Civil War.

Review #2199: Civil War.

Cast: 

Kirsten Dunst (Lee Smith), Wagner Moura (Joel), Cailee Spaeny (Jessie), Stephen McKinley Henderson (Sammy), Nick Offerman (The President), Nelson Lee (Tony), Evan Lai (Bohai), Sonoya Mizuno (Anya), and Jefferson White (Dave) Directed by Alex Garland (#884 - Ex Machina and #1581 - Annihilation)

Review: 

"There is something in the film which is trying to be protective of [journalists]. I think serious journalism needs protecting, because it’s under attack, so I wanted to make those people ‘heroes’ to put them front and center.”

Sure, you could have a few pre-conceptions about what the film is or what the film is not, blah blah blah. I went into the film with the bare minimum of attention given to it, which either meant that it would be fine or pretty bad. Admittedly, the first image that came to mind when watching the film was different from what I thought I would be wondering. Specifically, "Saigon Execution". It is perhaps one of the most famous images to come out of the Vietnam War, one that went far beyond just being awarded the 1969 Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography. On February 1, 1968, Eddie Adams was a member of the Associated Press that was in Saigon (as known at the time, as opposed to Ho Chi Minh City) alongside an NBC News TV cameraman in Võ Sửu that saw a capture of captain Lem (a member of the Viet Cong) by a general named Nguyễn Ngọc Loan. Both Adams and Võ Sửu captured a moment crystallized in time: Loan shooting Lem in the head. But the thing about Adams is that he was a man of numerous things as an observer: if he was to be remembered for anything, he wanted to be remembered for what he did beyond a photo caught in reflex, because above all, he had his principles to stand by. He was once quoted as saying that "Death is the greatest kick of all. That's why the save it for last." However it worked out, the photo has endured far more than the video (perhaps most notably, it was featured in 1968's Head)., to where even Adams has endured in memory more than Suu. I figured that this was a more interesting way to start talking about the film than simply saying that right before its release, its director stated his intention to lay off directing in the near future, among other things when it came to promoting the film and its intent.

It's interesting, Garland wanted to make a movie about journalists on the frontlines (and there are a few good journalists among a cadre of others that blur the lines), but really, he might have made one long dark joke instead, which basically has the one idea that above all, the observer is not really just an observer just because they wear a vest saying "PRESS" on it. One is observing the observer observing events in their own viewpoint and decisions made to get this coverage (because they aren't just shooting it on their own), basically. Admittedly, once you have a title like "Civil War", you pretty much have put a bullseye on your head, because what else could you have called it? (besides, I went into it barely noticing that there was meant to be a map of which places were fractured from each other because, what difference does it make?) This is a film that has one of the first lines involve a president say "Some are already calling this the greatest victory in the history of mankind" to go alongside footage of unrest, because if one thought the age they live in was bleak (what with the various things one could protest for, such as a less intrusive Israel or other worldly concerns), try this on for size. It doesn't go into too many specifics of exactly how one is in a civil war with various separated territories, but I think using a bit of imagination works out here, particularly since this is basically a road movie with journalists that either have their souls hollowed out or on the verge of it happening, which makes for a fairly unsettling film for those into what it shows (and doesn't show). Trying to frame it as some sort of centrist filmmaking is pretty shortsighted when you get down to it. Besides, the performances work out best when it comes to showing the trials and tribulations of wanting to go out to gunfire with a ready camera on hand. Dunst excels here with no false notes detected when it comes to a tired old soul that could actually play for anyone familiar with the beats of a job that nevertheless seems to have lost a bit of themselves in that grind of production. They know what lines they can cross and shouldn't cross, and it gnaws at them for one can't unsee even when one closes their eyes, so Dunst being paired with Spaeny in a mirror of experience on the frontlines makes for a pretty compelling dynamic to watch play out to the most reasoned conclusion, for which each handle deftly. Moura probably ranks as the most thrill-seeking among the core four, which actually works out pretty well in showing levity along with the craven nature that comes in being gripped in the chase, at least when compared to a more seasoned pro on the last steps on a road in Henderson. Offerman is around for both the start and finish of the film as the object of fascination that has more said around him that, well, use your imagination on how it goes to see a face meant to be playing a dictator.  Probably the most gripping scene is the one with an uncredited Jesse Plemons that exudes the certain terror that I'm sure comes with encountering the back woods on the road. He handles it masterfully for a certain amount of time that keeps the film firmly on its toes. It is certainly a loud film at times that is expected with a dystopian war film that doesn't let a stone go unturned, even in a supposedly quiet moment where a trip to a friendly-looking place leads to a darkly amusing realization. The ending helps seal the film's fate in terms of realizing just where one will find themselves when it comes to the demands of an occupation and what it might do to their soul in the process as a certain image plays out in the credits that really might not be as emphatic in its ending as one assumes at first. In the end, it is a solid 109-minute effort in tension as carried by its main quartet to make for an interesting recommendation for those who know what they are getting into in terms of imagination and the grind that arises from it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Marie Antoinette (2006).

