Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

Review #2376: Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

Cast: 

Kevin Costner (Robin Hood), Morgan Freeman (Azeem Edin Bashir Al Bakir), Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (Lady Marian), Christian Slater (Will Scarlett), Alan Rickman (the Sheriff of Nottingham), Geraldine McEwan (Mortianna), Michael McShane (Friar Tuck), Brian Blessed (Lord Locksley), Michael Wincott (Guy of Gisborne), Nick Brimble (Little John), Harold Innocent (the Bishop of Hereford), Walter Sparrow (Duncan), Daniel Newman (Wulf), Daniel Peacock (Bull), and Jack Wild (Much) Directed by Kevin Reynolds (#1081 - Waterworld)

Review: 

Okay, so Kevin Reynolds did other movies besides Waterworld (1995). Actually, the San Antonio native got his start in film with co-writing the script with John Milius for Red Dawn (1984). His first film as a director came with Fandango (1985), which actually sprung from a film he had made when at USC Film School that was inspired by his experiences at Baylor University. The production, featuring a young Kevin Costner as the star, wasn't a hit, but Reynolds found further work with The Beast (1988). Reynolds later served as a second unit director with Dances with Wolves (1990)*, significantly with the buffalo hunt scene. Naturally, the two united for a movie that sprung from British people. Well, okay, British writer-producer Pen Densham wanted to do a Robin Hood movie that went on with the idea of not just being a rerun of the famed 1938 film of the tale in adventure, instead billing it as "Robin Hood a la Raiders”. He wrote an outline with John Watson that attracted attention and getting Reynolds basically meant getting Costner involved. Reynolds apparently wanted to avoid making "Indiana Jones" with the tone. With a rushed production schedule to try and make sure they were not beaten out by a rival Robin Hood movie and not be stuck in England winter, the result was, well, funny. Apparently, preview screenings had people say that Rickman's sheriff was their favorite character rather than Costner. They then replaced editors with a team that trimmed and beefed-up certain scenes that saw Reynolds leave the production prior to the final editing/scoring. Interestingly, a 2003 DVD of the movie has an extended version of the movie that runs at 155 minutes (i.e. 12 minutes of restored footage, most notably showing the parentage of a certain character).

Sure, the tales of Robin Hood is a folktale of British origin. Sure, there is no straight-to-the-point version of what the myth is beyond a man who can use arrows and/or swords. There is no one person that inspired folks to talk about a bandit that dealt with the rich beyond people who were outlaws in some way. The movies did their own thing, suffice to say. Hell, people even made ballads about Robin Hood. The only ballad people will make of this movie is how ridiculously all over the place it all is. Sure, I got a kick out of the movie more often than not, but its flaws are evident to even those who don't care about a certain degree of violence or the tone of the whole thing. The fact that Kevin Reynolds elected to work with Kevin Costner again with Waterworld (1995) after this means that people really do have plenty of patience to share with each other. I have no time to really quibble about Costner *the American* playing Robin Hood, because freaking Errol Flynn was an Australian (incidentally, did you know James Cagney was supposed to play the role before Flynn?). I will, however, quibble about the fact that someone thought it was a problem that Rickman overshadows him in the movie. What the hell was his performance before they did the edits, a stronger block of wood?** To be clear, I don't really care that much about if Costner varies in trying to do an accent, because, well, meh, but I will quibble with the fact that he barely has any charisma in the first place. I think he just coasts better with alleged classics like Bull Durham (1988) when he has some sort of actual breath of fun with actually doing something besides looking into the distance and doing a hobby shop Clint Eastwood impression. And yet...the movie does what it does in spite of his okay qualities. I at least see the interest that comes with a lead that sees the Crusades and all that comes from it and decides, no, life isn't about chasing glory. Freeman accompanies this with a zest to play with the idea of enjoying this quest and sticking out like a sore thumb (as one does when being referred to as a "Moor") in staid charm. And then of course there is Rickman, who saw the script and proceeded to come up with (read: enlist the help of writer friends such as Ruby Wax and Peter Barnes) better lines for himself (the "cancel Christmas" line, for example). His menace in chewing the scenery and zeal for doing exactly what he feels is both damn funny and also absorbing in a way that saves the movie in showing energy beyond just doing the same adversarial bit. What can I say, I like ham (for reference, the Sheriff in the 1938 version was played by Melville Cooper, but it's easy to forget when Claude Rains and Basil Rathbone play the real threats of that film), particularly when sharing time with the amusing hack mysticism of McEwan. Mastrantonio has exactly one interesting scene: her introduction, when she fights under a mask for a bit. She then coasts along as just an adequate observer to the growing absurdity (except for the climax, which has her wail while Rickman aims for extra-cooked ham and Costner sifts into "sword" mode). Slater basically pops in and out to play a brat with the most evident twist necessarily, but McShane and Brimble at least make the merry band of men (okay, not all men) have energy to make these people seem like you would actually want to be there in the British countryside (insert your own British joke here, guv'nor). The movie does strain in the credibility of an okay (read: generous) lead backed with a far more capable cast (read: one really good actor and a few names to like here and there) and some action that I'm actually okay with. Some will find it joyless, some will find it a pleasure they can roll with in the sheer bombast that comes through for some useful adventure that I can appreciate. It's the ultimate "love it or hate it" kind of movie that you might find worth stumbling onto or stagger away from.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*That would be the *overrated* Dances with Wolves, released in 1990. Sure, fine movie, but I will never understand how Costner's efforts with a movie outdone by, well, pick a random Eastwood Western, was the best movie by a certain Academy.

**And who wanted to see his bare ass? 

The Bodyguard (1992).

Review #1940: The Bodyguard.

