after the first sequel had the hero of the first one blow up the whole world). The script was written by Reeves (the director of the previous reboot film in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes) and Mark Bomback, who decided to make a story that in their eyes would have the character of Caesar "cement his status as a seminal figure in ape history" that saw them watch plenty of films from the old Apes film (with War, the ninth overall film in the series taking a cue or so from Battle for the Planet of the Apes [1973]). As before, the effects for the film were done by Weta Digital when it came to the apes that saw motion-capture and CGI key-frame animation that has a friendly mix of performers in suits (Serkis, Konoval, and Notary are the only ones to appear as apes in each of the three films). It felt particularly timely to watch this film with the impending release of the standalone sequel Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes in 2024 (Reeves isn't the director, but who knows what Wes Ball will bring to the series) set many years after War. 

Basically, one is watching the culmination of a person as a sort of a mythic figure on the lines that would make a biblical filmmaker proud (at one point, a character even mentions the belief of fighting a "holy war") to go along with a scope that is highly enjoyable to close out what has basically been a string of distinct ensemble films with one dominant presence in Serkis being in each one of them. It is a tremendous evolutionary process to see play out in this series that never shows a loose failing when it comes to trying to perpetuate familiar names into wanting to see play out for another go-around. The ideas of redemption (or vengeance) or a new step in the process of mankind can be found pretty clearly with this film in such an entertaining manner that plays out the nature of where "co-existence" can culminate in the face of reality. Serkis is tremendous once again as Caesar because he has managed to seal the destiny of a character with all of the traits in a mythic force of nature with displays of empathy and guilt to go with worthwhile physicality that provides further proof in the case of worthwhile performances that can be found in the art of capture. He is giving this the effort one would see from a Moses-type of character that is fascinating in ways that went past the expectations one might have had from going past people in suits onto having dots on their face. Seeing the rest around him is a pilgrimage worth watching the journey, particularly with Konoval in that all-encompassing devotion (as the cool orangutan) to show just where things could lead when apes do in fact roam the Earth at large with varying differences potentially arising, as is the case with Zahn and his worthy shaky affliction as the newcomer (note the coat). Harrelson apparently believes that he was "a little daunted" when it came to talking about films that he felt "rigid" performance-wise. It is interesting to disagree with him here, because there is something quite entertaining in his stiff intimidation that goes greatly in playing a mirror to Serkis when it comes to reacting to potential trouble to the structure around their leadership (consider that one had to face killing one of their own species right as the war starts and the other killed their sick son as a means of protection and then see who is haunted most). It is tremendously haunting in a manner that doesn't require a big climax for both him and Serkis to show the futility that arises from such determined stubbornness that is both necessary to lead and also a path to self-destruction (simply put, one has to be a little nuts to lead something such as say, the presidency but not too nuts). It is a useful film in the eyes of looking at what it takes to get to the idea of freedom that has plenty of time for imagery (such as with Miller and her eyes to convey "Nova") within the snow and eventual result, particularly with how it ends up when it comes to sacrifice and securing one's name. In general, the movie has a bleak but all-around worthy execution to it that accomplishes the sell of making a myth worth watching play out on screen with effective visuals and performances to back it up for entertainment that makes it easily among the best of the Apes films.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

Review #1888: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

Cast: 

Andy Serkis (Caesar), Jason Clarke (Malcolm), Gary Oldman (Dreyfus), Keri Russell (Ellie), Toby Kebbell (Koba), Kodi Smit-McPhee (Alexander), Kirk Acevedo (Carver), Nick Thurston (Blue Eyes), Terry Notary (Rocket), Karin Konoval (Maurice), Judy Greer (Cornelia), Jon Eyez (Foster), and Enrique Murciano (Kemp) Directed by Matt Reeves (#1038 - Cloverfield and #1814 - The Batman)

Review: 

"I think that what I thought was this emotionality and being in the apes kind of inner lives, that's a reason to do this.  Like because you know the ending.  And so now the question is how do we get from here to there?"