Review #1823: Marie Antoinette.

Cast: 

Kirsten Dunst (Marie Antoinette), Jason Schwartzman (Louis XVI of France), Judy Davis (Anne de Noailles, "Countess of Noailles"), Steve Coogan (Florimond Claude, Count of Mercy-Argenteau), Rip Torn (Louis XV of France), Rose Byrne (Yolande de Polastron, Duchess of Polignac), Asia Argento (Madame du Barry), Molly Shannon (Madame Victoire), Shirley Henderson (Madame Sophie), Danny Huston (Joseph II of Austria), Marianne Faithfull (Empress Maria Theresa), Mary Nighy (Princesse de Lamballe), Jamie Dornan (Axel von Fersen), Al Weaver (Charles, Count of Artois), Sarah Adler (Maria Theresa, Countess of Artois), Sebastian Armesto (Louis Stanislas, Count of Provence), and Clémentine Poidatz (Marie Joséphine, Countess of Provence) Directed by Sofia Coppola (#700 - Lost in Translation)

Review: 

“I’m so happy it has an audience now because at the time it was not successful. People didn’t go see it; they didn’t really know what to make of it...It means a lot to me that it continues to live on.”

Oh sure, the Coppola name may be a connected one in cinema, but it doesn't hurt to see the promise of another Coppola making their mark on film. Born in New York City, Sofia Coppola actually became involved in film from a young age, dabbling with a number of appearances in the background of several films done by her father Francis (her first film credit as writer would be as co-writer with her father on "Life Without Zoë", a segment for the anthology New York Stories in 1989), although she also had plenty of her own interests (such as design, photography, and music) while growing up in California; her most notable film role was in The Godfather Part III (directed by F. Coppola) in 1990. She had a handful of interests, but filmmaking would prove to unite all of her interests in a way she wanted, and her first film was Lick the Star, a short done in 1998. Her first chance to direct and write in features came with The Virgin Suicides in 1999 (with F. Coppola's encouragement as co-producer); the film received notice on release in the festival circuit, and her next film would go further. Lost in Translation (2003) won Coppola an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay (to go alongside a nomination for Best Director and Best Picture). The film utilizes the 2001 novel Marie Antoinette: The Journey by Antonia Fraser as the historical material used for the story of Antoinette, and Coppola wanted to make a portrait of the historical figure that did not aim for a traditional biopic and instead aim for a more intimate look of the world of that time; in other words, both the novel and film would end up telling the story of Antoinette without anticipating her ending or reference the sentence she is unfairly associated with ("let them eat cake", a phrase she never said at any point in time). In addition to writing the screenplay, Coppola also served as a co-producer. This was the third film that Coppola has directed over her two-decade career. The film made $61 million on a budget of $40 million while cultivating a divided response from audiences. Fraser noted the differences between her book and the film while saying that she adored the film, for what it's worth.

If you did not know, Marie Antoinette was the Queen of France from 1774 to 1792, having been sent from her native Austria to France at the age of fourteen to secure an alliance between the two countries, which resulted in marriage to Louis XVI (they would not consummate the marriage for eight years); she died at the age of 37 under the French Revolution by guillotine (as was the case with her husband Louis XVI). The storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789, the state prison by the kings of France, is commemorated as the country's national day (France would have a long history of changeover in the next century, which included three Republics and two Empires as Louis XVI was not the last French monarch). Look, do you want a cast's cast for this film or not? Any movie that dares to have Rip Torn play a king and dabble on for moments to chew on as a "randy" King in the first half is clearly on the right track. Dunst makes for a splendid lead performance, one that captures the contradiction that comes with being a young royal with expectations thrusted upon them, one who is whisked away from all she knows to serve strange people in a country that seems so far away when kept in a palace where people are expecting you to have children before you are even 18 while gossiping about you and your "foreign" status; there is a certain angst present within all of the glamour seen, if only because one can only do so much to distract themselves (whether that means wanting candy or not), and Dunst shows the patience required from balancing impulse and dignity, whether that involves life in the Palace of Versailles trying to play nice or time spent in the Petit Trianon for ease away from burdens (such as with supposed affairs). Schwartzman plays well in the curiosity that comes with tenuous chemistry shared with Dunst that reminds one of a janitor trying to find the right broomstick (or in this case, key) for the task required, which results in a few laughs for useful effect, since he seems more adept for locks and hunts rather than the prowl of the bedroom. There is a handful of faces to see through the film that provide a few useful or amusing moments, and this mostly falls on the shoulders of Coogan or Torn, which works out without distraction. Davis and the others do fine in carrying the background among all the pomp and circumstance that make for a worthy paradox (or satire), because Shannon and Henderson essentially remind one of high school gossipers. The film is quite wonderful to gaze upon as expected, most notably with the costume design by Milena Canonero and cinematography by Lance Acord, as each help to make the film an arresting experience to view in a way that movies are meant to do.

