The Wolf of Wall Street.

Review #1567: The Wolf of Wall Street.

Cast:
Leonardo DiCaprio (Jordan Belfort), Jonah Hill (Donnie Azoff), Margot Robbie (Naomi Lapaglia), Kyle Chandler (Patrick Denham), Rob Reiner (Max Belfort), Jon Bernthal (Brad Bodnick), Matthew McConaughey (Mark Hanna), Jon Favreau (Manny Riskin), Jean Dujardin (Jean-Jacques Saurel), Joanna Lumley (Aunt Emma), Cristin Milioti (Teresa Petrillo), Aya Cash (Janet), Christine Ebersole (Leah Belfort), Shea Whigham (Captain Ted Beecham), Katarina Cas (Chantalle Bodnick), Stephanie Kurtzuba (Kimmie Belzer), P. J. Byrne (Nicky Koskoff), Kenneth Choi (Chester Ming), and Brian Sacca (Robbie Feinberg) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver, #992 - The King of Comedy, #1276 - Mean Streets, #1463 - Raging Bull, #1496 - Goodfellas, #1544 - The Departed, and #1559 - Hugo)

Review:
"If you look at what occurred in the world of finance—many times now and it will probably happen again—you really have to ask the questions: Is dishonesty acceptable? Aren’t people expected to go too far?”

"It’s interesting, because I have been doing this since I was 13. I am almost about to turn 40, and I am looking back at some of the stuff I’ve gotten to do, and at the center of it is this amazing accidental collaboration that I’ve gotten to have with Marty.”

There have been quite a number of director-actor teams over the prevailing decades of cinema, and one could only hope to make one as worthwhile and engaging for both on and behind the camera as Martin Scorsese with Leonardo DiCaprio. They haven't worked with each other as much as another certain duo involving Scorsese, but their five films together have served each other well in terms of audience appeal and curiosity over people at the prime of who they are in direction and acting. Both were well-regarded names before the 21st century had even started, and their first collaboration together would be with Gangs of New York (2002). This is the fifth film that they had made together as star director and actor (with a sixth collaboration reportedly coming sometime in this decade). DiCaprio had wanted to make this film since 2007 when it was brought to his attention by producer Alexandra Milchan, finding interest in its portrayal of people addicted to obtaining wealth by any means necessary and the "author's singular transparency"; this would also attract Scorsese to the project as well to direct alongside produce with DiCaprio and others, while Terence Winter (most known for his writing work on The Sopranos and developer/writer of Boardwalk Empire) was brought in to write the screenplay.

Undeniably, it will spark thoughts of Goodfellas (1990), Scarface (1983), or especially Wall Street (1987). Sometimes one has to embrace the madness that comes from a movie like this, a film with no shame or qualms about showing the nature of depravity within trying to make money alongside uncompromising honesty that makes for a strange wild movie that certainly proved different from viewer to viewer in enjoyment. The film is based on the book of the same name by convicted felon Jordan Belfort, and if you believe what you hear from him, what occurred in the memoir was actually toned down in regards to the levels of debauchery (which already seem high), but we are talking about a movie that fudges with some of the real names (such as Danny Porush, Gregory Coleman, Ira Sorkin, and even Belfort's two wives). If the subject depicted on screen found the film to be fairly accurate, can one really go wrong? If you hear it from his partner Porush (fellow convict and apparent gold-fish consumer), one wonders just exactly was accurate in the incidents depicted. Or how about from the attorney that prosecuted him? Just what does want from a biographical black comedy about excess with fraud? You know Belfort is a felon, and I know he is a felon that now does motivational speaking, yet here we are. Who are we kidding though? It is a movie about people who can't help but want to make money (and lots of it). I think maybe this is a barometer film for those who look at films for their content or about what they really say as a whole, where one could really either find to be a blistering roar of humor within ethical malaise, or perhaps a film bloated on purpose too much for its own good to mean anything. We could go through the wheelbarrow of things to describe al day, whether that means little people being tossed, yacht crashing, shaven heads for big money, etc, etc. I think I fall into the former category, because I did like what I saw here, but there always seems to be something gnawing in my mind that knows it is just pretty good rather than great. If I want a film with more balance towards the authorities with fraud, I could just pass a glance to an American Greed rerun. It is wild, crude, unbalanced, and everything in the book of what makes a film ripe for unrestrained potential. One obviously starts with DiCaprio in highlighting the biggest strength. Simply put, he does a great job in generating a sort of feral charisma, a man you can find yourself yelling along with in the breakroom even when you the viewer knows the result of said practice-making. His asides and voiceovers throughout the film help as well in generating a fascinating performance, one that dazzles the viewer in his range in where he progresses in the pursuit of money and vices that come from such ravenous appetite, and perhaps it isn't surprising that he equated Belfort to being like a "modern-day emperor Caligula". Hill was so desperate to work with Scorsese and play that part that he took a significant pay-cut to do so. Clearly, it seemed to pay off well for Hill, who is such a rapid-fire presence of excellence, one that seems exactly in his element to be part of the pursuit for money as a creature of brashness and budding one-two act with DiCaprio, one that can make eating a goldfish not seem like a hammy moment. Robbie works well in those moments spent with DiCaprio that are dazzling in allure for what is needed in a film building people up in currency beyond just the money on the table. Chandler is the carefully smooth figure in authority, driven in those little moments without needing to be a bigger focus - the sequence on the yacht with him and DiCaprio is a skillful one to see the wheels turn in cat-and-mouse play. Reiner, the TV star-turned-director-turned-occasional actor, does well in handing in some blustery sense that is needed. Bernthal lends a deliberate coarse hand that works with the other associates seen mostly for the first half alongside the other associates of growing wry sellers. McConaughey isn't in the film long, but the chest beating and humming scene is easily the sparkplug scene that rolls the film along rightly, while others lend supportive hands for dubious measures in Favreau, Dujardin and Lumley. As a whole, it is definitely a film to set a whole day for to see the mayhem of moral bankruptcy for three hours that will reward those who find its intent useful without thinking it as unsubtle. If you are into what the film is selling, go right on ahead for one of the most interesting features to sit through for its era from a prime duo worthy of seeing on screen to do it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

