Project Hail Mary.

Review #2518: Project Hail Mary.

Cast: 

Ryan Gosling (Dr. Ryland Grace), Sandra Hüller (Eva Stratt), James Ortiz (the voice and lead puppeteer of Rocky), Lionel Boyce (Officer Carl), Ken Leung (Yáo Li-Jie), Milana Vayntrub (Olesya Ilyukhina), Priya Kansara (the voice of Mary), Liz Kingsman (Annie Shapiro), Mia Soteriou (Dr. Browne), and Orion Lee (Dr. Li) Directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (#540 - The Lego Movie, #568 - 21 Jump Street, #940 - Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs)

Review: 

Sure, a space adventure worth seeing in a movie theater. You might remember that the last adaptation of an Andy Weir novel adaptation came around with The Martian back in 2015 that had Drew Goddard write the screenplay that dealt with one man trying to deal with the tough circumstances of being adrift in space (I will be honest in saying I haven't watched The Martian since that one screening). Oh, and I suppose there is plenty of science-spelunking (my word, not the words of the movie) in trying to deal with basically being a one-human show. Actually, I take that back, there are a few other differences (namely in that this film mostly spends its time adrift in space with a parallel narrative about regaining one's memory*), but it really did come to mind when hearing about this movie (I don't do "buzz heard from other people", I barely have friends to recommend movies so "screw it" is the way to go). The "hard science fiction" novel was published in 2021 with a clear interest in real science and, well, themes in isolation (for further information involving one look at what looks like science and what looks like science fiction, you can inquire here) that had rumblings of a film adaptation almost immediately. This feature (distributed by Amazon MGM Studios*) is the first film directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller since 22 Jump Street way back in 2014, having been busy in producing films. Evidently, there are a bit of differences between the novel and the film (one involves the reasoning being modified from one of biology to one of happenstance), but so it goes.

It is a decent movie, mainly when you feel that there is something worth enjoying in its odyssey. It looks upon the future and tries to present it as something to figure out rather than fear that might be worth 156 minutes of time. It isn't so much the quest for figuring out what one is going to do about star eaters and the sun because it really is a film of relationships and figuring out the how and why of things mattering. It just happens to have a bit of puppetry that also isn't too infested with fake sets (to throw you a curveball, maybe it would make a neat pairing in one-man sustainment with Cast Away [2000]). It all rests on Gosling's shoulders to basically show him finding a true friend among the stars. Well, you might say there are friendly moments on Earth, but I think the stuff between him and "Rocky" is fascinating, mainly in that slowburn of getting communication down number by number. Ortiz (as head puppeteer of a character with a handful of puppets) and his riffing with Gosling has a certain type of warmth that basically does work better than if it was Gosling interacting with a guest voice. That's not to say that the moments spent with Hüller* are ho-hum, because she does make a compelling figure of pragmatic grace before, well, having a neat little scene involving karaoke that basically makes the last we see of them and Gosling all the more compelling in where it ends up. I can't exactly tell why the movie doesn't quite reach greatness (or get around to the level of say, Interstellar [2014]), which I guess comes down to it just being an adequate crowd-pleaser over being a really involving one, particularly at a certain point when the familiarity element becomes all too apparent. To be "goofy" can be a blessing or a curse depending on what you think the word means. At least the ending is suitable enough to make the trip worth it when it comes to figuring out what actually matters in being more than just one person among the universe. As a whole, it's a pleasantly fine charmer for where it wants to go in entertainment value within sentimental commitment that leads to a few good chuckles and some hope within its adventure that will be reasonably satisfying for those who know what they are getting into.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Yes, I forgot Amazon MGM was a thing. Also, they only distributed it in America and Canada, Sony Pictures Releasing International is everywhere else.

*Not to spoil much, but, one wonders, regardless of how petty or ridiculous that this sounds, if the first thing that a person in Grace's shoes would do if they somehow managed to get back to Earth after all they went through and managed to find Stratt...to just immediately punch them in the face. What? 

*She is a licensed forklift operator. No, really.

*Audience count for my Wednesday afternoon screening: zero. Oh well.

Saw (2004).

Review #1750: Saw.

Cast: 

Cary Elwes (Lawrence Gordon), Leigh Whannell (Adam Stanheight), Danny Glover (David Tapp), Ken Leung (Detective Steven Sing), Dina Meyer (Detective Allison Kerry), Mike Butters (Paul), Paul Gutrecht (Mark), Michael Emerson (Zep Hindle), Benito Martinez (Brett), Shawnee Smith (Amanda Young), Makenzie Vega (Diana Gordon), Monica Potter (Alison Gordon), Alexandra Bokyun Chun (Carla), and Tobin Bell (Jigsaw/John Kramer) Directed by James Wan (#1175 - Aquaman and #1556 - Insidious)

Review: 

"It changed our lives. Sure, it really wasn’t the film I set up to do, yet it ended up being this cultural phenomenon that we never expected. I never expected that my first little, as I refer to it, my student film would ultimately go on to have such a cultural impact."

