American Beauty.

Review #2328: American Beauty.

Cast: 

Kevin Spacey (Lester Burnham), Annette Bening (Carolyn Burnham), Thora Birch (Jane Burnham), Wes Bentley (Ricky Fitts), Mena Suvari (Angela Hayes), Peter Gallagher (Buddy Kane), Allison Janney (Barbara Fitts), Chris Cooper (Col. Frank Fitts), Scott Bakula (Jim Olmeyer), and Sam Robards (Jim Berkley) Directed by Sam Mendes (#572 - Skyfall, #1585 - 1917, #1891 - Spectre)

Review: 

"If you are doing a play or a film, you have to have a secret way in if you are directing it. Sometimes it’s big things. American Beauty, for me, was about my adolescence."

It isn't every day you get a movie with a lead presence who throws away his responsibilities to go on a quest to maybe get with a much, much younger woman. To start, the movie was written by Alan Ball, the playwright-turned TV writer on the sitcoms Grace Under Fire and Cybill. The Atlanta native, frustrated by his work on those shows, tried to get into film. One of the scripts he would write was cribbed from a play idea he had come up and discarded, with the passion and "anger and rage at my working situation" resulting in a script that Dreamworks Pictures liked. There were numerous inspirations: one was the media circus surrounding the Amy Fisher trial (in which a 17-year old severely wounded the wife of a man she had a sexual relationship when still underage that saw her nicknamed the "Long Island Lolita"), and the other was an actual experience involving a plastic bag that he followed intently for 10 minutes (of course, his Buddhist faith played an influence too, where he was once quoted talking about a notion of "the miraculous within the mundane"). As strange as it sounds, it really was a script that wound up directed by a first-time filmmaker in Sam Mendes, who at the time had just done a revival of the musical Cabaret (interestingly, Mendes had Spacey and Bening in mind from the beginning). Present for rewrites during production (such as excising particular aspects of the ending), Mendes and Ball would each win an Academy Award that yer (television viewers might recognize that afterwards, Ball wound up creating Six Feet Under and True Blood).  

Hell, I suppose you could say that there is a beauty that is ironed out of people by culture, experience, or, well, conformity. Satire, psychological drama, whatever one calls the movie, it certainly is one that has managed to endure in the strange sphere of movies that some people really, really liked 25 years ago and others that, well, thought it was aging terribly by the years that went by (it most certainly is not the worst Best Picture winner when stuff like Cavalcade and Chariots of Fire exists). "Is that all there is?" isn't exactly the freshest premise, admittedly, because you could gleam that in another 1999 movie with Fight Club (which in perhaps a mirror of this film went from polarized reviews to a cult following in its 25 years of life) or even with Office Space. The times shifted fast on this film to a bizarro world where cynicism runs deep and the profound now reeks of pretentiousness. The facades that folks found funny to point at now just seem hollow in their barbs. Esteemed people of their age (insert any Administration of the past few decades) now resemble ghoulish relics. The taboos of older years are now stuff you may wish to bleach from your eyes on Twitter (or, for those with certain tastes, bookmark like a chipmunk), while others on social media seem to believe that their county and political values should be like of the old movies they watched as a youth. I think you get the idea, but I will say this much: the movie is kind of funny to me in that strange way that comes in facades and soap-opera weirdness. It narrates itself as if was Sunset Boulevard (1950), complete with strange self-importance and a worthwhile look (as shot by the famed Conrad L. Hall) of suburban facades.