King Kong (2005).

Review #1540: King Kong.

Cast: 

Naomi Watts (Ann Darrow), Jack Black (Carl Denham), Adrien Brody (Jack Driscoll), Thomas Kretschmann (Captain Englehorn), Colin Hanks (Preston), Jamie Bell (Jimmy), with Andy Serkis (Motion capture of Kong / Lumpy), Fred Tatasciore (Vocal sound of Kong), Evan Parke (Benjamin "Ben" Hayes), Kyle Chandler (Bruce Baxter), John Sumner (Herb), Lobo Chan (Choy), and Craig Hall (Mike) Directed by Peter Jackson (#1486 - Bad Taste and #1507 - Heavenly Creatures)

Review: 

"No film has captivated my imagination more than King Kong (1933). I'm making movies today because I saw this film when I was 9 years old. It has been my sustained dream to reinterpret this classic story for a new age."

I don't know if you needed to hear another description of King Kong (1933), but most probably know it as a great classic, one that has tremendous stature as an adventure in its revolutionary effects for the time (done in stop-motion and miniatures by Willis O'Brien and his crew) that can still hold its own in entertainment after over 80 years since its release. Granted, not every aspect of the film has exactly aged gracefully (with the occasional wooden actor or so), but it definitely stands true in the ace of films that came in subsequent years involving its titular gorilla. Its sequel (Son of Kong, released the same year!) was a rush job that did not capture the magic of what made things special from before. King Kong vs. Godzilla (1962), while fairly decent in entertainment, is a hodgepodge of ideas that benefits its latter monster in every which way (particularly with its effects) as a Toho film (I haven't see their other production in King Kong Escapes, which is a co-production with Rankin/Bass of all things). The 1976 remake of the film was described by me as a "jumbled flow of effects and 70's style filmmaking that can be hit or miss", which translates to just not being good enough (Jackson described it as a disappointment as a kid and later called it "kind of kitsch"). I suppose it only makes sense that if someone wanted to make another King Kong film, it would have to be something really intriguing for a big effects director to make on a big budget and big scope. Jackson called the 1933 film his favorite, and he had been offered the chance to do a remake by Universal Pictures that would've been released in 1998, but worries by the studio over the upcoming releases of Godzilla (1998) and Mighty Joe Young (1998) led to them stalling by 1997, with Jackson going on to do work on adapting The Lord of the Rings to film. The success of those films led to Universal approaching Jackson to do the film he wanted, with a budget that would reach over $200 million by the time it was released, with Jackson co-writing the effort with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens.