As a whole, I think this is actually a pretty underrated movie, one that seems quite relevant and interesting despite the passage of over fifteen years and other costume dramas. Yes, it is a glossy historical movie, but it is a glossy historical movie that manages to be an engaging look into the world of 18th century France and the royalty that feels more apart of the country rather than actually part of it (of course it isn't like the film is a defense of the kingdom over rioters); it is a film that utilizes a stylized interpretation of the doomed queen and privilege to worthwhile effect. It captures both aristocratic fun and the loneliness that comes on the other side to useful effect. It never wastes its 123 minute run-time on sanctimony, serving instead to show its lavish atmosphere (rising and falling) in all the right places with a charming lead that makes for a curious film involving womanhood that makes for a modern hidden gem and a worthy third effort from Sofia Coppola.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Well, we have reached another end of March. It was quite interesting to do another themed March involving women directors, one that saw a handful of captivating perspectives that one would only hope we will see some of again next year. Suggestions are always welcome when it comes to theme months, so we shall see where the wind blows next time. 

Spider-Man 3.

Review #1779: Spider-Man 3.

Cast: 

Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson), James Franco (Harry Osborn / New Goblin), Thomas Haden Church (Flint Marko / Sandman), Topher Grace (Edward "Eddie" Brock Jr. / Venom), Bryce Dallas Howard (Gwen Stacy), James Cromwell (Captain George Stacy), Rosemary Harris (May Parker), J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), with Theresa Russell (Emma Marko), Dylan Baker (Dr. Curt Connors), Bill Nunn (Joseph 'Robbie' Robertson), Elizabeth Banks (Miss Brant), with Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn), and Cliff Robertson (Ben Parker) 

Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, #1495 - Darkman, #1695 - Spider-Man 2)

Review: 

"Where’s Peter Parker again in the second picture as a human being? He’s a kid in all these stories. They’re kind of coming of age stories and he learns aspects of growing up. Different life lessons in each of these films and often times, the comic books."

You know, it is entirely possible to make a third film of a trilogy that closes the narrative of its story with the right kind of balance and entertainment value that doesn't seem quite cluttered. Of course, doing so for a superhero trilogy is especially interesting to consider, if not for the fact that the expectations can sometimes reach grand heights. With this film, Sam Raimi was the first director to have helmed an entire superhero film trilogy. Spider-Man (2002), if you remember, was pretty well-made for the time and effort it took to get it on the screen, complete with a director that obviously had reverence for the source material that managed (for the most part) to generate warmly interesting entertainment. Spider-Man 2 (2004) continued that path while managing to be even better than its predecessor, both in its hero and villain story, and a third feature was immediately set for 2007. The story was done by Sam and Ivan Raimi, while Alvin Sargent (one of the writers of the second film) did the screenplay with the Raimis. Of course, it seems every sequel superhero film needs more than just one villain. With this one, there are three of them, distinct from the previous film (well, at least, if you count Harry as a villain in the second film). Raimi intended on just a story that was focused on the primary three folks from the first two films (Maguire, Dunst, Franco) and the Sandman (as played by Church). One of the producers suggested adding the character of Gwen Stacy, while Avi Arad (former president of Marvel and a fellow producer) suggested adding the character of Venom (introduced to the comics in 1984), with his argument being that the character had a strong appeal to fans (particularly since Raimi had made two features with his favorite villains); of course, before that happened, there had been plans to have the Vulture as one of the villains, so there is that. The film, while a hit with audiences, was the last Spider-Man film for five years, as plans for a fourth feature stalled because of Raimi's doubt over the viability of maintaining an intended release date of 2011 with a suitable script.