I'm sure you remember Ruper Wyatt's Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011), the first reboot movie involving Planet of the Apes since the last time someone tried to do a new Planet of the Apes ten years prior. With the use of visual effects and performance capture by Weta Digital rather than prosthetics, it certainly made quite the impression in trying to make a new path inspired by Pierre Boulle's 1963 novel Planet of the Apes. Honestly, while I remember Rise being fine, I think I could only tell you that Andy Serkis was the best part to remember, if only because his motion capture performance (and occasional voice) really made the film distinct in not just being a mundane reboot/makeup show (of course, Serkis had considerable experience with capture in the previous years, so that helps). Wyatt did not return for this film, instead being replaced by Matt Reeves, director of films such as Cloverfield (2008) and Let Me In (2010), and the only cast members to return are Serkis, Konoval, and Notary (you may notice those are all performers for apes, and this is the case with the subsequent 2017 sequel). The film was written by Mark Bomback, Rick Jaffa, and Amanda Silver (the latter two wrote Rise and also serve as producers on this film), with Bomback being brought in to do re-writes, as Reeves was not big on the original treatment (post apocalyptic San Francisco...with humans and apes pushing up power lines), favoring fir a story with Caesar at the forefront that spends a good chunk of its first quarter with him before eventually segueing into the "surprise" of human life (since remember that the humans suffered an airborne flu that spread worldwide in the c-sorry, Simian flu).

So yes, there are elements of previous Ape films (such as Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973), for example), but there is something here that was sorely needed from the shallow or mild foundations seen in the last two features: energy. It has a pacing to it in its presentation of the similarities and differences that come with human and ape life (where you can see some American Sign Language utilized with certain quirks done), one that has an edge in handling the material with a useful main presence with plenty of credibility and presentation to go around. With a more balanced film of actors with and not with motion-capture, Serkis leads the ensemble with commanding presence, one that handles the dilemma present in both apes and humans in the battle of how one treats others (hint: co-existence is easy to say but hard to administer). One looks past the fact that Serkis (and others playing apes) had to act with a bunch of dots around his face and instead sees the talent shown by him in the art of showing dominance alongside conflict. Serkis has managed to evolve the character with his performance that mimics the evolution of the apes in the most fitting of ways, which makes the overall result all the more interesting. The rest keep up okay. Clarke makes a reasonable counterpart to the divide, well-meaning in trust when it is earned in ways that operate in similar fashion to the performance by James Franco in the earlier film (with regards to Caesar) without being a copy, and Russell and Smit-McPhee make okay companions to the human element (well, one is here for folks like the big orange primate, not kids and step parents trying to make friends). Oldman has only a select number of things to really do as a sort of caretaker, since Serkis has the show, but he does prove a useful adversary for what is needed in the long run, which also applies to Kebbell when he is paired against Serkis in terms of pain and aggression. As a whole, it shows plenty of perspective on its inevitable road to ruin. As a movie depicting the brink of war and a demoralized world, it's a pretty solid adventure. It runs through its 130 minutes with careful ambition to make involving drama for a useful epic. It makes most of an effort to stand apart from the number of sci-fi dystopias involving the usual suspects while inviting the question of what could happen next with Ceasar and beyond.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Halloween Kills.

Review #1752: Halloween Kills.