Cast: 

Kevin Costner (Frank Farmer), Whitney Houston (Rachel Marron), Gary Kemp (Sy Spector), Bill Cobbs (Bill Devaney), Ralph Waite (Herb Farmer), Tomas Arana (Greg Portman), Michele Lamar Richards (Nicki Marron), Mike Starr (Tony Scipelli), Christopher Birt (Henry Adams), DeVaughn Nixon (Fletcher Marron), and Gerry Bamman (Ray Court) Directed by Mick Jackson (#202 - Volcano and #1630 - L.A. Story)

Review: 

Well, even the popular entertainment has a shelf life worth looking into. Three decades have only kept the attention for the second-biggest hit of the year in the discussion, if only because of the even more popular soundtrack with Whitney Houston. The Newark native was after all a major singer with a string of hits since the late 1980s, and her performance and production made the best selling album for a soundtrack...ever. All of this happened for a film that had seeds of creation first planted a decade earlier. It probably should surprise you that the film was originally written with Steve McQueen and Diana Ross in mind. Yes, in the mid 1970s, this was pitched as a film, and yes, it was apparently rejected for being "too controversial". An attempt to do the film a few years later with Ryan O'Neal as the lead stalled because of strained relations between O'Neal and Ross. The film was written by Lawrence Kasdan (who had written the initial script in 1975), who you might recognize as writer of films such as The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and director of films such as The Big Chill (1983). Attempted revisions to the script apparently made it dark enough to where Mick Jackson insisted on just returning to the original concept. This was the third feature film for British native Mick Jackson, who was fresh off his success in directing L.A. Story (1991).

This is a confused movie, one that somehow is too silly and contrived to be taken seriously for anybody thinking this might be a thriller along with being too stoic in the art of going beyond first gear for what is meant to be called romance. It is also way too ordinary to run for 129 minutes. The only thing the movie has going for it is the songs, because yea, who can resist "I Will Always Love You" (sung by Houston as a cover, since the original song was done by Dolly Parton). It isn't even a case of being paint-by-the-numbers, because even other movies would know when to get on with the show. Costner probably was quite proud of himself for getting do a film where he also served as producer (just like previous efforts in Dances with Wolves) and could cut his hair like McQueen to try and hone his presence. He certainly acts like a bored McQueen would have likely been if this had been done in the 1970s, that much is sure. If you want to watch the film to make fun of it, you might have a ball looking at how understated his performance ends up being, as if he was replaced by discount Costner. The only scene that has any impact is one where he has a scuffle with Starr which ends with him throwing a knife right near him to close out a silent fight where he shows just how good he is. Houston had never acted in a film before this one, and, well, that is pretty evident early on, which results in a very mild case of "well, natural acting is technically a thing" that is then followed with "she can sing, just get her better material". She acted in three further films before her death in 2012. The movie doesn't even bother to have a middling attempt at a threat, since there is never one moment where the tension rises to any sort of interesting level. You would think a movie that has its climax during an Academy Awards ceremony would bring out some sort of curiosity to things. Nope. Kemp was one of the musicians for Spandau Ballet. That is pretty much all one can say about his performance. Cobbs and Waite are practically standing there begging for more substantial lines, but nope, this patchy romance is totally stable enough.

I kid you not, there was almost a sequel to this film. Apparently, Costner wanted to do another film with a different famous name, one who was a friend of his. The friend was Diana, Princess of Wales, but her death in 1997 put an end to it in predevelopment. A musical adaptation was done in London in 2012, and there are apparently plans for a film remake (heaven forbid they make a film that might actually show some depth - well, a man can dream, can't he?). As a whole, the best way to approach the film is to close one's eyes and just think really hard about what the hell they are watching. It might be the only movie where shutting everything but the music off might be a better experience than this overlong average movie. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Man of Steel.

Review #1669: Man of Steel.

Cast:

Henry Cavill (Clark Kent / Kal-El), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), Michael Shannon (General Zod), Kevin Costner (Jonathan Kent), Diane Lane (Martha Kent), Laurence Fishburne (Perry White), Antje Traue (Faora-Ul), Ayelet Zurer (Lara Lor-Van), Christopher Meloni (Colonel Nathan Hardy), Russell Crowe (Jor-El), and Harry Lennix (General Swanwick) Directed by Zack Snyder (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and #1011 - Justice League)

Review:

"Am I a provocateur? A little bit. Is my job to make some pop-culture piece of candy that you eat and forget about the next day? Nah. I would rather fuck you up in a movie than make it nice and pretty for everybody."

What does one desire from a Superman story? Or more specifically, what does visualize when they hear the word? It can depend on what exactly sticks out the most in the world of storytelling, that much is for sure. Superman (1978) is undeniably the one film that stands out, this much is for sure. It still stands tall today as an influence that looms over the superhero genre. Superman, as we all remember, was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster in 1938, having tried to sell the idea to comic strip folks for five years that evolved from a vagrant-turned-telepath into the sensational hero that touched the hearts and minds of numerous readers for several decades. Over the next few decades, imitators and media adaptations of Superman would follow, which ranged from radio to television to film, all with their own perspective of what made Superman the great hero that all look up to as the ideal, one that could be described as more powerful than a locomotive or a fighter for truth, justice, and the American way, and so on and so forth. Every adaptation has their perspective of Superman, acting as a reflection of the time and standards. Consider the Superman shorts that were created by the Fleischers in 1941 - not only were the shorts fairly popular, they also proved an influence in moving Superman from merely a hero who could leap from place to place to having him just fly (the reason? It looked better in animation). Superman: The Animated Series (1996-2000) aspired to look like those short films in its animation while downplaying the character's power to an extent, which resulted in an underrated classic. The radio series The Adventures of Superman (1940-1951) featured the use of kryptonite as a weakness for the title hero before it was absorbed into the comic canon in 1949. The 1978 film adaptation was the first to introduce the 'S' on the costume as a Kryptonian crest (Superman: Birthright (2003-04), written by Mark Waid as the second origin story for the hero in the modern era, would take that and have Superman's crest represent a symbol of hope).