At the time of its release, it was actually the most expensive movie ever made, having been made for $258 million. It also was the longest of the three films at 139 minutes. I'm sure it goes without saying that this isn't a great movie to close the series down by any means. But hey, it has nearly been fifteen years since this film has come out, and six (five live-action) further Spider-Man movies have followed in its wake. Honestly, the movie is okay (besides, making a third feature involving an inverted hero already happened once with Superman III (1983), which was worse). Sure, it has a few little moments that could be made fun of (scrutiny, mockery, or whatever), but as a whole it at least manages to have some entertaining moments along with perspective on redemption that at least makes for a solid average movie. But of course, a movie that had considerable hype just can't be average now, can it? Undeniably, the big problem is that it has just one too many villains to go along with not being able to land all of its sticking points by the time it all ends. It is a messy movie, one that tries to fill itself on spectacle and drama that try to maintain the balance set by the previous two features that makes a good case for why it was good to just cap the series with three films. Maguire and Dunst maintain the sincerity in their chemistry that made for two curious (and interesting) features, but it probably doesn't help that their fragmented story here is the only one among all the other loose webbing that sticks out. Seeing their web tangle and untangle itself is the endearing aspect of the series, pure and simple. In that sense, Maguire does what he can, moving onto the next step that comes in the full-fledged stages of being an adult: finding forgiveness along with dealing with the pitfalls of pride (i.e. normal Peter Parker and symbiote Peter). He is earnest enough to make things such as "dancing" work where it could have been really silly to sit through. Dunst does just as well with matching up with withered patience (since her next step is not so much ego as it is "having a life"), doing what is needed as everything basically comes full circle with these two to useful effect. 

Franco has the weird dilemma of being a key side of the villainous triangle while having a segmented part of his time spent with "amnesia"; besides, one of the resolutions presented (i.e. next time check the wounds) is incredibly convenient in all the weird ways. Haden Church (who by virtue of graduating from Harlingen High School gets "Valley credits" from me) seems to be drawing his character from films such as The Wolf Man (1941), which works to a degree. While I understand the changes made to the character from the original origin (one that I remember because I actually did read one of those stories distinctly as a kid), I think it basically ties the story (and to an extent, Haden Church) in a knot that is way, way too convenient. Grace, best known for his role on That 70s Show, which I freely admit to watching too much of for years...does not exactly fare as well. While he does make an interesting reflection upon Maguire, it is hard to escape the inevitable "Yes, but Venom..." when it comes to actually seeing him on screen. I'm not saying the role needs a "bodybuilder" type, but it just never clicks together all the way with Grace, who almost seems a step away from making a quip more than anything (the less said about the actual lead-in to Venom, the better). Besides, having another costumed character present that likes to put on and then take off their mask is a step too far (keep it on!). Howard and Cromwell are there for segments that work right until you start to remember they disappear by the time of the climax (Harris has what she needs in the usual patience expected from her role anyway, while Simmons is sorely lacking in time). 

The contrivances that come with trying to tie it all together aren't swayed so easily with its climax (which is fine). Simply put, the dilemma of figuring out what it means to be a hero suddenly with sins that only thought in black-and-white is an interesting one, but the movie seems too mired in trying to pack in as much as possible in its frenzied focusing that it nearly loses sight of what the films meant in the first place. They were interesting movies with earnest charm and atmosphere (case in point this film seems lacking with the folks in the actual city that the film sets its action) that made it the first important group of superhero films of the new 21st century. While it may not be a great closing film by any means, it pulls off just enough tricks that keep one's interest on the level without churning into a pit. In other words: being just okay might not be the best thing to say about a highly anticipated movie but time generally shows that a movie being fine works out in the end.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Amazing Spider-Man (2012). Must be a coincidence.

Spider-Man 2.

Review #1695: Spider-Man 2.

Cast: 

Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson), James Franco (Harry Osborn), Alfred Molina (Otto Octavius / Doctor Octopus), Rosemary Harris (May Parker), J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), Donna Murphy (Rosalie Octavius), Daniel Gillies (John Jameson), Dylan Baker (Dr. Curt Connors), Bill Nunn (Robbie Robertson), Elizabeth Banks (Betty Brant), Elya Baskin (Mr. Ditkovitch), Mageina Tovah (Ursula), Ted Raimi (Hoffman), with Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn), and Cliff Robertson (Ben Parker) 

Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, #1495 - Darkman)

Review: 

“I just tried to get even more in touch with the things that I loved about Stan Lee’s great character Spider-Man, and a lot of writers throughout the 40 years at Marvel have contributed to Spider-Man. All the things that I loved about all of their stories, I tried to really get deeper into and connect on a deeper level with the actors, and make it more about the characters and their interaction with one another. I tried to get to the core of what I loved even more.”