Why don't I first start with the stuff easiest to highlight. I do applaud the idea of keeping the film in the 1930s, mostly because we are talking about a film needing a reason to go to a strange island to do a movie and find a big gorilla - it would seem a bit clunky to do that in 2005 as opposed to 1933, I assert. There is great care done here to make a worthy period piece in the costumes and feel that I appreciate more than if it was just a monster film lost in itself, particularly since it fooled me a bit with its digital effect enough to make not make fun of it as a bluescreen-fest. Kong himself is a tremendous accomplishment, as they have captured a great effect that towers well over everything present. The advent of these effects and having gorilla footage to study means that Serkis accomplishes wonders in a motion capture body suit that goes with Tatasciore in vocals to make a useful curiosity. Watts handles the challenge of spending a majority of time with Kong with resilience and charm that make for an interesting 1-2 act that makes a special bond with Kong that doesn't seem forced or ridiculous. Black (weird wig and all) is generally enjoyable, seeming to have a grasp on the manner of Orson Welles with some of the drive and compelling spirit of a carnival barker that doesn't seem too much of a cheesy bit. Of the others, I would say probably Chandler has it best, mostly because he seems to be having fun playing a ham without doing a wink to the audience. 

Ultimately, it seems Jackson wanted to have his cake and eat it too in every minuet detail, considering the run-time of 187 minutes. It becomes a case of excess overriding an epic that can only go so far for enjoyment before bashing you over the head with what is believed to be needed in a remake. It seems more prescient in keeping a mix of wooden acting with fair acting than it does in making a period piece I actually want to see play all the way out for three hours (which can be extended 20 minutes longer in an extended cut if you are into that). The easiest thing to get out of the way immediately is one shining fact: Nobody, and I repeat, nobody, needs a whole thing about the backgrounds of the ship crew going to Skull Island, because very little people will actually care about it. The performances for these folks are...okay, but do I need a scene of someone discussing reading Heart of Darkness? How about details of someone being a World War I veteran? Cannon fodder-I mean creature fodder doesn't need this much time, because I am here to watch a gorilla and some creatures along with some sort of affinity between gorilla and woman, thank you very much. Of course the true offender in all of this is Brody, who easily hands in a bland performance without even having to reach the gorilla, and it is so baffling to see him present in a film that begs for some sort of charisma or interest from him when trying to act with Watts. By the time the film trudges onto the island and delivers some creatures to us, one is just begging to not have to hear from most of these folks ever again. One can appreciate the nuance of seeing vine action between creatures that we know aren't really real as opposed to having to pretend to care about a conversation about bravery or the dealings of the ship - Somehow, I remember Kong: Skull Island handling all of this significantly better twelve years later. If I don't think about the fluid quality of acting and see Kong, it works out only to the point of making an average film because of its obvious length. I almost wonder what would happen if you made a film just set on the island with no buildup on the ship and go from there (I shudder to think about a line-for-line remake of the 1933 film, although this takes lines from that film). But at least the climax back to New York works itself out in being interesting and capturing the spirit of tragedy when it comes to gorilla-on-plane action, wonderful in its execution that gives Watts and Serkis their moment to do what is needed (and keeping Brody chucked to the short-shrift where he belongs) before that repeated line to close out this film as was done before comes up. On the whole, I liked most of what I saw in the parts that matter to make a film worthy enough for a recommendation, even if its test of scope and patience may prove frustrating for others. Jackson wanted his tribute to the original mean something, and when compared to films that came following from that model, I'd say he made a commendable effort worth some credit in innovation. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)

Review #1227: Godzilla: King of the Monsters.

Cast: 
Kyle Chandler (Dr. Mark Russell), Vera Farmiga (Dr. Emma Russell), Millie Bobby Brown (Madison Russell), Bradley Whitford (Dr. Rick Stanton), Sally Hawkins (Dr. Vivienne Graham), Charles Dance (Colonel Alan Jonah), Thomas Middleditch (Dr. Sam Coleman), Aisha Hinds (Colonel Diane Foster), O'Shea Jackson Jr. (Jackson Barnes), David Strathairn (Admiral William Stenz), Ken Watanabe (Dr. Ishirō Serizawa), Zhang Ziyi (Dr. Ilene Chen and Dr. Ling), with T.J. Storm (Godzilla) Directed by Michael Dougherty.

Review: 
It's about time for this one. Perhaps this review may prove a bit too long - but I wanted to have some fun with saying as much as I could with a film I really did anticipate - after all, I didn't cover four Godzilla movies for nothing, so here's a Godzilla-sized review for the hell of it - 1,000 words for your enjoyment. 

Five years can certainly pass by when it comes to movies. Godzilla (2014) was a fine movie that worked to get out of the shadow of doubt that an American adaptation of Toho's monster franchise couldn't actually succeed. I really can't say I have too many memories of the film, but I might as well just snatch some words from way back when:

"The cast isn't bad (though I wish there was more Bryan Cranston in it), our main character is okay even though it seems the cast get more screen time then the monster himself, Godzilla. The movie seems to want to build tension and wait, so it cuts the first two monster fights (along with waiting an hour to show Godzilla) so we don't see much and then relents and shows the final fight, which is fantastic."