That film seems to be both a blessing and a curse, since that film is undeniably still the best adaptation of the character ever put to film, as Richard Donner achieved the verisimilitude that he felt was needed to capture the reality of the comic realm without falling prey to parody. Don't get me wrong, this film is fine, but it is somehow nowhere near what the first film managed to do with its spectacle and mythic draw of strength. Man of Steel will likely reflects its era just as much as the original film managed to do with in terms of sensibility and effects, which for better or worse does what it needs to do in the job job at bringing the character back onto the screen after far too many years away. The easiest question is to wonder just how far the ends will justify the means when it comes to infusing a darker sensibility to the most famous superhero in the realm of comic books into a film. For some, it will serve as a necessary evolution for Superman in the realm of film, setting itself apart from previous iterations as a setting stone to further usage from an auteur in Snyder. For others, it will serve as a ham-handed, self-righteous puddle, one that thinks that Superman merely needs a bit of edge and a peculiar usage of the snap zoom to get their kicks and say to the world, "Look! Superman isn't an overgrown boy scout!" (a producer, leading the development of trying to make the fifth Superman film, actually described him like that) with no irony detected. Snyder, has his own perspective within comic book adaptations, since he was previously at the helm for 300 (2006) and Watchmen (2009), which each are certainly distinctive in the perspective of adaptation in style for better or worse (the latter adaptation is probably more polarizing as an adaptation). Snyder felt that the thesis of the character was one where superheroes can't knock things around without consequences, and he would follow up with two further films with Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016, which also includes an Ultimate Edition that added 30 minutes of footage to make a three-hour cut) and Justice League (2017/2021; Snyder would do a director's cut to restore the film to what he had intended prior to leaving production), although his plan of a five-film arc that would lead to the full potential of the character would not come into full fruition.

There is exactly one statement that can help sum up this film: It's a weird achievement to have made half of a good Superman movie in one whole movie (while running at the exact runtime as the 1978 film - 143 minutes). It has an interesting picked cast, and it certainly likes to hone its references to the canon of Superman, this much is for sure. David S. Goyer wrote the screenplay while co-writing the story with Christopher Nolan. It is likely the boldest average superhero movie to ever come through this decade, but it sure is a useful one to serve as a contrast to what one might see from other films of its ilk in that time. Cavill had a few film roles under his belt, although his best known role was a lead role with the television program The Tudors (2007–2010), although it should be noted that he actually was one of numerous actors that had been considered for the earlier attempt at reviving the Superman film series a decade earlier (the same can be said for Adams, incidentally). He certainly does a fine job, mostly because it actually seems distinct from what one has seen before while inviting curiosity that had been sorely missing from the anticlimax seven years prior. Granted, it is a bit shaky at first, because all folks need to find their gravitas with confidence - there eventually seems to be something there in earthy promise, although it seems more prevalent with the hero aspects more so than with Clark Kent. Adams has some of the tenacity needed to play the character, although the spark of wit seems more prevalent in the first half of the film more so than the second, which seems more a reflection of the film seeming to stick itself a bit in technobabble, although at least it invites the idea of seeing the grounded elements of Cavill and Adams. Shannon is the final key piece of the trio with the hardest tasks, one where you have to believe in some way has a point even in madness. In that sense, with a warrior-by-blood attitude that is handled by Shannon quite well, fierce but never completely off the deep end that serves as a great overall threat. Lane and Costner make up the Kent family with okay results; one wonders how that perception differs with someone who had seen Smallville (2001-2011), but I honestly I usually forget about the Kents (minus of course one scene, of course). It is Crowe who seems more memorable at any rate, standing in the shadows of Brando (at least without cue-cards this time) with that smooth edge that gets a bit more mileage than one expects (Zurer on the other hand is a bit more murky). Others do okay in support, such as the hint of Fishburne in dogged persistence or Meloni and his tough-guy charm (this may or may not hinge on how much Law and Order: Special Victims Unit hinges on one's favoritism list).

I will admit that there are quite a few gripes, ranging from playful to ones that make me roll my eyes. Zod make his first appearance in a film since Superman II (1980), and it will play right into a great trivia question of which Superman films don't feature one or both of either General Zod or Lex Luthor. They might be the most memorable villains in the Superman lexicon, but it still seems odd to not tap into further compelling adversaries (as evidenced by television adaptations of Superman such as the animated series and Smallville). Sure, they may not be as familiar in the lexicon, but it certainly strikes irritation with its choice of villain just like Superman Returns (2006) had done earlier (for the record, Brainiac would be the definite choice). At least you can say the film is a definitive vision of one director's idea of what the ideal of Superman represents. And then of course there are those two scenes that spark debate over exactly what should or shouldn't be done in a Superman story. I'm sure this isn't spoiling an eight year old film to say that the last scene with Cavill and Costner is the one that makes me roll my eyes more so than the death of Zod. There is a sense of hokeyness that somehow comes out in a show of trying to hide one's strength until they are truly ready that seems off-kilter. Heck, he saved a bus full of kids as a child, and the Kents seemed to have made that seem ordinary, so I doubt there will be that many shockwaves for a blur deciding to whip their father out of the way of a tornado (in any case, the death of one of the Kents is nearly inevitable in these origin stories). The occasional segues into non-linear storytelling will either help or hinder the idea of a layered hero story different from usual, so your mileage may vary. The savior narrative is the only other thing that seems more on the nose, and one can only get away with so much before it collapses in self-seriousness; it isn't the first time that this has been presented in Superman, since "creative consultant" Tom Mankiewicz stated how he fostered analogies between the story of Jesus with Superman and his father - you can roll your eyes at its attempt or just let it pass by with reverence/deference. By the time one gets to the climax, the thing that really draws on my mind is trying to make sure one has not succumbed to cut-scene syndrome within its stroke of action. The use of the snap zoom (i.e. a zoomed in shot during an action sequence) only will serve to demonstrate the duality of a director that can appreciated for kinetic action and style or ridiculed to the point that one can make a drinking game based on how many times it is used again and again. As a whole, it works enough in the basic department of taking certain risks with making a fair start to reigniting the flames of the pinnacle of all superheroes into film without bursting into a fiery failure or becoming a flamed-out mess of mediocrity, showcasing Snyder's interest for hard-lined realism in tandem with style and action to make a movie that will drive the curiosity of its admirers and detractors in the ways that matter most for as long as they make superhero movies that dare to be bold.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Bull Durham.