It must be amazing to think of an era where superhero movies did not in fact rule the Earth, really. But the dawn of the 21st century shows that they merely lurking in the shadows of entertainment, when you think about it. There is not a long line to get from something like this film to Iron Man (2008) when it comes to adaptation of something from the world of Marvel Comics, much less when it comes to movies beyond just an one-off. Spider-Man (2002) was the sixth feature film adapted from a Marvel character (as created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko in 1962), coming off the heels of previous works such as Blade (1998) and X-Men (2000), which like this film came from years and years of development (among quite a few scripts); naturally, this film follows along the sequel line among those aforementioned movies (Blade II, X2), and it likely stands as one of the best superhero sequels of its time. It is interesting to note that the first film actually had the character of Doctor Octopus as a secondary villain before Raimi dropped him in order to focus more on the dynamic between the title character and the villain. At the helm for the screenplay was Alvin Sargent (near the end of a lengthy career of writing, which included un-credited work on the first film) while the story came from Michael Chabon, Alfred Gough, and Miles Millar (the latter two are mostly known for their development of the show Smallville; obviously, the movie is a hodgepodge of ideas from each writer - Chabon's proposed script apparently had a love triangle involving Doctor Octopus). 

Most superhero sequels generally tend to raise the stakes by adding villains to the pile for the hero to fight that make the challenge seem tighter (i.e. more than one villain, which was present in more than a few superhero films beyond the Marvel line, such as with the Batman series). And yet, here we are with a movie that has quite a controlled focus with consistent stakes and drama that improves on the original without being as hamstrung by the little things as had been the case with the original Spider-Man (which was a pretty decent effort from a director who clearly appreciates the material). It carries itself with enough weight in responsibility to deliver entertainment with meaningful power and meaningful moments to see and hear. Of course it isn't just an effects show, even though one can be impressed by the crew of John Dykstra, Scott Stokdyk, Anthony LaMolinara and John Frazier (among others) when it comes to the tentacles for its villain that prove a blend of computer effects with puppetry (alongside a harness of course) that definitely serves an improvement when compared to the sequences involving the Green Goblin from before. Maguire (who was nearly replaced by Jake Gyllenhaal because of a near-serious back injury) leads the cast with worthy presence once again, maintaining the sincerity and vulnerability depicted before without seeming generic in his charm or being overshadowed by others too much (heroes get overshadowed by the villain in a handful of films anyway). Dunst matches well with snappy chemistry that balances scenes spent either with Maguire or Gillies.  Franco works with the gradual moments with bitter righteousness that still seems like a worried child when it comes to obsession and taking the mantle his father held (which I guess works pretty well in its little imitation of Hamlet, but seeing Dafoe again is a worthy bonus). Molina proves a worthy adversary, one struck by fate that is quite sardonic in his menace that draws you in from the very first moment with him on screen (at least if you compare him with his scenes spent with Murphy with his time with the AI arms); in other words, he makes for a fun villain that improves upon the dynamic seen between the lead and the adversary from before in terms of showing the nature of power and responsibility. Closing out the cast is a few brief-scene wonders from before with the bright nurturer in Harris and the wonderful blustering comic relief in Simmons. At any rate, the film proves efficient at 127 minutes in balancing its spectacle with effective characterization that draws upon the comics without being beholden to too much cheese or being a show for overdrawn spectacle - Raimi honed his craft with the hero film in Darkman and he has merely improved upon the human aspects of what makes a thrilling and poignant movie that happens to have folks in costumes that builds on the curiosity left by its predecessor while setting its own stage for another adventure without too much trouble.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Midnight Special.

Review #1575: Midnight Special.

Cast:

Michael Shannon (Roy Tomlin), Joel Edgerton (Lucas), Kirsten Dunst (Sarah Tomlin), Adam Driver (Paul Sevier), Jaeden Lieberher (Alton), Sam Shepard (Pastor Calvin Meyer), Bill Camp (Doak), and Scott Haze (Levi) Written and Directed by Jeff Nichols.

Review:

“I never wanted to make movies just for me. I want to make movies that people watch.”