Cast: 

Jamie Lee Curtis (Laurie Strode), James Jude Courtney and Nick Castle (Michael Myers / The Shape), Judy Greer (Karen Nelson), Andi Matichak (Allyson Nelson), Will Patton (Deputy Frank Hawkins), Anthony Michael Hall (Tommy Doyle), Robert Longstreet (Lonnie Elam), Dylan Arnold (Cameron Elam), Charles Cyphers (Leigh Brackett), Kyle Richards (Lindsey Wallace), Nancy Stephens (Marion Chambers), Carmela McNeal (Vanessa), Michael Smallwood (Marcus), Omar Dorsey (Sheriff Barker), and Jim Cummings (Pete McCabe) Directed by David Gordon Green (#1151 - Halloween (2018))

Review: 

The amusing thing to consider about a film like this is that this is the twelfth of these Halloween films, and there are various perspectives to look upon in the sequels that attempted to follow the original 1978 film. Think about it: You could watch merely the 1978 feature and its 1981 sequel only...or you could watch those along with four-five-six....or you could skip those and watch the 1998 film set 20 years later (along with the Resurrection sequel)...or you could watch the remake series...or you could skip all except the first film and watch the intended "new trilogy". Honestly, the more surprising thing is that the 2018 film was meant to be shot back-to-back with a sequel, but they decided to wait and see if folks liked it first. Of course, I will point out that for a split second I really thought that film would be the end of the series (this ended right about the time I actually started writing that review)...could you imagine? Hell, after seeing Halloween II (2009), it actually would have been the second in a row that tried to leave no room for a sequel. While I do watch the 2018 film alongside the 1978 film near the holiday season, I can certainly see the stark differences that might have made others skeptical about its merits; technically speaking, each film seems to represent the decade they were made in quite weirdly, and only the original seems to have proven the most effective in its shock factor, particularly in its ending. Of course, times have changed to where certain films now can either be seen in theaters or streamed simultaneously (which I believe is a terrible mistake).  

Unfortunately, the door was blown open for more movies, and now one knows that we are seeing a trilogy of films following (and in some ways worshipping) the original, which is honestly a bit ridiculous to me. You can imagine what that means for the middle film of its trilogy. But hey, even average films deserve an ounce of congratulations, so props go out to the filmmakers to making an unintentional tribute to all of the mediocre Halloween sequels (particularly the fourth) that they had ignored the first time around. If one thought Halloween H20: 20 Years Later was the pinnacle of cliché with Curtis & company, this probably surpasses it. Sure, the body count is considerably higher (roughly over two dozen), but that doesn't mean the quality of writing (as done by Scott Teems, Danny McBride, and Green) has improved from anything seen before, as if no one has ever learned to simply run away and keep running for decades. Simply put, this is a movie made for filler, where only one or two scenes could be kept with the rest to skip around when it comes to following along whatever story the series wants to pass around the bend this time. Sure, there are a few death scenes that might be thought of as creative or interestingly destructive, but the overall arching plot is limp and not enough to cover 105 minutes, particularly when one already knows how it is going to end, full of avoidable possibilities. Oh sure, one knows the main trio is going to be separated, but it doesn't mean they have to see their interesting qualities diminish (this applies especially to Curtis, seemingly trapped in reprising Halloween II (1981) all over again). Greer and Matichak are okay, but there just isn't enough for them to really do here (at least when compared from the last one), and the lingering obsession with looking back to the past (and lines that reek of stuff said in a trailer) doesn't help in that regard. At least the 1978 scene is interesting to look at in terms of "fill-in material" (which means Patton gets something to do besides sitting in a room), complete with a semi-effective effect. Unfortunately, Hall only manages to do marginally better than the last attempt to reprise the role of Tommy Doyle (which had Paul Rudd 26 years prior): a bunch of meaty clichés does not make an interesting presence. Richards, Cyphers, and Stephens all get little moments for folks to go "oh hey, I remember them!", which I guess is suitable in the cynical sense (you know what that means). Technically speaking, the idea of a town being gripped by fear over stuff that happened years ago is an interesting idea, but the mob stuff comes off more as something to mock (the fourth film had something similar, which also included Michael's antics with a gun, incidentally) than to actually say something. As a whole, it doesn't really matter how many folks get to be terrorized by the main character, does it? The important part is to wonder just what can only really do with a shape of evil beyond sequel-making that just seems him come out of being beaten down again and again. While fear may build up terror for interest, one can't find anything worth building beyond mediocrity here, one that only has gore to offer up.