I interpreted Spacey's performance as one that believe he is in on the joke of someone looking for meaning by basically reverting to a man-child. He trades one sense of totems for other totems in an amusing manner that is actually quite pathetic when you really get down to it. It isn't a role with any sense of dignity to it, but trying to re-invent oneself in the throes of balding hair and flabby nature is strangely enduring ot the now. I may not care for the man or his character, but I don't have to be to get a few chuckles at the pursuit of what one believes to be beauty. Honestly, Bening is the more interesting presence because somehow, her type-A personality facade is really, really amusing to me. It probably is represented best when one sees at her job in which she repeats the sentence "I will sell this house today" on a compulsive level that only makes the punchline (for all the facades one can put up, it all goes to shit in the face of looking closer) all the more amusing. Really, there may be a bit of the Burnhams in the people we may see every day, as that song by the Doors goes (people are strange...). Strangely, Bentley and Birch don't really have as much as impact as I thought they might have done for a movie that starts itself with the two of them for a moment that comes right back to the climax. It's just a couple of adrift youth that try to stake the waters between the ordinary and what is "interesting", and yeah, one gets it I suppose; Suvari may be played as an object, but her facade is at least obvious enough to be played to an actual conclusion. Besides, the brazen vulnerabilities that lie beneath the facade played by Cooper and Janney are far more compelling in those unspoken moments each has on screen (the latter basically seems to be as distant as a wide painting). In general, it is a movie that is shallow and yet somehow fascinating to see for the time it was made in, one in which it tries to make some sort of statement about the beauty of things that lie beneath the surface that have been left adrift in a time where people's pursuit for things and facades have only made one see the film as ridiculous rather than profound. Well-made and weirdly amusing, it is a movie that could only come from the turn of one millennium into another.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Se7en.

Review #1510: Seven.

Cast:
Brad Pitt (Detective David Mills), Morgan Freeman (Detective Lieutenant William Somerset), Gwyneth Paltrow (Tracy Mills), Kevin Spacey (John Doe), R. Lee Ermey (Police Captain), Richard Roundtree (District Attorney Martin Talbot), and Richard Schiff (Mark Swarr) Directed by David Fincher (#586 - Alien 3, #705 - The Social Network, and #1284 - Fight Club)

Review: 
"As a director, film is about how you dole out the information so that the audience stays with you when they're supposed to stay with you, behind you when they're supposed to stay behind you, and ahead of you when they're supposed to stay ahead of you."

From a young age, David Fincher knew he wanted to make films. He expressed an interest in photography and drawing as a child, and it was his viewing of a behind-the-scenes show about Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969) that proved the biggest inspiration to directing, noting that it was when he realized films didn't happen in real time, seeing it as a "cool job". He started making 16mm films in the third grade, with film classes during those times proved helpful to his pursuits (such as for example doing an assignment about making a film to a particular song). Fincher would do a variety of jobs and projects growing up in Oregon, such as directing and designing sets for his high school plays along with work with a news station and as a busboy. After turning 20, he moved into doing work in the film industry with people such as John Korty and Industrial Light and Magic (ILM) which started with work such as Twice Upon a Time (1983) with special photographic effects. He moved from doing assistant work to directing for television commercials and soon music videos (both involving prominent companies and groups like Levi's and Rick Springfield, respectively). He was given his first chance to direct a feature with Alien 3 (1990). To put it mildly, he hated the experience, one undone by script troubles and re-editing.

Fincher went back to making music videos, but he managed to come across an intriguing script done by Andrew Kevin Walker (who had based his experiences living in New York City for five years as his inspiration), which was looked into by New Line Cinema after a few revisions. Fincher asked to read the script, but it was accidentally the one with the original ending that was sent to him by the studio to garner his interest; Fincher liked what he saw, and consulting with studio head Mike De Luca led to the understanding that while studio pressure wanted to go forward with the more conventional manner of ending, provided that Fincher was ready to go in six weeks. This did not stop pressure from other hands at the studio from trying to guide the ending to something different, but several people, including Fincher, Pitt, Freeman, and Spacey, protested against changing the film, which succeeded as Fincher's first key hit in a career that has persisted for over three decades. The movies that linger in our memories are the ones where you can really distill it down to one key moment or quote in crystal clearness, one that you can say "The film with that ending." Sure, you could use The Usual Suspects for 1995's example of an iconic trickster for its ending, but Seven is the superior effort. It manages to achieve such a well-done construction of a compelling crime narrative that has a solid and recognizable cast to go alongside an unnerving tone and pace that makes its ending all the more wrenching in effectiveness, earning its twists and turns with no sort of cheating or contrivances, made particularly clear with the third act in its method of madness with Pitt, Freeman, and Spacey. Drenched in darkness, who can resist its realism? Precise and uncompromising scares of what makes a hunt for a murderer all the more successful. It is no wonder that Fincher was attracted to this, seeing it as a "meditation on evil and how evil gets on you and you can't get it off", rather than just a police procedural. With the way it goes with its gruesome moments (whether shown on camera or not), you almost could put it under horror as well.

