School Daze.

Review #2181: School Daze.

Cast: 

Laurence Fishburne (Vaughn "Dap" Dunlap), Giancarlo Esposito (Julian "Dean Big Brother Almighty" Eaves), Tisha Campbell (Jane Toussaint), Kyme (Rachel Meadows), Joe Seneca (President Harold McPherson), Ellen Holly (Odrie McPherson), Art Evans (Cedar Cloud), Ossie Davis (Coach Odom), Bill Nunn (Grady), Branford Marsalis (Jordan), Kadeem Hardison (Edge), Spike Lee (Darrell "Half-Pint" Dunlap), Darryl M. Bell (Big Brother X-Ray Vision), Joie Lee (Lizzie Life), Alva Rogers (Doris Witherspoon), Jasmine Guy (Dina), and Samuel L. Jackson (Leeds) Produced, Written, and Directed by Spike Lee (#1255 - Do the Right Thing, #1543 - Inside Man, #1643 - Malcolm X, and #1976 - She's Gotta Have It)

Review: 

I don't pretend to know the legacy of certain films, but I do have an interest in the film that comes after one makes their debut feature, particularly if it happens to be one from a director as prominent in black cinema as Spike Lee. School Daze (1988) is curious not only as one released two years after She's Gotta Have It (his formal debut after his student films and shorts, remember) that was followed almost immediately by his third effort in Do the Right Thing one year later. This film was shaped by his experiences that he had when attending Morehouse College (a historically black college in Atlanta) in the late 1970s. Island Pictures, which had distributed Lee's first film, had planned on doing this film as well, but wavering issues in the budget (which finished above $6 million) eventually led to Columbia Pictures acquiring it. Strangely, a movie that talks about sororities and fraternities had a bit of a tough task in finding a place to shoot the film, which included Morehouse (irony?) before Atlanta University was utilized. Apparently, the film had different housing for certain groups of the cast, which led to an unscripted (and filmed) confrontation at a "stepping show". The movie was a modest hit with audiences.

Every so often I have to remember that films of a certain age could actually talk lightly about issues that mattered that seem distinct from now, which starts pretty quickly with a film that starts with someone trying to do a protest about divesting from South Africa. Of course, what really matters for this film is how people treat each other in the facets that come in... colleges and dorms. Within the divides that comes from people of the same color and distinct privileges is a film that also happens to have a few music numbers. I personally don't have any experience with fraternities, but I think we can understand that divides between certain groups and classes is not always black and white as it might seem. Of course, it seems like a fable one tells to try and get people to wake up (almost as if they were in a... daze) to the issues that are mired in the muck beyond arguments over hair. One can say progress has been made in a certain place, but how much of what we say is progress as opposed to being lip service? I liked the movie fine, even though its 121 minute runtime does tend to make one desire the tiniest bit more from its ending, which almost seems to be direct but brief as possibly can be. Fishburne has all the confidence required in a film surrounded by apathy that isn't merely played as a martyr but one with his own biases and charms. The musical numbers are executed with varying effectiveness, but probably the best sequences of the film are in smaller moments. I especially like one scene involving Fishburne and his group going out into town to eat only to confront some locals (which is where Jackson appears briefly) that resent them in their own privileges, because if there is one thing to say about people, it is that there are people who will just look down on anyone who want better for themselves, even to the point of calling them a certain word and say that they'll be like them "just like us". Esposito makes an ideal wannabee with a total absence of awareness for anything but his own group for a distinct act of the public. His narrowmindedness strikes most of all, even with Campbell (and accompanying status in loyalty) right there on the divide of hair and sororities. Amusement is here and there in those selection of scenes for a movie not focused on showing the classroom (Davis having a scene in trying to motivate his football team is a real chuckler). At the end of the day, the black experience is one that cannot be thought as just simple to pin down for easy stereotypes, regardless if one is a college man or not. Living in apathy that just thinks about wallowing in where they are or just being content with a small piece of the action is just not enough when one could also wake up to what's around them. The film is mildly effective in its approach as a whole due to a game cast that makes Lee's second effort at least a useful curiosity to seek out on its own terms.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

John Wick: Chapter 4.