Review #1663: Bull Durham.

Cast:

Kevin Costner (Lawrence "Crash" Davis), Susan Sarandon (Annie Savoy), Tim Robbins (Ebby Calvin "Nuke" Laloosh), Trey Wilson (Joe "Skip" Riggins), Robert Wuhl (Larry Hockett), William O'Leary (Jimmy), David Neidorf (Bobby), Jenny Robertson (Millie), Danny Gans (Deke), and Max Patkin (Himself) Written and Directed by Ron Shelton (#381 - Cobb and #1075 - Hollywood Homicide)

Review:

“I thought if I was gonna have a shot as a director, I’m gonna have to write something that everybody else can say, ‘Well, whatever we think of Shelton, certainly nobody in the world knows more about the subject.”

This was the debut film directed by Ron Shelton, who has directed nine feature films in a career of over three decades - five of these films revolve around sports in some way (all except Cobb have comedy in some way, for example). But it is this film that is most personal for Shelton, who had graduated from Westmont College in California (studying English Literature for his major while being a star in basketball in baseball) and immediately went to play minor league baseball. For five years, he would play in various leagues and even reach Triple-A (the highest level in the minors) with Rochester before he decided to quit at the age of 25 in 1971, shaped by a strike in Major League Baseball. The curiosity for filmmaking came in part because he would go to see movies while on the road, with one particular film that inspired him being The Wild Bunch. Afterwards, he would do study within graduate school, graduating from the University of Arizona with a fine arts degree before moving on to do work with painting and carpentry with time spent writing screenplays. In 1981, Shelton received his first film credit when he worked on The Pursuit of D.B. Cooper, a troubled film that had three directors while Shelton worked as an associate producer and creative consultant. Two years later, he wrote his first screenplay, doing so in collaboration with Clayton Frohman on Under Fire (1983).

The idea for the film was quoted by him as “Lysistrata in the minor leagues", which if you may not be aware reflects a play about a woman who wants to end a way by having the women withhold romancing their husbands and lovers in order to garner peace (several writers and filmmakers have made their own works based on being inspired by the play) - Shelton wrote the film in one draft, with the filmed version having few changes (interestingly, one person that Shelton did have help from with the script was Kurt Russell, a former minor leaguer himself). Shelton drew upon his experiences in the minors for the script, ranging from moments such as an intentionally flooded field or a manager throwing bats at his team after a loss. He wanted to make a film with character development that did not necessarily go the way a number of sports films usually go, since what we are seeing is a movie about folks in transition, complete with a lead in Costner that might as well be drawn out from a Western (as per Shelton's liking for that kind of genre) for folks that will prevail in whoever happens to have less self-awareness. It's a study on human behavior that works fine for what is needed, which means a pretty good experience. Respectfully though, if I am asked about its place as a great sports film, there is one easy statement: the best baseball movie ever made in that decade came the following year with either Costner as the star (you know the one), or it came with the big ending at the end (Major League)...it might have been a mistake to watch the latter again before I saw this feature (look at it this way, maybe it inspired all those other baseball movies to come in its wake). But hey, if you want your romance comedy to mix with the usual sports movie, go right ahead. Writing about movies is a perspective different from person to person, and I found it to be good - and that's a fine place to be for a movie with a director that wanted to make it with his own perspective without fancy mythologizing (if one has to be pedantic, however, the minor league record for home runs was certainly not 246 - Buzz Arlett had 432; of course, if one really wants to drag it out word by word, I could also take umbrage with anyone who dislikes the designated hitter rule). Baseball is a business that has adults and kids playing a game, after all, and Shelton wanted a movie from an athlete's perspective, complete with filming in Durham on cold nights in winter (if one is curious about the name, as I was, it actually refers to a tobacco company of the same name, for which the city became famous for).