When it comes to finely-tuned pairings of procedure, Pitt and Freeman make a good team. They bounce off each other in contrast with their sensibility towards virtue and reality that work out quite well. Pitt has an interesting natural ability to sink into this role with both feet facing forward and a capability of determination in a fledged interest with flaws for us to see through what seems to just be energy. Freeman accomplishes a weary and effective turn of the other side of the procedural screw, one with a steady pace towards his past and future when it comes to the grind of age and the regrets that can come from it. Paltrow lends some brightness to the atmosphere with grace as the only one that isn't directly related to the case yet see in her struggle to maintain oneself in the grind of a brooding life within a city looking dark enough to engulf all. Spacey is concise and effective with the moments he is given (which is best not to highlight in keeping the curiosity to oneself or in just waiting to see when he comes in), making a useful adversary that never adheres to all of the clichés you could see in a lesser killer film. Ermey and Roundtree have small moments, but they are each worthwhile actors with what is required when interacting with our leads regardless. With a slick way of maneuvering through its methods in 127 minutes with most of its moments hitting in keeping the pulse firmly in keeping the audience on their toes without needing to bash them over the head for the sins of lesser procedurals before it. This is a fairly effective film for its era that dares to take its audience through murky touchings with a capable cast and execution that will stay in the boxes of your mind for quite some time after it is finished.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Usual Suspects.

Review #1508: The Usual Suspects.

Cast: 
Stephen Baldwin (Michael McManus), Gabriel Byrne (Dean Keaton), Benicio del Toro (Fred Fenster), Kevin Pollak (Todd Hockney), Kevin Spacey (Roger "Verbal" Kint), Chazz Palminteri (Dave Kujan), Pete Postlethwaite (Kobayashi), Suzy Amis (Edie Finneran), Giancarlo Esposito (Jack Baer), and Dan Hedaya (Sergeant Jeff Rabin) Produced and Directed by Bryan Singer (#008 - X-Men, #010 - X2, #584 - X-Men: Days of Future Past, and #1077 - Superman Returns)

Review: 
"I believe that as a writer and a director, you're only providing the skeleton of a character, and you're hiring actors to fill it out."

It's easy to make a film people remember when you have assembled a script worth thinking about. Christopher McQuarrie spent his first few years out of high school (spent with classmate Singer) doing some traveling and work in a boarding school and a detective agency. His first foray into film came with Public Access (which he co-wrote with Singer) in 1993, which he co-wrote with Singer and Michael Feit Dougan. The film did win some attention from critics (such as with the Sundance Film Festival), but it ultimately did not find much of an audience to play to. The thing that sparked interest in writing the film came about from seeing a title of a Spy magazine column that was "The Usual Suspects" (which also happens to be a classic line from Casablanca), and a casual conversation about doing a film with that title led later on to Singer asking if he could write a film for him with that in mind (since there was interest by investors interested in their last work for a $3 million project). McQuarrie, working at a law firm at the time, found inspiration in a small white room that looked like one used for interrogation, with this springing to mind a character who talks too much; names for some of the characters would come from stuff revolving around McQuarrie in his workplace, such as the interrogator (named for a office manager at the firm) and even Keyser Söze (although the last name was changed from real life).

The most interesting parts of the film involve those little moments of interaction between the core cast that we follow along with in its story, more so in the first half than the second. It is Byrne who we gravitate to in terms of interest, one who just grabs at you with a flickering intensity that certain inspires a certain kind of imagination as to what he really is, since he is the figure we see in the midst of events that had started the film anyway. Baldwin follows along with useful pacing that is quick on the trigger in high-temperedness. Del Toro does fine with a share of eccentricity that lends curiosity for what really seems to be a plain character on paper. Pollak proves worthy of a few cheeky smiles in short fused-temperament, while Palminteri proves a worthy one to contrast against the core group of seediness with coarse charm. Spacey is the key to plenty in the film, since he is the one we are listening to and viewing within the background of the perspective, and he does a fairly decent job in unassuming nature, useful to the film is what it shows without seeming like an extra presence, verbalizing himself with effective weaving.