Review #1998: John Wick: Chapter 4.

Cast: 

Keanu Reeves (John Wick), Donnie Yen (Caine), Bill Skarsgård (the Marquis Vincent de Gramont), Laurence Fishburne (the Bowery King), Hiroyuki Sanada (Shimazu Koji), Shamier Anderson (Mr. Nobody / The Tracker), Lance Reddick (Charon), Rina Sawayama (Shimazu Akira), Scott Adkins (Killa Harkan), Clancy Brown (the Harbinger), Ian McShane (Winston Scott), and Natalia Tena (Katia) Directed by Chad Stahelski (#905 - John Wick, #906 - John Wick: Chapter 2, #1222 - John Wick Chapter 3 – Parabellum)

Review: 

"John Wick is a weird spillover of anime, manga, graphic novel sensibility as well as Wuxia films, Chanbara films, Samurai films, and Westerns. It’s got this weird transference."

It was ten years ago this year that Keanu Reeves signed on for a project that in the end run became a franchise. It is funny to consider that John Wick became a franchise that has seemingly risen in ambition with each passing sequel that has adequate staging in plot to accompany exquisite staging when it comes to action. You don't need me to tell you that this film is already a hit or that it is the longest film of the series at 169 minutes. I would be silly to not mention that a spinoff of the series is intended for release the following year with Ballerina with some of the main cast; a limited series "from the world of John Wick" will also be present in the coming months, if you are into that sort of thing. The film was written by Shay Hatten (who co-wrote the third film with series creator Derek Kolstad) and Michael Finch.

Honestly, it is hard to say which of the three John Wick sequels has turned out the best (if you want to be technical, the first is probably still the best for the surprise that comes with such a raw film). It definitely is the one where Reeves seems to say the least number of words, adhering most to the tradition set out by Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns with its one quiet hero. Each of the films feature plenty of what you might as well call gun-fu to go with fairly distinct actors getting to play support to Reeves and his exquisite timing as an action icon. The movies are bombastic in trying to top the other while finding new places to play like a kid wanting to take the toybox to new places, whether that means a sequence shot in Jordan or an action sequence at the Arc de Triomphe. The movie takes action sequences like it is water to absorb, which means one sees the vast effort required to make these scenes important to view in their ass-kicking glory without a feeling of repetition. There's plenty of targets to go around from the disposable to Scott Adkins in a fat suit hamming it up for all that seems clearly required. Reeves clearly knows what he likes as the ultimate action-boogeyman, one who moves through any sort of scene with precision and engagement for the action ballet that takes place with him usually at the forefront that shows the dedication required in performing a mix of judo and mixed marital arts that looks just like it feels to watch in absorption. The fact that a good chunk of his dialogue is just "yeah" is probably more of the fact that one has gotten to the point where he is simply just where he needs to be without such need for lengthy moments in his path of last vengeance (or in a different way, the path of seeing where his smoldering decisions have left others). Yen accompanies him in his style of worthwhile action charisma, a worthy match against Reeves in saying what needs to be said, which goes double for someone playing a blind assassin. Skarsgård makes a quality adversary, preening in haughtiness in a series all about the sheer arrogance that comes with not planning more than two steps ahead of a "Baba Yaga". Among the other additions is Anderson, who makes an adequate background mercenary, while Sawayama (a singer in their acting debut) does well in the parts they are in the film, which mostly involves interaction with Sanada, which is neat. It's always fun to see Brown or McShane around, but it is especially true with Reddick, who passed away last month at the age of 60 (small sentences or not, he always made this role distinct). The fact that a duel for the climax be handled so fervently in elegance is a testament to how the series has managed to hold in consistency. It is fun without becoming a needless excuse of dim lighting or being wishy-washy with its tone. As a whole, the film is paced well enough to roll with every punch and shot without dawdling on something for too long. Who knows where the series might go from here, but I can safely say that it was a pleasure to see Reeves on screen again in a role that he obviously seemed born to play to go along with a director that knows what he likes in raising the expectations set as a director that makes one curious to see what could be next.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: A special celebration on April 20th in the way best suited for Movie Night: a double-header with one film of world cinema and one from America.