Whether through studio productions or independent ones, the director/writer can make their mark any which way they can, whether through story or aesthetic. Jeff Nichols, raised in Arkansas as the son of a furniture store owner, grew up with a love of films from directors like John Carpenter and Steven Spielberg. He studied at the University of North Carolina School of Arts, and it was a suggestion from his father to do a film about "a place you know that others don’t" that led to Shotgun Stories (2007), made on the cheap over the span of three years. Take Shelter (2011) raised attention for the director/writer, but it was Mud (2012) that fully put him on the map more in terms of notice. This was his fourth feature film alongside his first studio production, made on a budget of $18 million. Nichols was influenced by films such as Starman (1984) and Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) in terms of their structure and aesthetic when it comes to the sci-fi chase, one that aspires to have the viewer follow the mystery like his other films, even if it happens to have a bit more CGI than his other works. He had just become a father at the time of writing, and it certainly seemed to play an influence in his writing here.

While the film wasn't exactly a great success upon release, it is easy to see where it could spring interest as a hidden favorite. Sometimes you need a slow burn kind of mystery film, particularly one that takes itself on the road for science fiction within a family setting. It aspires for a bit of transcendence with quiet styling that keeps us in the dark to our own imagination. Sure, it is the story of a kid and other folks on the run, but it is the responsibility taken by Nichols to generate a curious story to come around to its own path that makes it at least good enough to glance across the aisle of interest. It might not be as great as its influences, but it certainly works just fine in expressing itself as a film about belief, whether that means one of a prophet, or of logic, or the most important one in family. The 112 minutes come out with fascination over what comes out to us closely without needing each detail spelled out to us, where a few effects can come along with their own interest and not blur the line of subtlety. One starts with Shannon (who has featured in every film directed by Nichols), who does quite well here in expressing parental devotion with worthwhile intensity. Edgerton doesn't say too much, but he still proves useful in rolling along with the mystery in quiet edge. Dunst appears on her own time as the last crucial piece of the main five, but she does worthwhile in showing reasoned grace with a part that utilizes her with effective quiet power in the climax. Driver does just fine with inquisitive curiosity, while Lieberher makes for a useful youthful presence to tie it all together with mystery that never seems to play to whims for the camera, while Shepard and Camp make useful support for brief scenes together. As a whole, it winds itself in mystery for involvement when it comes to a story about parents and belief within sci-fi trappings that ultimately will prove rewarding for those willing to come along for the ride for a careful adventure with interest that may inspire a sense of wonder, packing an ending that will at least inspire some discussion to it. In the end, that should prove more than enough for a good time and a worthy experience for a director striving to make a mark in storytelling.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Review #1201: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Cast: 
Jim Carrey (Joel Barish), Kate Winslet (Clementine Kruczynski), Kirsten Dunst (Mary), Mark Ruffalo (Stan), Elijah Wood (Patrick), Tom Wilkinson (Dr. Mierzwiak), Jane Adams (Carrie), David Cross (Rob), and Deirdre O'Connell (Hollis Mierzwiak) Directed by Michel Gondry (#451 - The Green Hornet)

Review: 
Memories are a funny thing. Whether they are ones that we prefer to reminisce about or ones that we look back on with a tinge of regret, this is a film that likes to play with memory while dealing what it means to live with emotions that can come from a relationship - whether it involves pain or pleasure. Imagine a person in your life that you loved or cared for at one point in time and having them disappear from your memory just like that; the film certainly creates a world where it feels pretty routine (with one line involving someone trying to have the procedure for a third time in a month), where people map out memories of someone, go to sleep and then awaken to the disappearance of the heartache and faded memories left behind. With different hands, one could probably have made a horror film with the concept of erasing someone from your mind (or perhaps a straight-forward romcom), but it is the handiwork of Charlie Kaufman, Michel Gondry and Pierre Bismuth that make such a clever and original story worth spending time with. It plays itself into numerous genres, such as romance, science-fiction, and comedy-drama. It is a fascinating film to watch play out, particularly with its main performances from Carrey and Winslet. It plays with the audience and their expectations without feeling like a cynical (or sappy) cheat, having plenty of emotion alongside a few interesting effects and a bit of improvisation. Carrey, playing against type, does a wonderful job, being quite entertaining to watch in a shy yet capable role that never seems too sullen or annoying to be around. Winslet is quirky, unpredictable, unfiltered, and quite right for her role, having plenty of range and intensity to her performance, whether when interacting with Carrey in memories or beyond; their chemistry is what makes the film work as well as it does, being snappy and interesting without falling prey to cliches or being undeserving of its moments, particularly with its final scene. The rest of the cast is also quite good, with Dunst and Ruffalo being charming in their scenes together (such as when they jump on the bed in the middle of the memory procedure; Wood and Wilkinson are fine to watch, both handling their parts in memory erasure with varying results that make them handy to see. What makes the film stick out is its willingness to play with its structure and unfold the way it wants and have the audience make sure to pay attention and not simply let things pass by. It doesn't present high stakes, but that is because it wants to aim for something engaging in actuality - to paraphrase from a quote from the film, it is looking for its own peace of mind. Films can often inspire debate and discussion over its meaning or intent, and this is an easy one to inspire exploration for. Fifteen years after its release (which resulted as a mild success with audiences and an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a wildly entertaining ride that proves just right for numerous types of curiosities and tastes, tugging with emotion without going overboard in all the right places to make a winner.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Interview with the Vampire.