Oh, but enough about all of that, how's the cast? They do pretty well for themselves, with a core trio that is hard to resist in seeing on and off the park. Costner does well here, in part because he excels where others would probably grimace with a role that grits and grins in a way that might as well sound like Shelton talking about himself, one where each loves the game more than it loves him in a gunslinger-type of way (Costner's character was modelled after William Holden's performance in...you guessed it, The Wild Bunch). You can see the passion in his eyes any time he is on the field, one with honesty and charm that never wavers whether paired with Robbins or Sarandon. There are quite a few highlights one can note with him around, but I think the last scene spent with Robbins is a charmer, one where he imparts a key lesson about fear and arrogance for the majors while getting a shiner in the eye and asking which hand it came from. Sarandon gives her heart and charm with the depth one should expect from a veteran presence like her (she had been an actress for nearly 20 years before this film). She breathes baseball and care into a role that could have been bungled into casual fluff with a lesser actress; here we have a crisp performance that makes those intimate moments spent with either Costner or Robbins come out clear in balance in connections. The interesting thing to note is that the studio did not want Robbins for the role, since they really desired Anthony Michael Hall (Hall was ten years younger than Robbins...who was only three years younger than Costner), and it took Shelton threatening to quit for Robbins to stick around. He proves quite genuine here, brimming in confidence that makes for a quality one-two punch for what is needed in a coming-of-age (for baseball) tale that keeps everyone fresh without being sold out for a cheap joke. Let's put it this way: being on the mound in a garter belt makes for quite a fascinating little scene. Wilson (who died the following year at 40) contributes as well in character presence expected for a manager with good timing; the same can be said of Wuhl and his shepherding presence. If you need an easy confirmation that we have a movie that breathes baseball, one could just watch the parts with Max Patkin performing before the game. Patkin was the famous "Clown Prince of Baseball", and he would perform to any size of crowd for over a half-century. As a whole, what matters most for 108 minutes is in how much one connects with the story told here through the lens of sports with people at the crossroads of life, whether that means someone who only just taken their first few steps in a career or for people nearing the end of one path, or for those somewhere in between. In that sense, it makes for a fairly engaging movie, never tiring itself out at any road it wants to take that never compromises its vision for anything, and in the end that means a worthwhile time for all who find themselves involved with it.

Editor's Note: Obviously this review was meant to be published at a different time...four days late, as it turns out, since writing this took a bit longer than expected. At any rate, I wanted it to accompany the start of the season in Major League Baseball, back in its regular format of playing in the spring - as always, I hope for a great season, but I also hope that you enjoyed this review as well.

Personally, there is one more thing: Go Astros!

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Postman.

Review #1603: The Postman.

Cast: 

Kevin Costner (The Postman), Will Patton (General Bethlehem), Larenz Tate (Ford Lincoln Mercury), Olivia Williams (Abby), James Russo (Captain Idaho), Tom Petty (Bridge City Mayor), Daniel von Bargen (Pineview Sheriff Briscoe), Scott Bairstow (Luke), Giovanni Ribisi (Bandit 20), Roberta Maxwell (Irene March), Joe Santos (Colonel Getty), and Ron McLarty (Old George) Directed by Kevin Costner (#1497 - Dances with Wolves)

Review: 

"I always thought it was a really good movie! I always thought I probably started it wrong. I should have said something like “once upon a time.” Because it was just like a modern-day fairy tale — it wraps itself up with a storybook ending with the statue. You know, I thought it was a pretty funny movie set against the idea of a Superman — somebody stepping up. But in this case, it’s a very humble guy who's nothing but a liar — delivers mail and burns half of it just to stay alive. So, I like the movie."

This film had long been on my backburner for years for the key reason of my dad having it in his collection. Maybe there was just something fascinating about the films directed by Costner or in its post-apocalyptic action adventure (he never had Costner's third and as of now last work with Open Range (2003) but happened to have Waterworld, go figure). Perhaps this was seven years past due, but I can't imagine how "funny" it would have been to talk about a movie set in the future of 2013. Nay, now one can note the fact it has been over two decades since the release of a film regarded as a big flop with audiences, making one-fourth of its $80 million budget. Of course any film that had a variety of critique could also be spun to argue a small cult following for those who like to defend those from the mainstream. This was adapted from the novel of the same name by David Brin, which was initially composed of two parts with "The Postman" (1982) and "Cyclops" (1984) before subsequent publication as a novel. From what David Brin has stated about the book, he wrote it evidently to counteract post-apocalyptic books and films that he felt reveled in the idea of civilization falling...by making one about the last idealist in a fallen America, since he once described most apocalyptical media as "little-boy wish fantasies"...yea, okay. Plans to try and make a film started not long after publication, although Eric Roth's attempts at a screenplay resulted in a complete reworking of the whole plot and message. Years later, Kevin Costner expressed interest in doing the film, finding the original intent of a tale involving decency and hope without cynicism something that he could do, complete with hiring Brian Helgeland (writer of films like L.A. Confidential) for help with the screenplay (for which he and Roth are credited with). Brin knew that there would be a bit of material to be lost and meshed through with an adaptation, and he noted that some of the decisions made by them to be fine with him in the sense that they kept the soul of the main character and story, focusing more on the first third of the novel as opposed to other parts, since a glimpse at the plot talks about developments that occur in the novel involving talking computers and such. Brin felt confidence in Costner being the one to star and direct in the hope for a film that would feel like Field of Dreams (his wife, at a screening of said film, felt Costner would be right for a book adaptation) more so than Mad Max or the Costner vehicle in Waterworld (1995).