Predators.

Review #1722: Predators.

Cast: 

Adrien Brody (Royce), Alice Braga (Isabelle), Topher Grace (Edwin), Walton Goggins (Stans), Oleg Taktarov (Nikolai), Louis Ozawa Changchien (Hanzo), Mahershala Ali (Mombasa), Danny Trejo (Cuchillo), Laurence Fishburne (Ronald Noland), with Derek Mears, Carey Jones & Brian Steele (the Predators) Directed by Nimród Antal.

Review: 

Well, I suppose the Predator series needed to do something again to maintain relevancy. Robert Rodriguez had a script in mind for a film in the franchise since 1994, right around the time he was developing Desperado (1995), which he described as just a writing assignment (i.e. one that was designed to try to entice Arnold Schwarzenegger, albeit with no budgetary limitations); 20th Century Fox didn't have interest for fifteen years, and while the treatment wasn't actually used, Rodriguez did serve as producer (using his company Troublemaker Studios). Alex Litvak and Michael Finch served as writers for the film, while Hungarian-American director Nimrod Antal found his way through to serve as director; he was best known for his feature debut Kontroll (2003), which received international notice. Honestly, the movie sure has a thing for killing off the most interesting seeming people. On one side, you have a wacko Fishburne and his imaginary friend in a glorified 15-minute cameo, then on another side you have a guy with three fingers that can still use a sword that doesn't talk much, and another side you have Danny Trejo playing Danny Trejo. But sure, go ahead with Topher Grace as the totally innocent one among these weirdos. I think you can take three guesses who ends up persisting through to at least the climax, and the only curiosity is to see exactly how predictable it can get. That isn't to say that Brody is the wrong choice for what is needed, because the filmmakers wanted to home in reference points in from the first film without having a burly lead, which I can get behind. Technically speaking, the only memorable film involving the title creature is the first one, so that is a slight point. Of course, by trying to hone so many nods and references to the film from 23 years prior, the actual movie one finds is just incredibly average in comparison. 

To be fair, the movie has interest to generate, mostly with the fact that there are a few predators to look for that don't look like CGI abominations. Besides, I find they are more interesting than the ensemble cast turns out in the overall endgame, mostly because one wonders how much of a movie could be done with just the feuds between the predators as a whole. Ah, but one needs things to seem just a bit familiar to make sure you aren't watching something that dares to not sequel-bait itself. I don't even think Alien vs. Predator managed to bait itself as much as this one did, but then again it is amusing to think of one movie trying to ignore the other that really are more alike than they think (in terms of overall energy, not so much in plot). The actors are okay, but the script gives them the bare minimum to work with when it comes to anything besides cursory moments (and swearing, but that is probably expected and/or easy to see coming). As such, Brody is okay with the strong silent type that comes from a lead role intending to be a stark difference from the usual leads in the series, but really it just means that one is begging for someone with a bit more charisma than just wry disposition (i.e. dry), where grunts and gravel voices go about as far as a heavy weight put into a kiddie pool. Braga plays the peacemaker to these cardboard figures, and that is basically more of a shrug than a compliment from me. Grace is the odd duck for a movie that thinks it is going to really be clever with using him for the climax. This works about as well as you think: not very well. He isn't a bad actor, but it is such an obvious role. Goggins is kind of interesting, in that one could probably make more out of the fact that a guy playing a killer/rapist is the most interesting presence in a film like this. Taktarov and Ozawa are there to say a few words, but the latter at least gets to have an interesting sword fight. This was actually an early role for Ali in a decade that soon saw him turn into a star; naturally, this means he plays someone with the bare minimum personality slated to vanish (ditto for Trejo). Honestly,  Fishburne and his one note weirdo role is more interesting in the span of nearly 10 minutes than anything else in the film- and it isn't even that drawn out! The movie runs at 107 minutes, which is a fair pace despite my middling feelings on the matter. By the time the movie tries to bait a further adventure into the middling lives of gravel voiced elite killers, I was pretty checked out. I didn't hate what I saw, but honestly, there just isn't anything here that really stuck with me. It may be better than previous features with the Predator, but that isn't saying much. To me, this is barely better than if someone had just remade the original movie, but at that point one might just stay home. Green blood may look gooey, but that isn't enough to make a proper gore film. Well, the film was fairly successful upon release (making three times its budget, which was $40 million), and yet the next film in the series (The Predator, I am not joking) followed along different lines in its story, and it probably doesn't help that only two actors have ever been in more than one Predator film. Honestly, the only thing this will inspire is the argument that one could just stick with the original feature and not lose a beat. Having an admiration of the original film is a nice ambition, but it does not ultimately make for a nice effort.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Man of Steel.