Review #1141: Interview with the Vampire.

Cast: 
Tom Cruise (Lestat de Lioncourt), Brad Pitt (Louis de Pointe du Lac), Christian Slater (Daniel Molloy), Kirsten Dunst (Claudia), Antonio Banderas (Armand), Stephen Rea (Santiago), Domiziana Giordano (Madeleine), and Thandie Newton (Yvette) Directed by Neil Jordan.

Review: 
This film was adapted from the novel of the same name by Anne Rice, written in 1976 as her debut novel, which was a hit with audiences. Subsequently, this inspired more installments in what became known as The Vampire Chronicles (which would be used as this film's subtitle), of which is still being written by Rice. In any case, when it came time to make an adaptation of the book into a movie, Rice wrote the screenplay, although Jordan heavily re-wrote it (although Rice would be the only one who would receive credit for the film).

In any case, this is certainly a different kind of vampire film, one that likes to bask in Gothic horror but also bask in darkness and brooding characterizations in an attempt to stand out from the vampire films of yore - while having some violence and blood, naturally. While I can't quite hold this film up as any sort of great horror classic, I will say that it does have enough sense of entertainment and positive qualities to pass through some nagging elements. Undeniably, the cast is a key highlight. Cruise, who Rice had initially disliked for the lead role before viewing the film, manages to do a fine job with such a strange role. He shows a degree of animalism with such a compelling character without devolving into overbearing camp, although I did take amusement at his first big scene involving him carrying Pitt's character up in the air - which is quite the silly thing to describe. He's fun to be around with how weird he is whenever on screen. Pitt comes off alright with trying to balance both being the storyteller of his sad tale and being someone to follow with said tale. He broods along with the nature of being a vampire just fine, but I find that he words best when with Cruise than when it is just himself. There's just something about how they work well with each other that makes the first half a bit more interesting that the latter half. After all, this is a movie where all of the main characters in the tale told by Pitt are immortals who rely on blood to live, especially since Cruise and Pitt differ in the nature of how to get said blood. Dunst, appearing in only her fifth role in a film, is pretty adept at making such a strange role for a child actor to play work without wrecking the mood, especially since the role involves a 12-year old turned into a vampire. The family dynamic that the three share for a time does work alright for the most part, since the differences between how each treat the other stand out enough to work for drama. Slater does fine with what he's given, since he is only present for the interview parts in the beginning and end (with occasional bits in the middle) that doesn't distract at any part. Banderas shines for his time on screen, having a clear sense of charm. The other actors are okay for their time to shine. The movie certainly ends itself on a fair note to close out on, complete with a cover of "Sympathy for the Devil" by Guns N' Roses.

The film earns its pace of 122 minutes just enough, never having too many boring moments while having just enough high points of energy to carry itself amiably. It invites interest and keeps the audience satisfied just enough, whether with some blood or with some of its character moments. It generally has enough chilling moments that work over the ones that don't while never becoming too boring for comfort. The visual effects by Stan Winston and digital effects by Digital Domain are pretty well done, particularly with the vampire appearance, aided by stencilled blue veins by having the actors hang upside down for 30 minutes. Rice seemed to enjoy the film herself pretty well, noting her appreciation of numerous categories from its look to its acting performances, while citing minor quibbles (such as the fact the film was rated R rather than PG-13). For the most part, this is a movie that works just fine as entertainment in Gothic horror that is just compelling enough at the right points to make a solid little film for the night.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Spider-Man.

Review #611: Spider-Man.