Of course, I also don't remember giving it a 9, but yet here we are. The only other Godzilla film that I had covered at the time was the original Gojira (1954). I hadn't (and still haven't) even touched the 1998 American attempt at Godzilla, with me just going in cold for some big monster action. Actually, I haven't returned to the 2014 Godzilla since I saw it in the theater all those years ago, perhaps since I don't usually re-visit each film I go see on the big screen. In the five years since its release, Toho re-started the series with Shin Godzilla (2016) while Legendary Pictures continued their pursuit of a "MonsterVerse" with Kong: Skull Island (2017). Just three cast members (Watanabe, Hawkins, Strathairn) return for this one, with a few references included throughout while doing a bit of ret-conning and changes in tone that make for a fairly decent if not perhaps as challenging monster movie. The first film had a screenplay by Max Borenstein and a story by David Callaham, while this one has director Dougherty as co-writer and co-screenwriter while retaining Borenstein for the screenplay once again alongside Zach Shields. It lingers a little too long at 132 minutes (eleven minutes longer than its predecessor), but I felt that I enjoyed a good majority of what I saw on screen, albeit more when it focused of its monsters than its cadre of characters. The quirk of the original having its only interesting character being wasted midway through is modified by this film having a quirk of having sprinkles of just mildly interesting characters. This film is basically a re-imagining of Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster (1964), albeit with a somewhat developed foundation of human characters that makes for a less silly experience. Honestly, as long as there is an entertaining monster mash somewhere in its run-time that isn't overshadowed by something else, you have my vote, and this one gains that vote for the most part. This is a $200 million CG spectacle with monsters that takes itself mildly seriously - once a year is just enough for my standards, really, even if I am aware of the prevailing tastes for other kinds of action films for the summer.

It is a loud and sometimes dumb movie, but I can't help but adore its ambition at spectacle. Each monster, from Godzilla to King Ghidorah, is rendered really well, looking quite crisp that retains the characteristics from before (like the latter and its three heads) while making sure they stand out in their own ways, which proves to be a fairly done strategy. While I do wish there was a bit more emphasis on shown spectacle of distraction (as opposed to just showing things already being destroyed), at least I can say that this one manages to retain most of the wrath that nature can bring onto us if not careful from the earlier movie. I never feel lectured or bored when it comes to trying to peddle some plot threads on me, with the parts involving specific frequencies for the monsters faring best over parts involving discussions in rooms over what to do. The cast does what they can, some faring better than others. Chandler is fine to follow around with, straight-laced yet completely willing to go along with what occurs on screen without seeming like a drag on what occurs in the basis of a monster movie. Farmiga does fine as well, with the focus on her and Brown being fairly subtle. Brown shines just as well when shown on screen. At least the family angle the film pushes is okay, since the film can't just be all on the monsters and their ties to myths and legends from yesteryear. Whitford and his attempts at being comic relief (by being the equivalent of someone on the Internet lecturing you on "uberscience lol" at 8am) come off as a bit tepid, although Middleditch doesn't fare too much better. Dance comes off as ridiculous as the human adversary - I don't care too much about the eco-terrorism angle, but the parts involving trying to restore a sense of balance in the world with Titans (as opposed to the previous film's classification of the monsters of MUTO)  Not having too much to do with Hawkins is a bit disappointing, although at least Watanabe gives the film some sense of emotional depth. Rounding out the cast is passable performances from Hinds, Jackson and Ziyi. With all of that mind, where else did I find time to show some joy besides seeing a bunch of occasionally creative fight sequences and a bunch of CGI in the dark? I found some fun within Bear McCreary and his music, taking some inspiration from previous music beats from the Godzilla series from Akira Ifukube - any time you do a cover of a Blue Oyster Cult song (particularly "Godzilla") gets a nod from me as well. With a looming sequel in Godzilla vs. Kong next year, this is a movie that succeeds in garnering interest to see some more monster mashing without regret. It proves as a worthy follow-up to its predecessor while also living up to the standards of other Godzilla films before it without too many stumbles yet having plenty of thrills to make one satisfied.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

First Man.

Review #1146: First Man.