Welcome belatedly to Halloween - The Week After Part 3. Honestly, saying that I was busy isn't going to help, but "better late than never" is the one I will go with. Horror continues on regardless, so let's make it something from the decade I forgot about last month...

Next Time: Blair Witch (2016).

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Descendants.

Review #1558: The Descendants.

Cast: 

George Clooney (Matthew "Matt" King), Shailene Woodley (Alexandra "Alex" King), Amara Miller (Scottie King), Nick Krause (Sid), Beau Bridges (Hugh King), Judy Greer (Julie Speer), Matthew Lillard (Brian Speer), Robert Forster (Scott Thorson), Patricia Hastie (Elizabeth King), and Mary Birdsong (Kai Mitchell) Directed by Alexander Payne (#635 - Nebraska and #1169 - About Schmidt)

Review: 

I’m deathly afraid of being too sentimental. But a film should be emotional. There is a letter from Chekhov in which a young writer asks him for some feedback, and he’s kind enough to do it. He writes the guy back and says, basically, ‘It’s too damn sentimental. If you want emotional effects, you have to place them against a cold background, so they stand out in relief.’ I think that’s true.”

It's easy to make a film about fulfillment of the self and finding a way through crisis when you have a director ripe for it. Payne was born in Omaha, Nebraska (which to perhaps some surprise has had several notable people come from there, such as Marlon Brando) to parents with Greek descent. He developed an interest with film early as a child from viewings at the theater with his parents (noting several filmmakers that influenced him such as Robert Altman, Akira Kurosawa, and Luis Bunuel), and receiving an old Super 8mm projector from his father as a teenager helped in that regard as well. He made dual studies in college, studying Spanish literature and history at Stanford University before moving on to UCLA Film School that led to a master's degree alongside attention with his thesis film with The Passion of Martin (1990). While a deal with Universal Pictures didn't result in a film with them (the one script they had him write would be made - as About Schmidt, a decade later), he eventually found his way to feature filmmaking with Citizen Ruth (1996) and his breakthrough with Election (1999). Since then, he has made five further films (with a few even set and shot in his hometown) that have made him an interesting auteur filmmaker to follow through with his mix between drama and comedy with a majority of success with audiences.  

The film is an adaptation of the 2007 novel of the same name by Hawaii-native Kaui Hart Hemmings, who described her experiences growing up there as important to understanding ideas she found interest in such as the "complicated issues of land, history, and inheritance," describing the state as like a silent force more than just a simple drama (with this mix of tragedy and dark comedy being apparent as well in the film). As he has done for most of his films, Payne served as a co-writer of the screenplay (although without usual co-writer Jim Taylor, who instead co-produced the film with Payne), doing so with Nat Faxon and Jim Rash, both of whom were making their debut as writers with a script that languished for a while in development. In any case, what we have here is a capably human film that hits its mark with flawed people living in a world past our first impressions (whether that involves a happy life or "paradise" living in Hawaii). It benefits from a useful cast that accomplishes most of what it wants to display about a life turning around on decisions to be made and ones made for them and finding a way out of being trapped by monotonous life or wracked in pity. Sure, there are no easy solutions to said problems in life, but it is how one steps into their contradictions and deals with it that makes them find something more than just living on some land day after day - a crisis of marriage, a crisis of family, and a crisis of business for 115 minutes that is just well enough. In that sense, Clooney does well in lining up these dilemmas and work it out with conviction that represents a worthy challenge to bring together for an actor like him, never drawing upon emotional smarminess or anything meant to guide away from the character as a whole. Woodley proves well in motion over time with this film, growing around the edge with well enough emphasis, and her moments with Miller or with Krause lend well to some worthy inspection and chuckles. Others make their mark in parts with touches of breeze or flint with Bridges and Forster, respectively, or folks for the climax with Greer and Lillard that make effort count. On the whole, it works in a majority of its moments in generating capable drama without lounging itself too much in pity or with condensation while leaving the audience to see where the path lies for them in resonating with it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Adaptation.