That comparison to Waterworld may prove more prescient to how once sees this film in its ultimate goal. That film was absurd and weird as an expensive B-movie, but it at least felt important to watch play out in its trappings of water without overstaying its welcome. In fact, there were a few crew members that referred to the production as "Dirt World" behind Costner's back. While Brin had his praises and reservations, at least one can be content with Brin not feeling cheated out of something that tried to honor a work rather than junking its material and disrespecting the author. He found it "flawed and uneven but ambitious rendition of my story", one that had wonderful moments and imagery despite flaws that looked better than the critics stated about despite its departures from the book. Of course the obvious similarity between critique and one of Brin's reservations becomes apparent very clearly: It is quite too long for its own good (one wonders just how much trust Warner Bros. had in not insisting further in trimming). You know, when Costner made Dances with Wolves (1990), at least one could say there was some reason for it to tower at three hours in length (a version that extends it an hour longer is a question for another day). This is not the kind of movie that needs to go on and on in its attempts at offering aw shucks hope in the vein of Frank Capra in a play against the type of story reminiscent of Mad Max. Simply put, this is a ridiculous little "fable", one that believes it is past those supposed wish fantasies with its self-aggrandizing that reeks of goo in more ways than one. It makes one appreciate the essence of making a simple movie with nuance and interest better that simply saying how much of a miracle it is to get one's mail. So, what does indeed occur in the apocalypse with hope? Oh, just folks with cars for names, couples who ask the mythic hero to help make a baby, and main characters that engage in Shakespeare with each other. Oh yeah, and Tom Petty basically playing himself. Did I miss anything? Oh yeah, a reason to find this anything other than just "eh...?" - after all, there are some fair visuals and a sometimes sweeping music from James Newton Howard to go with passable acting. One can't exactly stick a great deal of venom into what is generally just a silly way to waste three hours. Costner was quite a busy man, starring in a variety of films that revolved from highlights like the aforementioned Wolves and The Bodyguard (1992) to controversial/dubious material like JFK (1991) and Wyatt Earp (1994) alongside Waterworld. Honestly, he should have cast someone else, because all I see is a Costner performance similar to the ones he did before without as much reach. He loiters from place to place like James Stewart, and it all comes out to sap enough to make an ego tree. Patton is okay, in the sense that one is watching community theater of Shakespeare and nut-job in one. Tate is here and there with blandness, because how does one move past dreams of elevating the art of mail delivery with wood. Williams supposedly has chemistry with Costner, in the sense that if you stick two people in a cabin together for a bit, you might see something there. That, or one just rolls their eyes. Oh, but it is pretty funny to see others get bits and pieces, such as von Bargen and his useful skeptic character acting or...Petty playing Petty, if only because it just makes me wish he also sang in the film to top the cheese on the cake (or better yet, find time to listen to an album of his in full). In all, I wish there was something more interesting presented here with this film, because there is clearly something that could be made interesting with hope through dystopia, but in the end it is just too much length and sappiness to really gel into something that means more than a flicker of light. If it (or the novel) resonates with you, all power to you - whatever works best in delivering some sort of entertainment or message within certain doom.

Next Time: Welp, it's Friday, and you want to see a film from the 21st century, I'm sure. Good, because you're getting Freddy Got Fingered.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Dances with Wolves.

Review #1497: Dances with Wolves.

Cast:
Kevin Costner (Lt. John J. Dunbar/Dances with Wolves), Mary McDonnell (Stands with a Fist), Graham Greene (Kicking Bird), Rodney A. Grant (Wind In His Hair), Floyd Red Crow Westerman (Chief Ten Bears), Tantoo Cardinal (Black Shawl), Jimmy Herman (Stone Calf), Nathan Lee Chasing His Horse (Smiles A Lot), Michael Spears (Otter), Jason R. Lone Hill (Worm), Charles Rocket (Lt. Elgin), Robert Pastorelli (Timmons), Tony Pierce (Spivey), and Larry Joshua (Bauer) Directed by Kevin Costner.

Review:
"Real heroes are men who fall and fail and are flawed, but win out in the end because they've stayed true to their ideals and beliefs and commitments."

There have been plenty of great Westerns, both epic and not-quite-as-epic in scope over the past few decades, with a significant amount dealing in some way with Native Americans. When the time is right, it can come from any source, whether that means from an actor trying his hand at directing or somewhere else. Costner has stated that a screening of How the West Was Won (1962) helped formed his childhood, but he became interested in acting before he graduated from college. Costner had met screenwriter Michael Blake while starring in the film Stacy's Knights (1983), which was directed by Jim Wilson. Costner encouraged Blake to turn a spec script of his into a novel, and Dances with Wolves was published in 1988 after a few rejections from publishers. Costner (an established star with films such as Silverado and The Untouchables) soon lobbied for the screen rights after its publication (with Blake writing the screenplay and Costner co-producing with Wilson), although he would have to do it apart from the major studios, which did not find the long script and significant subtitling (as well as being a Western) to their liking, with a key difference being in the portrayal of the Sioux rather than the Commanche tribe. The film is noted for its usage of the Lakota language in several scenes, one of a certain group of features to utilize Native dialogue.

Of course, some movies are born to be epics and then some just don't quite turn out the way one expects. Part of me was interested in how the Western would turn out in another decade removed from it being the norm in conventional filmmaking, while the other side hoped it would not drag at three hours while wondering if it really deserved to rank highly for its era (or even its particular year). In the end, it turned out to be a bit of both, a film firmly in the "good, not great" department that is nice at times to sit through but ultimately not quite enough in strong centering depth to really pull all of its punches successfully. Credit must given to Costner however for his drive to make a film in South Dakota with a fine selection of actors of indigenous origin with plenty to look upon in the landscape and subtitles that do in some way drive a useful story. After all, he does deliver a fairly sensitive performance that draws upon curiosity and care (along with an occasional voiceover), so him operating a camera alongside being in front of it works out fine. McDonnell proves okay in following along in both worlds in care and frenzy, and Greene carries along with solemn interest that carries his part of the film handily with stature. John Barry does well with his musical score in setting a sweeping tone of emotion. The sequences involving a buffalo hunt and the battles are handled well as the highlights for the film as a whole.

I can see its ambition in bonding when it comes to trying to break the mold of the traditional Western, but it seems to nearly choke itself in sentiment that somehow seems lacking a certain kind of quality needed to really drive home a poignant epic. It has a decent heart behind it, but it is really a great Western? I can think of at least five Westerns that reach higher levels of interest and depth before this (Stagecoach, The Searchers, Shane, Hud, Once Upon a Time in the West), and none of them garnered as much high awards praise like this did three decades ago. It has the production value and some of the right notes behind it, but it just seems a bit flatfooted in driving its conflict and message of identity to full realization, where it seems like a slightly more sophisticated version of Broken Arrow (1950). There exists a four hour Special Edition of the film, which Wilson supervised to expand upon the relationship between Costner and McDonnell in addition to more parts with the wolf and the tribe. I did have the choice to pick either the regular or Special Edition, but I didn't really feel interested in having to spend even longer amounts of time (equivalent to Gettysburg (1993), basically) that could make me feel like I really am watching grass grow in the Dakotas. On the whole, this is a fairly good movie with its cast and ambition, but it ultimately is a test of how much one desires of a three-hour Western with an imperfect core and execution to make a curious effort of the modern Western.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Mr. Brooks.