Cast: 
Ryan Gosling (Neil Armstrong), Claire Foy (Janet Shearon), Corey Stoll (Buzz Aldrin), Pablo Schreiber (Jim Lovell), Jason Clarke (Ed White), Kyle Chandler (Deke Slayton), Christopher Abbott (David Scott), Patrick Fugit (Elliot See), Lukas Haas (Michael Collins), Shea Whigham (Gus Grissom), Brian d'Arcy James (Joseph A. Walker), Cory Michael Smith (Roger B. Chaffee), and J. D. Evermore (Christopher C. Kraft Jr.) Directed by Damien Chazelle.

Review: 
Well, this film is a bit different from the horror focus for October, but I find this to be a necessary diversion that I hope you will enjoy. 

It is only fitting that this film includes a snippet from President John F. Kennedy and his famous speech on September 12, 1962 about going to the Moon in the decade, saying "not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too." In a sense, the decision to make a biopic covering the years leading up to Apollo 11 and its mission to the Moon through the lens of the commander of its mission, Neil Armstrong is like that speech - using a great deal of creative energy and skill to try and make a film to take the audience on a journey to one of the greatest achievements for mankind from the Earth to the Moon. This is an adaptation of the autobiography First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong by James R. Hansen, written in 2005, with the screenplay by Josh Singer, who has written films such as Spotlight (2015). We know what the final result will be with the mission, but there is never a moment where you feel bored at what the movie wants to show in the years beforehand. One of the first things that I was reminded of during this film was The Right Stuff (1983), which covered the Mercury Seven astronauts alongside others such as Chuck Yeager (after all, there are some people that are depicted in both films such as Deke Slayton, one of the Mercury Seven and the Director of Flight Crew Operations for NASA that chose Armstrong to be the first man) and both films inspire curiosity and excitement for a past age with depth and skill to make a great experience in entertainment. Obviously the film isn't a complete adaptation of the book it is adapting, but it always manages to inspire interest to want to know more about what makes a man such as Armstrong and others to do what they did.

For the most part, the cast all do their respective roles pretty well, all seeming to blend into the people that they are playing with no real distractions. Gosling, playing a man whose family described upon his death as a "reluctant American hero who always believed he was just doing his job", manages to bring a sense of modesty and carefulness that is always watchable and down-to-earth. Foy does a pretty fine job as well, managing to play her scenes off fine with Gosling that generally keeps the movie with some focus on the Armstrong family that tries to make the film have more than one prism of focus. The highlights in the rest of the cast are Stoll, Chandler and Clarke, who each manage to be pretty effective and interesting to follow alongside with that don't get themselves lost in the spectacle. It shines more on a technical level with its depiction of the journey into space than its level with Armstrong and his family, but it ultimately proves to be entirely worth every second of its 141 minute run-time. It isn't a perfect film, mostly due to the fact that it can nearly come to a quiet lull with its family sequences, which are occasionally effective in drama. The film flows smoothly enough, covering pivotal events such as Armstrong's command of Gemini 8 to the Apollo 1 tragedy, each shown with care and respect that resonate quite clearly in the pursuit for space. The music by Justin Hurwitz is well-done, and the cinematography by Linus Sandgren is excellent, with the film having a look and feel that always seems authentic. For me, the best part is the Moon landing sequence, which is simply wonderful to process from launch to the pivotal breathtaking moment. The film builds itself up to a momentous climax and earns the patience taken to get there with good judgement taken by Chazelle to make sure things go as smoothly as possible. This is a very enjoyable biopic for anyone who is curious about some of the details of one of the greatest moments for mankind that will leave its audience eager to pursue further about space and exploration, of which there are numerous films and books to help serve that purpose. In closing, I will include a short quote from Armstrong that I feel is fitting for this review: "Mystery creates wonder and wonder is the basis of man's desire to understand."

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Super 8.

Review #149: Super 8.

Cast
Joel Courtney (Joseph Francis "Joe" Lamb), Elle Fanning (Alice "Allie" Dainard), Kyle Chandler (Deputy Jackson "Jack" Lamb), Riley Griffiths (Charles Kaznyk), Ryan Lee (Cary McCarthy), Ron Eldard (Louis Dainard), Caitriona Balfe (Elizabeth Lamb), Noah Emmerich (Colonel Nelec), and Bruce Greenwood (Cooper) Directed by J. J. Abrams (#009 - Star Trek)

Review
This film has one charm from American Graffiti (#141) which is that it reminds you back to the 1970's (1979 to be exact) I believe that Abrams wanted to honor Spielberg with this film, with the childlike charm with an alien and fun but with a mix of scares. The child actors are good at their roles, especially from Courtney and Fanning. The alien looks good, not really having much of a flaw as the plot is well made enough to keep you interested. It's a fun film that has wonder that can be enjoyed by everyone. Countdown to 150: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.