Review #1533: Adaptation.

Cast: 
Nicolas Cage (Charlie Kaufman / Donald Kaufman), Meryl Streep (Susan Orlean), Chris Cooper (John Laroche), Cara Seymour (Amelia Kavan), Brian Cox (Robert McKee), Tilda Swinton (Valerie Thomas), Ron Livingston (Marty Bowen), Maggie Gyllenhaal (Caroline Cunningham), Judy Greer (Alice), Bob Yerkes (Charles Darwin), Jim Beaver (Ranger Tony), and Litefoot (Russell) Directed by Spike Jonze (#1308 - Being John Malkovich)

Review: 
It begins with a customary quote from someone involved with the film, since Robert had felt was a fun way to differentiate reviews from 2019 to now, with this one being from Charlie Kaufman.

"I really thought I was ending my career by turning that in!"

INT. NEIGHBORHOOD - ROBERT'S HOUSE - NIGHT
Robert sits on his couch, appalled at what he tries to write on his laptop, working at 7am like usual on yet another display of adapting words of thought of someone else's work of brilliance. He looks at his screen and some basic data about what he saw, his eyes begging to be shut for some sleep rather than yet another nap built to cheat himself until the next time. He wonders about how to start a review about a film about writer's block and originality while acknowledging the sheer talent of its cast without seeming repetitive after over 200 reviews in a year, wanting to also acknowledge the accomplishment of a writer that solved his problem by simply putting themselves into what they wrote. Perhaps he should take up making pizzas. He takes a left and then a right with his fingers as he starts typing.

It never hurts to talk about actors, particularly one involving a talented award-winning trio of actors for a film packed with such originality and talent within a main trio of actors. One can make whole paragraphs about Cage and his self-described "Nouveau Shamanic" style of acting that has made him an object of curiosity since Valley Girl (1983) with his style of mega acting. That might be enough for a film, but Meryl Streep elevates it further, since she has made a career of versatility and range since her start in theater in 1975 that evolved to television and film with productions such as The Deer Hunter (1978), Kramer vs. Kramer (1979), and Sophie's Choice (1982). The third and final key to the puzzle is in Cooper, who actually took up acting after initially doing theater for set design as a way to overcome shyness and subsequently worked for years in theater an construction before shuffling the ranks to supporting roles with Matewan (1987). The Orchid Thief began originally as an article that Susan Orlean wrote for The New Yorker (published on January 16, 1995) that detailed John Laroche's efforts to poach orchids (looking for the rare ghost orchid) in a Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve with a group of Seminoles, having believed to have found a loophole in studying Indian law with the case of Chief James E. Billie, which the film mentions as having avoided conviction for hunting an endangered species of panther. Writer Charlie Kaufman was tasked to write a screenplay adaptation of the subsequent 1998 book The Orchid Thief. However, he suffered through a lack of ideas in making a film out of it (since it wasn't particularly suited for a basic film, which is why executives had approached Jonze to direct an "unfilmable" book), so Kaufman decided to use his frustrations into making an exaggerated script with a fictional twin brother, and Columbia Pictures found it fairly suitable enough to make a film of (with filming starting in 2001). Orlean, when approached about the screenplay, was not exactly supportive of what she read, but she did not get in the way of allowing the film to move forward; Orlean found that it turned out to be "very true to the book's themes of life and obsession."

INT. NEIGHBORHOOD - ROBERT'S HOUSE - NIGHT, HOURS LATER
Now the writer is pleased and can go on with his night, confused over the fact that his cluttered table seems rearranged and his computer tabs seem smaller for 6am. He motions to acknowledge the real meat of what is meant to be writing and not words on a screen before he decides to take a nap instead. He struggles to wonder what the true difference between a 10-star film and a 9-star film in terms of "really good" and "great" without automatically tracing back to what was thought of either category. 