Review #1669: Man of Steel.

Cast:

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

Review:

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

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

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Boyz n the Hood.

Review #1640: Boyz n the Hood.

Cast: 

Cuba Gooding Jr (Jason "Tre" Styles III), Ice Cube (Darren 'Doughboy' Baker), Laurence Fishburne (Jason 'Furious' Styles Jr), Morris Chestnut (Ricky Baker), Nia Long (Brandi), Angela Bassett (Reva Devereaux), Tyra Ferrell (Brenda Baker), Redge Green (Chris 'Little Chris'), Regina King (Shalika), Whitman Mayo (The Old Man), with Dezi Arnez Hines II, Baha Jackson, Donovan McCrary, Nicole Brown, and Kenneth A. Brown (age 10 of Tre, Doughboy, Ricky, Brandi & Chris) and Jessie Lawrence Ferguson (Officer Coffey) Written and Directed by John Singleton (#545 - Shaft (2000))

Review: 

"I was a smartass film student who thought he knew everything about movies. When it got green-lit is when I got scared."

If anybody should look up to a director that made their mark while they were young, John Singleton would be a good choice to start with. The Los Angeles native made nine feature films before his death at 51, but his first feature certainly rocked the doors for audiences in its time. He grew up inspired by films like Star Wars (1977) and the works of Steven Spielberg to go with study at USC School of Cinematic Arts (choosing filmic writing over computer science) - one influence that does come across is Stand By Me (1986), since both involve emotional coming of age stories (and one other moment near the credits, but see for yourself). By the time he graduated, he already was signed by the Creative Artists Agency, and Columbia Pictures eventually came calling. Singleton noted that one of the questions asked by the school was pitching one's own ideas for a film and this was one of the pitches, for which Singleton based it on his experiences growing up in L.A. (such as his experiences growing up with his mortgage broker father after his mother sent him to live with him at 11), complete with filming there. In the era of films with hits like Hollywood Shuffle (1987) and Do the Right Thing (1989), it would only seem sensical for Columbia Pictures to desire a hit of their own to ride the wave with audiences. He wanted to do the film his way, with nobody else in mind to direct (because of his perspective of you know, actually living in the area), noting the fact of someone directing a neighborhood film without being from the area with Colors (1988), which took the perspective of white police officers in South Los Angeles when dealing with gangs. Ultimately, while Singleton's subsequent works may not have reached the heights raised by his debut work, he managed to make important distinctions in cinema - he was the youngest director to ever be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Director and he was also the first African American director to be nominated for the award (he also received a nod for Best Original Screenplay). 