Cast
Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker/Spider-Man), Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn/Green Goblin), Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson), James Franco (Harry Osborn), Cliff Robertson (Ben Parker), Rosemary Harris (May Parker), and J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson) Directed by Sam Raimi.

Review
No matter the weather wherever you are, today's going to be a beautiful Independence Day, so I'm going to review something that's been on the waiting list for a long time, the (can't believe I'm saying this) original Spider-Man film. Speaking of which, how is the film? It's pretty good. For all of its quirks, the movie does a good job at putting Spider-Man onto the screen and be entertaining for the most part. The cast is well rounded, it's even fun to see J. K. Simmons as Jameson because his bombastic nature to everyone is just fun to watch, even if it's brief. Maguire and Dafoe have a good dynamic together, and while Dafoe may have some odd scenes (though I guess talking to a mask is normal if you go insane), he is pretty menacing. Maguire is a good hero, I think my favorite scene is when he's being introduced to the ring against a guy named Buzzsaw (played by the late great Randy "Macho Man" Savage), and he asks to be called "The Human Spider". I don't know why, but there is something funny about trying to make your own name and come up with something a 1950's b-movie would reject as a title. The dialogue is okay, though Robertson's line about "with great power comes great responsibility" is a defining line for the film. Is it a great movie? No, but it at least is a good flick for anyone curious on how the first movie about Spider-Man is. Happy 4th, everyone.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Jumanji.

Review #322: Jumanji.

Cast
Robin Williams (Alan Parrish), Jonathan Hyde (Van Pelt and Sam Parrish), Bonnie Hunt (Sarah Whittle), Kirsten Dunst (Judy Shepherd), Bradley Pierce (Peter Shepherd), David Alan Grier (Carl Bentley), Bebe Neuwirth (Nora Shepherd), and Patricia Clarkson (Carol-Anne Parrish) Directed by Joe Johnston (#060 - Captain America: The First Avenger)

Review
In a way, this had been coming for a long time. I had first watched this over two years ago, while on my trip with my father to Oregon for the first time (the second trip would bring a cavalcade of reviews from #043-#058), but I didn't finish all of it, quickly forgetting it. So how was it? (and why did I even try to introduce this to the review?) All your questions (except that one) will be revealed. It's...okay. There, you got your answer, the review is-Oh okay, I'll elaborate (for whoever wants it) on this. It might be slightly interesting to know that this is yet another adaptation from the author Chris Van Allsburg (who had wrote the book The Polar Express which was later adapted into its own film). The acting is decent, Williams doesn't do a bad job (thankfully not doing what other could do, like shouting...), and the rest of the cast are good. (especially with Jonathan Hyde, who is entertaining along with Grier). The effects are okay, not bad for 1995. The story is okay, not too much (what, playing a board game that unleashes unimaginable stuff? Oh and some time travel). For a good part of the film I was asking a question: Why are they playing this game? I know, to finish the game, but they damage more things than if they could've stopped after they recovered Parrish. (Who was trapped in the game for 26 years....) This might be a spoiler (So skip this line if you don't want to know the ending), but why exactly do Parrish and Whittle time travel back to 1969? I suppose the board game is a TARDIS (that might've been a twist. For me anyways...). In the end, the film isn't bad, but there's something about it that keeps nagging at it being really good. Is it bad? No. Is it recommended? Depends on the person. But oh well.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Small Soldiers.

Review #097: Small Soldiers.

Cast
Gregory Smith (Alan Abernathy), Frank Langella (Archer), Kirsten Dunst (Christy Fimple), Tommy Lee Jones (Chip Hazard), Phil Hartman (Phil Fimple), George Kennedy (Brick Bazooka), Jim Brown (Butch Meathook), Ernest Borgnine (Kip Killigan), Clint Walker (Nick Nitro), Bruce Dern (Link Static), Kevin Dunn (Stuart Abernathy), Ann Magnuson (Irene Abernathy), Jay Mohr (Larry Benson), David Cross (Irwin Wayfair), and Denis Leary (Gil Mars) Directed by Joe Dante.

Review
This is a bit similar to Gremlins (#096), with our lead hero releasing the villans to the world, destroying things, and ultimately losing to another toy/gremlin. But the film does try to distance itself a little, with action and slight laughs all over the film. It may be a little dark, but compare it to Gremlins, which had microwaved heads and more. This is just a cherry to that cake, really. It has excellent effects with good voice acting and standard acting that entertains you for two hours (Make that 1:50). It's not a great film, but it at least is enjoyable. Countdown: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.