What we have here is a fairly playful film, one that writes the book on what it means to adapt and persist within a sense of longing and disappointment that come from trying to reach a certain passion without getting lost in its process. After all, this is a film about a writer trying to adapt a writer's tale about orchids while also getting caught up in a tale stranger than fiction. In this sense, Cage is exactly the type of actor for an dauntingly ideal situation - two performances for the price of one, complete with a fat suit and split-screen photography. In this sense, Cage does great because of how he holds true to making each Kaufman a distinct presence that isn't merely just one talking to themselves, capturing equally the weariness and foolish abandon that comes from belief (or perhaps fear) in one's ability to tell a good story that can be splattered on screen. While it does have comedic elements in it, Cage never takes the meta aspects too far into stretching credibility or making it a self-centered work. In between scenes with Cage and Cage are conversations spent between Streep and Cooper that border the lines of fact and fiction, and it takes a dedicated person like Streep to not have the other author get lost in the process of adaptation. She captures an essence of longing in passion that results in an excellent performance, engaging and right at home in conviction. Cooper has the task of playing someone once described by Orlean as "pale-eyed, slouch-shouldered, and sharply handsome, in spite of the fact that he is missing all his front teeth." - to which I say he does a tremendous job in conveying someone filled with charm that captures the essence of a man with nuance for doing things his way with no sort of false pretense or cheap tricks needed to push his passion to something we can understand. Others in the cast do fine with gradual moments, such as Cox and his portrayal of the only other real figure in lecturer/story consultant McKee, which he does quite well in measured

The writer looks upon his work. He notices that yet again he has to make that lasting decision over how much he really enjoyed this movie. It isn't like flipping a coin, because at least the coin doesn't really seem to somehow look right and wrong. You win this round, writing voice in my head.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Three Kings.

Review #1521: Three Kings.

Cast: 
George Clooney (Major Archie Gates), Mark Wahlberg (Sergeant First Class Troy Barlow), Ice Cube (Staff Sergeant Chief Elgin), Spike Jonze (Private First Class Conrad Vig), Cliff Curtis (Amir Abdullah), Nora Dunn (Adriana Cruz), Jamie Kennedy (Specialist Walter Wogeman), Saïd Taghmaoui (Saïd), Mykelti Williamson (Colonel Ron Horn), Holt McCallany (Captain Doug Van Meter), and Judy Greer (Cathy Daitch) Directed by David O. Russell.

Review: 
"I just love real characters; they're not pretentious, and every emotion is on the surface, they're regular working people. Their likes, their dislikes, their loves, their hates, their passions; they're all right there on the surface."

Some people are cut out for writing and others are cut out for directing. David O. Russell found his way into both through filmmaking that elevated him to rising star in the 1990s. A graduate of English and political science from Amherst College, he had worked a variety of odd jobs after graduation that ranged from community work to teaching. He did some work with documentaries and shorts (having found inspiration from classics watched such as Chinatown), such as with Bingo Inferno: A Parody on American Obsessions (1987). He was given grants to do a feature involving fortune cookies and microphones in a Chinese restaurant that he would instead use to do Spanking The Monkey (1994), debuting in feature films at the age of 36. The film was originally written by John Ridley (a standup comedian who later turned to writing for television along with novels), who wanted to experiment in making and selling a script in very little time; the script was done in a week and it was bought eighteen days later. However, Russell (brought in for his first major studio film) would do his own writing changes to the draft, and Ridley had to go through arbitration to get a story credit.