If any horror film could help to help define the first few years of the 21st century, you could likely make a great case for Saw to be in the argument. Oh sure, the quality of each feature has varied from film to film (for which there were six sequels in the next six years before the supposed finale was followed by two standalone movies), but one can't deny the lingering legacy that arose from an interesting presence from two soon-to-be known directors from Australia. James Wan and Leigh Whannell met each other when each were attending the Royal Melbourne Institute Of Technology, for which they bonded over their shared interest in horror. Years later, they wanted to make a film for as cheap ($5,000) and simple as one can make when having to work dead-end jobs; Wan and Whannell each suggested ideas to each other, but one idea by the former really stuck through: two guys in a room that had a dead body lying on the floor with a gun and a tape player. Whannell ran with the idea and expanded on it to what became Saw (for which he came up with the title); since they wanted to prove that they could actually do it, they took one scene from the film and shot it as a short (picking the scene involving the reverse bear trap for Whannell to act). Shot in Los Angeles in 2003, the short attracted attention from a variety of interested funders, with Evolution Entertainment being the one that Wan and Whannell went with because of the freedom granted to do the film their way (with a shooting budget of roughly $700,000 for eighteen days of shooting). 

Sure, it is gruesome, but it has a few fair merits to consider beyond just classifying it as the starting point for so called "torture porn." Pffft, I say, as this term seems to exist just for "higher-minded critics" to degrade horror films that just happen to make folks uncomfortable while being different from the usual fare (in other words, some folks are squeamish for stuff that seems tame to others). Besides, it would be the sequels that would up the ante in gore (which even got the 3D treatment with the seventh film), while this film is actually more reminiscent of Seven (1995), what with the exploration of a hunt for a killer that dabbles in sins. Undeniably, that film is superior in pretty much every way when it comes to its psychological aspects and main detective pair, but at least Saw manages to accomplish a portion of the terror that can come from the simple act of having two folks in a room with tension over trying to stay alive in a macabre mystery-thriller. Honestly, I thought it was a fine movie, all things considered. For 103 minutes, it balances itself out with a few elaborate traps and a few semblances of plot (in flashbacks, complete with red herrings) that hold up the interesting premise long enough to stick the ultimate landing, which likely will provide curiosity to those who prefer to sit through their films time and time again; its quality may vary from person to person like a puzzle game, where if one likes the process they'll go back to it and look to scramble it all over. Undeniably, the acting isn't the strong suit of the film, but I was fond enough of the presences captured anyway (although this is more because of the familiar faces more than anything, which can boomerang the other way around if in a lesser film); sure, Elwes may overact a bit with the material, but he makes the most of it with reasoned interest, since he has the overall story to work with (as opposed to Whannell, although expecting him to have great acting isn't exactly feasible). Glover and Leung do okay in the procedural aspect, albeit in the sense that it goes about as well with the film as it would on a buried script of a TV procedural. Bell is mostly utilized for his voice more so than physical presence for most of the film, but he gives it his effort for a role that could have veered into one-note (puppets don't count). The final turn of the screw for the closing is on the money, at least when it comes to not insulting its audience completely while being quite definitive in its lasting note on a killer that tests the will of survival of his would-be victims with traps that makes for a stone cold time. As a gritty feature with sparse features (such as in its shots and design), I would say it is a worthy accomplishment for what Wan and Whannell wanted to do in filmmaking, one that accomplished its ride of curiosity without stumbling over the clichés. It might not be a great piece in horror filmmaking, but it sure made its mark count with its interesting premise and execution that opened the door for further grips into terror in puzzle traps, for better or worse.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Halloween II (2009).

Movie Night: Rush Hour.

Review #305: Rush Hour.

Cast
Jackie Chan (Lee), Chris Tucker (James Carter), Tom Wilkinson (Thomas Griffin), Tzi Ma (Solon Han), Ken Leung (Sang), Elizabeth Peña (Tania Johnson), Mark Rolston (Warren Russ), Rex Linn (Dan Whitney), and Chris Penn (Clive Cod) Directed by Brett Ratner (#012 - X-Men: The Last Stand)

Review
This is one of those films that could range from either action packed decency or annoying banter. This is like a weight scale, it tips for one side and tips for the other side. I do like Jackie Chan in this film, he gives off the appearance of "why is going on around me"...which makes a lot of sense actually. Aside from that...cameo in The Cannonball Run (#034), this is the first time reviewing something with him, and he does a good job. However their is a familiar actor who has presumably returned from slightly annoying me in The Fifth Element (#027) to getting a 9.1 on the grating scale, Chris Tucker. Now to be fair Tucker and Chan do make a good pair together (Somehow...), and there are some funny moments (Naming them takes a bit longer to remember though.) that almost forgive the fact of annoyances that do indeed happen. The plot is decent, not exactly great, but decent. The action and Chan's involvement in them is good, Chan clearly knows his way around doing fight scenes, which is admirable. While the film is not entirely (take your pick) without flaws, it does have some enjoyable moments to make a slighly more than standard film. Which would have a sequel. Oh dear?

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.