You know those movies that people say they would like for you to see in how it plays out? There are some films that people can really, really get into, ones that can lend plenty of discussion for how something "just works", something far more than what one could assume from a noir mystery and so on and so on. Honestly, the one sticking point for me when it comes to this film is that I wish it was better than I expected. What was there to expect? The climax at the end isn't exactly spoiler-free from pop culture, but it generally does help to not read too much into an ending for a film before you watch it anyway (look, either Keyser Söze will be revealed to us in the end as either someone already established or he won't be at all, it isn't exactly more than a binary choice). The film relies on this twist because of its perspective that it wants to tell within its confines of a story that perhaps works for numerous viewings, one might say (it has been described as Double Indemnity meets Rashomon). Well, that doesn't really work if you don't find its shaggy dog kind of storytelling that particularly highly to begin with, a big trick to play on the audiences. The cast ultimately plays into part of how this film falls into what I like to call the "five stages of movie classic disappointment" (in which one does when they are faced with a movie people like but you don't, which obviously differs from the inverse of normal movie disappointment, namely in paragraphs). In this never-tested method, they would represent denial, in that I am believing that because they do pretty well, I cling to the idea that this really will be a great film. Anger (or in this case, frustration, because who really gets mad at being tricked by a film?) presumably kicks in right around when the story starts to teeter a bit too long in making me keep caring to the inevitable stop. Bargaining comes around in the whiny voice of consciousness that argues that wants me to compromise (in other words, not just immediately say this film isn't quite right without a little bit of digging) and think of it as "good, but not quite perfect" because maybe the climax really will prove itself. This leads to that fourth stage of depression (disappointment), where I just sit through the motions of how it really chooses to go the way it goes and sighing all the way, with that fifth stage standing right there practically mocking me when I finish that last train of thought.

This isn't to say I hated the film, because I actually did find it okay in making a fair piece of curiosity with a few highlights within conventional folks made fair through the actors (such as the scene where they all have to say a line in a police lineup), but in my view its magic trick leaves me feeling indifferent rather than astonishment. Pull that tablecloth from under the table all you want, but that doesn't make it a cool trick if I can see the way you "did it" coming.  Conventional can seem old hat and tired, but you know what was better in its portrayal of details and chase in the same year that this came out? Coincidence or not, that film is Seven (1995), which also happened to feature Spacey in a key role. Why stop there? Why not just chuck along a better film in dealing with stringed-together storytelling in Reservoir Dogs (1992)? Look, sometimes a film just doesn't have the reaching power it thinks it does, and that just falls to the perspective of the person who just saw it, and I just thought it was okay. I can understand the accolades and praise it received from certain audiences (which included an Academy Award for its screenplay, beating films of that year such as Braveheart and Toy Story) while also reaching the final stage of movie-classic-disappointment-grief: Acceptance that it just isn't completely what I think of when I think of a classic, and I move on to the next one.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Superman Returns.

Review #1077: Superman Returns.

Cast: 
Brandon Routh (Clark Kent / Superman), Kate Bosworth (Lois Lane), Kevin Spacey (Lex Luthor), James Marsden (Richard White), Parker Posey (Kitty Kowalski), Frank Langella (Perry White), Sam Huntington (Jimmy Olsen), Eva Marie Saint (Martha Kent), Marlon Brando (Jor-El), Kal Penn (Stanford), and Tristan Lake Leabu (Jason White) Directed by Bryan Singer (#008 - X-Men, #010 - X2, and #584 - X-Men: Days of Future Past)

Review: 
In honor of the 80th anniversary of Superman's debut in Action Comics #1, I figured that this would be the best time to finally cover this movie. I hope you enjoy this review, which I didn't try to stretch too long.