There had been quite a share of war films over the 1990s, but this sticks out as one involving the Persian Gulf War (1990-91); a war film involving a heist has been done before with films such as Kelly's Heroes (1970, which involved AWOL soldiers getting gold bars out of a bank vault). Russell accomplishes a distinct war film with its look, involving vibrant color though Ektachrome transparency stock (noted for its distinct look used for photographers like National Geographic) and one-shot explosions that was shot in the desert of several states such as Arizona that featured Iraqi refugees as advisors and extras. It is a reckless film that makes the best out of touching upon the consequences and spoils of war with a balance of humor and humanity that makes for a fairly clever movie that benefits from a formidable main quartet that shows its disconnect between war and the reality that comes from its perceived end without becoming absorbed in cliché or lingering on the soapbox too long. Clooney got the part after actors of various age targets were thought of/approached (such as Clint Eastwood and Nicolas Cage). He does a commendable job here, curious in a burnt-out stage of cynicism and lost values that we gravitate to with smoothness in a journey that means most to filling in the layers the film seeks to show through heist and war. Wahlberg does fine with being the middle man, an observer of being done from war on both ends with a careful brow. Rapper-turned-film star Cube makes the most of his time in conviction in handling the tension presented in faith handily. In the same year that Jonze debuted as a feature film director with Being John Malkovich, this was his first (and so far only) prominent role as an actor, doing so in a part that was written for him as a way to shake things up from the established actors, which he does in adequate comic relief. Curtis does well with providing perspective for what we know (or think we know) about the people around a simple trek for gold, which applies just as well for Taghmaoui in his scenes against Wahlberg. Dunn provides hard-edged zeal as the eyes of a fleeting moment, while the others in the cast do fine when needed.

On the whole, the film pulls itself off well within 114 minutes in delivering a clever film on the other sides of war beyond just the battlefield through a game cast and well-timed movement in pace and timing that make it as bitingly endurable as fellow war film M*A*S*H (1970) with its own style and presence worthy for its time of 1999 that still sticks a punch now.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Halloween (2018).

Review #1151: Halloween.

Cast: 
Jamie Lee Curtis (Laurie Strode), Judy Greer (Karen), Andi Matichak (Allyson), Will Patton (Frank Hawkins), Virginia Gardner (Vicky), Nick Castle and James Jude Courtney (Michael Myers / The Shape), Haluk Bilginer (Dr. Ranbir Sartain), Rhian Rees (Dana Haines), Jefferson Hall (Aaron Korey), Toby Huss (Ray), Dylan Arnold (Cameron Elam), and Miles Robbins (Dave) Directed by David Gordon Green.

Review: 
On October 25, 1978, John Carpenter's Halloween came out to theaters and it soon became a hit with audiences. It's not hard to say that it was a great horror film, having plenty of thrills and scares alongside great music from Carpenter and a well-done script from him and Hill that shines even forty years (and numerous follow-ups) later. I make it a habit to try and watch the film at least once a year (I had the pleasure of doing so at a re-release at my local theater last year), preferably in October, and it seems to get better each time. I was surprised to hear that a new one of these films was coming out, but even more surprised to hear that it would be a direct sequel to the original, complete with Curtis starring and Carpenter contributing to the music (alongside his son Cody and godson Daniel Davies). This time, the writing for the film comes from Jeff Fradley, Danny McBride, and director David Gordon Green.