Review #1137: Mr. Brooks.

Cast: 
Kevin Costner (Earl Brooks), William Hurt (Marshall), Demi Moore (Detective Tracy Atwood), Dane Cook (Mr. Smith / Graves Baffert), Marg Helgenberger (Emma Brooks), Danielle Panabaker (Jane Brooks), Aisha Hinds (Nancy Hart), and Jason Lewis (Jesse Vialo) Directed by Bruce A. Evans.

Review: 
Mr. Brooks is certainly an interesting film to think about, if not for the fact it certainly stands out for its main character - a man addicted to murder, as if they were doing a modern variant on the Jekyll and Hyde tale, to the point where Costner's character goes to twelve-step meetings for addicts to try and curb his "killing addiction". Believe it or not, this was meant to be the first film in a trilogy, and while the film was a mild success at the box office, there were no further follow-ups made. While I can't say that this is a great film, I will say that it is an interesting thing to watch, if not for the twists that it tries to pull and some of its performances being pretty stand-out, even if the film has some deep flaws of its own that can't quite make a success.

Costner and Hurt are easily the highlights for the film, interacting with each other over the nature of what they are bound to do with the kind of energy and interest that you would probably expect from a buddy film. Costner manages to pull off a entertaining performance, balancing the family man aspect of his role handily while also balancing his struggle to deal with his urges as if he was in a werewolf film. It's hard to resist seeing Hurt and his fiendish grin in his role as the alter ego, being watchable each time he appears on screen with his conversations, having fun with the mayhem that he lives on to compel Mr. Brooks to do. One big flaw that comes out from the cast is that there isn't anyone else in the film that actually gets up to the level of Costner and Hurt in terms of performance or presence. Moore plays her detective role with the kind of wooden nature that could only come from humorless television movies, but the more amusing thing is the threads that the film tries to stake on her character. She doesn't just play a detective, she plays a rich detective who does what she does for her own reasons, which the film likes to explain in the end as some sort of sting. In any case, there isn't any scene where she gives enough energy to make this role seem remotely interesting, being one of the lulls that stops the film's momentum. Would you expect that Moore's character has three plot-lines? Yes, between her investigation into the serial murders in the main thread, there is also the thread of her divorce and the thread about another killer that has escaped from jail that she put away that is in the pursuit of her - named the Hangman. The other lull is in Cook, playing a character seemingly devoid of charm or interest, which I suppose makes sense when playing someone who is trying to parrot Costner's character. Perhaps this would've worked if Cook (a stand-up comedian playing a dramatic role for some reason) actually made this person someone I wanted to be around with Costner and Hurt. Perhaps someone with a bit more charm (or possibly less time on screen) would've made the film run without less stoppage to it. Yes, the character is a slimy one, but it at least could've been a useful slimy one to be around with. Strangely enough, there isn't as much time for Helgenberger and Panabaker, who have minimal time on screen to be around Costner for this on-screen family. Maybe there would've been more for them to do if there had been sequels (and I put that generously), but there had to be another way to have them more involved. I feel like the parts with Costner and Panabaker should've had more of a focus, since she basically only has three brief scenes, and she basically disappears after the first hour. Yes, her character does have a function to at least one plot thread, but it doesn't really resonate as much as it could have. Spoiler alert, her character also committed a murder, as if she inherited it from her dad. Sure, why not. There are just as many plot threads than actual deaths in this film. By the time it gets to its climax, the film essentially collapses from exhaustion. It can be a creepy film sometimes, when it involves the nature of what makes Mr. Brooks who he is, but it isn't as effective as it probably should've been.

With all of its attempts to pull so many twists and narratives, the film can't quite execute at a fair rate, where there become so many threads that it almost feels needless. After a while, it becomes exhausting to wonder why there are so many plot threads going about in a film that probably should've just stuck to a bit more simple for a psychological thriller that manages to last two hours. When it wants to be just Costner and Hurt, the film works just fine, but when it tries to verge on others in its small cast, it feels a bit distracted and not too particularly focused. This may have worked better a television series with all the threads it wants to throw around, but even with that it mind, it's just a frustrating movie to sit through. I like the idea of where it wants to go with Costner and Hurt, but the final product just isn't enough to fully give thrills and satisfaction without becoming ridiculous and overstuffed. It's the kind of movie that might serve as a guilty pleasure for ones in the right mindset, or ones with more patience in mind for where it ultimately lingers.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Silverado.

Review #1102: Silverado.