In 1978, Superman (#547) graced the big screen with an epic scale that had a collection of fine actors and a look that still manages to shine through after four decades, with this serving as a pioneer for comic book films. The sequel (#785) continued the good fortune of scope and a bit of amusement, having enough charm and magic to work, even if it was not as good as the first one. The two films that followed (#786 & #787) were terrible in their own right, having ridiculous plots along with bad execution and substance, and it would be nineteen years until Superman returned to the big screen. The film was a mild success at the box office, but it would be seven years before a new Superman film was released, which resorted to being an origin story. This film ignores the latter two films in an attempt to channel the energy of the first two films and make for great entertainment. Does it succeed?

I will first state that on the surface it is certainly an interesting idea to try and emulate the first two Reeve films, as some sort of attempt to pass the torch from the first two films onto this. After all, footage of Marlon Brando from the first film (with some help from some CGI) is utilized in the film, with John Ottman's music being a homage to the music from John Williams from the first one. For all the attempts of the film to follow the same beats, the best thing that can be said for Superman Returns is that it plays itself safe enough to at least feel like it wants to be a winner. The problem is that it doesn't really do much to prove that it is a winner beyond all doubt. It has a fine look to it at points with the cinematography by Newton Thomas Sigel, and the effects are at least satisfactory for the expectations one would expect for the film, but other times it might seem more like it is going through the motions.

Perhaps it is the length of 154 minutes that undercuts the film and makes it feel a bit of chore, but I never hated the experience for being so long. The film rests upon Routh and his shoulders, and at times he does seem like he can live up to the task with some of the sequences. However, he never really clicks into full gear to where we really want to connect with him, particularly when paired with Bosworth. You might say that the gap that the film establishes between the last time the two characters had met (roughly five years) means that the awkward exchanges between the two makes sense, but the real problem is that they don't seem particularly interesting to watch in said exchanges. You could say that they seem a bit too young for the roles (after all, both actors were under 30 when cast), but it really seems more a problem of execution that does them in. After all, it's not like Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder were old when they portrayed their roles, but they had a certain charm and care to them that sold itself in each scene they were in, as opposed to this film. The fact that the film wants to channel the first two films makes the comparisons between those and this film hurt the latter upon examination.

Spacey proves to be fairly sour in his role, and he seems to relish in his lunatic role that actually manages to pull the film toward some sort of gain for most of his scenes, especially when paired with Posey, a fairly good charmer. I think the film probably could've done a bit better with some more scenes between Spacey and Routh, since it takes them nearly two hours to meet. However, that would likely mean having to try and make the film shorter with cuts, since I don't think making it longer would help it at all. Marsden doesn't really make too much of an impression for me, not so much a dull performance as it is just a slightly thankless role. Langella is fine for his time on screen. The film tries to go through so many motions with its plot that it just feels like it is trying to not bloviate itself into oblivion. From its parts with the scheme (which is amusing to ponder about) to its part with Lois and her son to a fairly okay climax, the movie likely has too much going on to really make a good focus. I never hated the experience with the film, but I also never found myself believing in what the film was trying to sell me. I feel that the film probably should've tried to be a reboot (much like Batman Begins (#062), released the year before) instead of trying to play itself a bit too safe with its homage of what had worked better decades prior. Can I recommend the film? I can in the sense that it will likely work just fine for people who are willing to buy into its homage attempt and willing to let the entertainment roll through without skepticism.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Moon.

Review #1010: Moon.

Cast: 
Sam Rockwell (Sam Bell), Kevin Spacey (GERTY), Dominique McElligott (Tess Bell), Kaya Scodelario (Eve Bell), Benedict Wong (Thompson), Matt Berry (Overmeyers), and Malcolm Stewart (The Technician) Directed by Duncan Jones.

Review: 
In terms of science fiction, the genre is certainly interesting for how diverse and how thought provoking it can be with its use of imaginative and futuristic concepts. It's clear that Moon wants to be like some of the classic sci-fi films, such as Silent Running (#091) or 2001: A Space Odyssey (#093), with its own touch of humanity and intelligence. Made on a budget of $5 million, this is an efficient movie that showcases its ideas and never looks off for the most part. Rockwell is the only actor physically on-screen, and he certainly takes good advantage of that, having a fairly outstanding time with this role. If you don't find him to be all that effective to root for or care about, you likely won't have much of a good time with the film, and I will admit that it took me a while to get into the film fully, but it earns its moments with Rockwell fairly well. Spacey does a fine job with this sentient computer role, being slightly creepy but also effective.