I didn't know what to expect from this film, since this is not the first time that a Halloween film has tried to ignore the continuity of the previous films while having Curtis return, and the result of that film (Halloween H20: 20 Years Later) was a mess. After all, this is a film series that has five timelines, with Curtis' character being dead in two of them (more specifically, stated to be dead for Halloween 4-6 and killed in Halloween H20's sequel, Halloween: Resurrection). When compared to the original, it is easy to say that this film isn't quite as great as the original film, but it is likely the best Halloween film since 1978 - for better or worse. It's clear to see how much the filmmakers embraced the original film, with certain scenes feeling like homages - one scene I can cite is a classroom scene that is inverted to show Laurie watching her granddaughter while she is in class. The acting is pretty effective all across the board, with Curtis being the key highlight. In her second go at playing a character haunted by the memories of her encounter with Myers, she plays it pretty effectively, making her obsession and preparation for a showdown as watchable as one could expect. Matichak, in her first major film role, does a pretty good job, having a certain quality to her that makes her someone the audience is willing to follow in the scenes besides Curtis. Greer plays her role with a fair amount of weariness that feels like a variation on the skeptic role for horror films - but it does play itself out decently enough, particularly due to the climax. The teenagers in the film seem to follow the tradition of the others in having them be a bit cliche - just as one would probably see coming. Castle and Courtney are certainly satisfactory enough as the lurking shape, particularly since the mask looks just right and we don't ever see his true face (despite him being without the mask for some of the first half). Bilginer, described at one point as the "new Loomis", does a fine job with showing a certain degree of obsession to his care taking role that I liked just fine. The two podcasters, played by Rees and Hall, are a bit ridiculous in their pursuit for more into the Myers story (with this pursuit for more into his nature seems awfully familiar), but at least they aren't too overbearing on the actual plot too much. The film certainly likes to have a sense of humor to it, and while it may come off as a bit distracting at times, I do think that it works more often than not to help give some levity. There are some points in the narrative that do come off as a bit strange, but on the whole the movie does get itself to a natural point without too many bumps in the road in its 105 minute run-time. The music is top-notch, not being just amped-up versions from before while feeling refreshing. The movie is (naturally) violent at times, but it is executed fairly effectively, not going overboard on gore or being over-the-top, with a body-count that will certainly fit horror tastes.

The climax of the movie works is handled pretty well, having a bit of thrill to it, with the predator and prey roles being a bit blurred this time around. Thankfully, this movie is simply not a rehash of all the greatest hits for the franchise, having a bit of depth to it. Was it something that really needed to happen? I suppose if you really desired more from this series, than the answer would be yes, particularly since a return to the roots that made this compelling in the first place is admirable. It sure didn't take me long to find myself enjoying what I was watching, and it certainly will have a place of fair enough standing among the eleven films in this series. I doubt that this is really the end for this series and its villain (even with its ending), but at least they managed to make something that was worth watching, particularly for the Halloween season, where everyone deserves at least one good scare.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Ant-Man.

Review #728: Ant-Man.

Cast
Paul Rudd (Scott Lang / Ant-Man), Michael Douglas (Dr. Hank Pym), Evangeline Lilly (Hope van Dyne), Corey Stoll (Darren Cross / Yellowjacket), Bobby Cannavale (Paxton), Michael Peña (Luis), Judy Greer (Maggie Lang), Abby Ryder Fortson (Cassie Lang), David Dastmalchian (Kurt), T.I. (Dave), Wood Harris (Gale), Anthony Mackie (Sam Wilson / Falcon), Hayley Atwell (Peggy Carter), John Slattery (Howard Stark), and Martin Donovan (Mitchell Carson) Directed by Peyton Reed.

Review
Admittedly, having four writers credited and having a director replaced during production is a bit troubling. But I went into Ant-Man to have some fun, and I ended up being satisfied. Really satisfied. This is a movie that has fun with itself and its premise, exhibiting snappy dialogue when needed while also having brilliant (pint sized) action. Rudd makes for a good lead hero, and her certainly works well with Douglas and Lilly, especially when trying to train him. The movie doesn't take too long to have some action...and a laugh, and it keeps going from there, never really stopping. Stoll does fine hamming it up when he's in the film, and the fight at the end of the movie is both exciting and fun. It's not just a superhero movie, it also is a heist as well, and that certainly changes up from most origin stories, though most don't involve ants. Lots of them. It's a good looking movie with the effects dealing with our mini sized hero, and seeing shots of Ant-Man fighting from a distance generates some laughs, especially at the end. It's a good time for what it's worth, and it certainly manages to be just the right amount of entertainment. The Marvel movies are a well oiled machine that keeps on going, increasing itself movie after movie, while having fun with itself and having a story that knows where its going. Watch the movie, and enjoy yourself.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.