Cast: 
Kevin Kline (Paden), Scott Glenn (Emmett), Kevin Costner (Jake), Danny Glover (Mal Johnson), Brian Dennehy (Sheriff Cobb), Rosanna Arquette (Hannah), John Cleese (Sheriff John Langston), Jeff Goldblum (Calvin "Slick" Stanhope), Linda Hunt (Stella), Joe Seneca (Ezra Johnson), Ray Baker (Ethan McKendrick), Thomas Wilson Brown (Augie Hollis), Jeff Fahey (Tyree), and Lynn Whitfield (Rae Johnson) Directed by Lawrence Kasdan (#1059 - The Big Chill)

Review: 
It is not hard to admit that Silverado is a fine Western, completely successful as an adventure (written by Lawrence and Mark Kasdan) that showcases a finely-tuned cast and capable action that shines fairly enough with its plot structuring to make a fair winner. It isn't anything that proves to be great entertainment, but it serves as good quality fun, with a spirit that makes it worth watching. With its 133 minute run-time, it certainly likes to take its time to build its characters and situations complete with everything you'd expect in a film involving cowboys, shootouts, and a variety of other things, but it does so without lingering in cliches, being something well accomplished for the tradition that you would expect for entertainment. The main four of Kline-Glenn-Costner-Glover manage to click fairly well, having a sort of watch-ability to them that makes for good adventure, and they each have their own interesting moments, whether with each other or others. Kline comes out the best in the sense that he exudes a certain energy and care that makes him interesting to view when engaged with the plot, whether with humor or charm. Glenn does just fine with his role, playing this reserved role without hesitation or any sense of dullness, playing this pretty handily. Costner (in only his tenth film appearance) plays this goofy if not immensely entertaining character pretty capably, never verging on becoming too silly for the film's taste while also proving to be a capable hero in his own right. Glover does a fine job with making this an interesting role to follow with and care for, being as sure and confident as one might expect from him. Dennehy plays his part with a fair degree of balance between his stated role and what ultimately comes on screen without becoming unsubtle or too obvious, having a quality that makes for an interesting performance. Arquette is okay, but she doesn't have too much to do within the story, particularly within the second half, where the adventure outweighs any sort of semblance of romance (whether that hurts the film at all is up to you). Cleese, Goldblum and Hunt fit their roles just fine with the narrative, each sticking well within the spirit of the film's intent in their own ways that have useful moments without seeming like sore thumbs sticking out. The action sequences are well done and capably executed, and the music by Bruce Broughton makes it all the more entertaining to sit through. The climax is fairly riveting, making up for a film that occasionally likes to build itself up with twisting its story to try and be mildly complex (for better or worse), complete with each of the main four getting their chance to shine. It won't stick out as adding anything particularly new to the genre in terms of its story quality, but what turns out on screen is something that is at the very least a finely tuned machine worth checking out once.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Waterworld.

Review #1081: Waterworld.

Cast: 
Kevin Costner (The Mariner), Dennis Hopper (The Deacon), Jeanne Tripplehorn (Helen), Tina Majorino (Enola), Michael Jeter (Old Gregor), Jack Black (Smoker Plane Pilot), Kim Coates (Drifter #2), Robert Joy (Smoker Ledger Guy), Robert LaSardo (Smitty), and Gerard Murphy (The Nord) Directed by Kevin Reynolds.

Review: 
Waterworld is a film that lurked on my shelf for years. My father watched this film a bunch of times when I was growing up, but I never had the idea to actually see the film until now in part because I figured it was futile not to. The film certainly seems like something made in an era with experimenting with making a sci-fi apocalyptic film with a big budget and big ambition. At the time it was made, it was the most expensive film ever made (done for $172 million), but it was plagued by production troubles (such as a hurricane destroying the set at one point and bringing in Josh Whedon as a script doctor at point), which certainly played into its reputation. It wasn't a huge success, but it isn't an entire failure, both financially along with as a film. On the one hand, it is nice to watch something based on an original idea with an effort to try and make for a spectacle for entertainment purposes, even if it does resemble Mad Max. On the other hand, I can't say that the movie is consistent enough to qualify as serviceable entertainment. The problem isn't so much with the acting as it is the writing, which at times feels uneven with its characters that gets in the way of really enjoying the action and its set-pieces, which hold up well for 1995. I feel that the film never gets itself into high gear often enough to really make its audience anything other than mildly involving. I can't even get myself to hate it, instead I just have a mild disappointment. Costner can't really elevate this main character into anything that seems compelling, being fairly bland in his gruffness - although his combative scenes with others in the first half could be construed as something to make fun of if you're in the right mood. That, or him peeing into a recycling canister to use for filtering to drink it later - which starts the film off, actually. Hopper certainly looks the part of a crazed villain, and he actually manages to be more entertaining than Costner, but it still is a fairly silly performance to watch at times - but who can blame him? This is a movie that can't find the right sense of captivating characters to go with its moments of adventure. The other members of the cast aren't terrible, but they also aren't too particularly inspiring, with Tripplehorn and Majorino contributing to a few moments that prove amusing instead of moving. In terms of comparison to other action flicks, this is likely the diet soda of action films - it's there along with other films of its ilk but it likely won't be something you go back to often.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Field of Dreams.

Review #488: Field of Dreams.

Cast
Kevin Costner (Ray Kinsella), Amy Madigan (Annie Kinsella), James Earl Jones (Terence Mann), Ray Liotta (Shoeless Joe Jackson), Burt Lancaster (Archibald "Moonlight" Graham), Timothy Busfield (Mark), Frank Whaley (Archie Graham), and Gaby Hoffmann (Karin Kinsella) Directed by Phil Alden Robinson.

Review
Being a baseball nut (as I am) will probably make this film even more of a treat for them, but even if you're not a baseball nut, this is still a pretty enjoyable film. This is my first time watching a film that stars Kevin Costner (Though my dad seemed to love watching his films on DVD when I was growing up), and he does an alright job, perfectly awkward in a film like this, and he pairs off really well with James Earl Jones, the two just mesh well with each other. But of course, the two actors who quite nearly steal the show are Ray Liotta and Burt Lancaster, and it's because their presences in the scenes each have just leave a lasting impression on me, and it really is a warming film that forgoes sentimentality it transcends into its own one of a kind of films. Costner joined this film because he felt this would be "this generation's It's a Wonderful Life", and I don't blame him because while it may not be one of the greats, it can certainly be watched any time, any day, and work just the same.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.