I can't really delve into the plot details too much, because doing so would spoil the mystery and fun of seeing it for oneself, but I will say that it is interesting to watch unfold on screen, having a fine pace that certainly rolls itself coherently for my taste. I will admit that the scenes with the hallucinations are a bit odd, mainly because I feel that they don't really go that well with the rest of the plot, feeling a bit out-of-place with what the film wants to be. At 97 minutes, it is fairly paced, with some suspense that does take its time but ultimately feels worthy. The miniature model work is pretty good, having a look and feel that works while having a nice-looking quality to it that fits well with the movie. On the whole, this is a very well made movie, utilizing its human elements and fine movie-making by Jones in his directorial debut that works more often than not in being good science fiction that simply lets you wonder.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Baby Driver.

Review #971: Baby Driver.

Cast: 
Ansel Elgort (Baby), Kevin Spacey (Doc), Lily James (Debora), Jon Hamm (Buddy), Eiza González (Darling), Jamie Foxx (Bats), Jon Bernthal (Griff), Flea (Eddie "No-Nose"), Lanny Joon (JD), and CJ Jones (Joseph) Directed by Edgar Wright.

Review: 
Admittedly, I took some time before getting to see this film (roughly three weeks after its release), but I figured that it would be worth the wait. This is a fairly cohesive action flick that is fast and efficient in its style and pacing, with the characters and music corresponding to that. It has a level of mayhem and excitement that is undeniably interesting to watch, taking elements from other heist flicks and making them feel fresh and reliable to see carried out on screen. It has its shares of thrills, but it also is a movie that doesn't sacrifice the plot to get to the highs that it rises to, with fine editing from Paul Machliss and Jonathan Amos and cinematography from Bill Pope as well. It's a movie that can have some nice blend of music (like "Brighton Rock" by Queen, for example) but also have some nice scenes with Elgort and Jones in sign language. Elgort certainly fits in line with the movie, having a cool but careful demeanor that certainly makes him easy to watch, and his chemistry with James reflects that, with their scenes together working fairly well. The other core four (Spacey, Hamm, González and Foxx) are also pretty good together, with Spacey and Hamm having their own kind of arcs that have payoffs that the movie earns. Foxx does a fine job with this unhinged but always watchable character, and Gonzalez does a fine job with her role as well. The climax of the film is like a roller coaster, having a few twists and turns (much like other good flicks of its genre) that manage to keep one on their toes at what happens next. There is a good amount of flash to the film, but it has a substance of reality and reliability that makes it shine as an acceptable and unique action flick with enough wit and class to spare.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: A Bug's Life.

Review #539: A Bug's Life.

Cast
Dave Foley (Flik), Kevin Spacey (Hopper), Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Princess Atta), Hayden Panettiere (Princess Dot), Phyllis Diller (the Queen), Richard Kind (Molt), David Hyde Pierce (Slim), Joe Ranft (Heimlich), Denis Leary (Francis), Jonathan Harris (Manny), Madeline Kahn (Gypsy), Bonnie Hunt (Rosie), Mike McShane (Tuck and Roll), John Ratzenberger (P. T. Flea), and Brad Garrett (Dim) Directed by John Lasseter (#440 - Toy Story and #441 - Toy Story 2) and Andrew Stanton (#155 - Finding Nemo and #222 - WALL-E)

Review
Comparisons to Antz (#254) aside, A Bug's Life is a fairly decent film to watch with everyone. Is is better than Antz? That depends on what exactly you want. Antz seems to spring to darker themes, but is still a decent flick that works for the most part. A Bug's Life seems to be more bright, but it also has a charm to it, it may not be the best Pixar film, but like other Pixar films, it leaves an impression on you, it's a film that is certainly entertaining. The cast is good, Foley works well, eccentric, but he does a good job. The rest of the cast is good, Spacey is a fine villain, and the cast interacts well with each other. The animation is good (The fact this was made only 16 years ago makes me feel slightly older), and the movie is certainly entertaining enough. So yeah, don't pick Antz or A Bug's Life, pick both movies, and take this film for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.