You bet this was a film beyond the headlines. Singleton wanted to make a film with authenticity that turns the coming-of-age story on its head with hard-hitting realism that proves to be quite sobering and relentlessly consistent - a year later, Los Angeles would go through a serious of riots only a year after the release of this film (after the acquittal of officers that had beaten Rodney King during an arrest that happened right before this film was released, and Singleton would do a documentary on television about the riots 25 years later). Released with the tagline "Increase the Peace", it shows the danger of cyclic violence without bashing one's head with anything too obvious or false in notes that also deals with other aspects of life within urban streets, such as the nature of masculinity and prejudice. Singleton would later refer to himself as the first filmmaker from the hip-hop generation, using the aesthetic to cover a culture that made it into all of his films. There would be a variety of films involving what one would call the hood film that would come out in the wake of this film (such as South Central (1992) or ones with comedy such as Friday (1995), which Singleton encouraged Cube to write), but there is still something powerful about this feature that three decades cannot diminish. Wrapped in all this is a tremendously talented cast, one that makes these characters come alive with energy that makes a worthy composition about life in the neighborhood come across in all of its layers - it works as a drama, but there are moments too with these folks that makes one crack a smile to go with the gasps.  The film was the first major role for Gooding Jr (who believe it or not actually started in breakdancing before moving focus to acting) alongside Long and Bassett, and it was also the debut role for Cube (known for his rapping with N.W.A. before moving into solo performing) and Chestnut (who naturally came into acting through TV fare like Freddy's Nightmares). The unifying force for 112 minutes in terms of its time spent with the youth and growing teenage folks turns to Fishburne, who provides the best performance among everyone with crisp influence, one that is conscious in his confidence that resonates deeply from the first few moments on screen; there are a variety of highlights one could list, such as a scene in Compton and neighborhoods being taken advantage of, but the scene with a silent Gooding Jr and Fishburne, staring at the choices made and not made for the climax that hits just as hard. In that sense, Gooding Jr makes a quality lead to follow along with, curious in his surroundings with responsibility with perseverance alongside tension that doesn't get swept away. Cube carries his part well, brash but always on the moment for what needs to occur with perspective and timing. Chestnut fills well with potential, smooth in his balance of family and life beyond the field that makes a worthy rapport with Gooding Jr count until that key moment near its end, which results in an impactful sequence for shock without being exploitative. Long and Bassett each fill their time spent with Gooding Jr in key necessities that spark maturity and curiosity, while Green, Gobert, and Sykes fill the edges with useful timing, although Ferguson will likely stick with you in his own way with bitterness with just two scenes as the only cop figure in the film. As a whole, the film establishes itself quite quickly in an engaging and sobering atmosphere that keeps itself in perspective with regard to youth and responsibility that muses on issues that still seem prevalent today with violence that makes for a usefully entertaining feature. For a debut, it is a tremendous one, and for its era it is an enduring one for Singleton and the stars and moments that came from it.

Next Time: 1992 seems like an interesting year to do some films with, so we will start with the first one up in release with a first-time director in Juice.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Color Purple.

Review #1478: The Color Purple.

Cast:
Danny Glover (Albert "Mister" Johnson), Whoopi Goldberg (Celie), Oprah Winfrey (Sofia), Margaret Avery (Shug Avery, Táta Vega as singing voice), Akosua Busia (Nettie Harris), Adolph Caesar (Old Mister Johnson), Willard E. Pugh (Harpo Johnson), Rae Dawn Chong (Squeak), Laurence Fishburne (Swain), and Carl Anderson (Reverend Samuel) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, and #1305 - Catch Me If You Can)

Review:
"Storytelling is the most important aspect of anything I've ever done. It's how the story is told. That's all I've focused on. If something doesn't tell a story or if it's confusing, I either don't shoot it or I cut it out."
"The way I played Celie was to stand back from her. There's a theory that an actor should identify with the character. Well, I loved her, but I didn't identify with her. Celie is so far away from me, it was easy to allow her pain to be there, because her life has so little to do with mine.”

Who better to do a tender and touching in humanity than Steven Spielberg? He grew into a filmmaker through shorts as a teenager with an 8mm camera. His first film that he made released to any sort of cinema was Firelight (1964), a $500 film released in his local cinema made at the age of 17 (made with the help of his family and high school students). His short subject Amblin' (1968) impressed numerous people and led to a deal at Universal in their television department, with the most notable contribution being the second segment of the 1969 Night Gallery pilot "Eyes", and he spent four years doing direction in television, with his theatrical debut being a expanded version of his TV film Duel (1971). Over the course of the next couple of years, Spielberg would generate success in captivating entertainment such as Jaws (1975, often cited as the first blockbuster), Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977, his first sci-fi feature that he also wrote), and Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981, likely one of the greatest adventure films). The two people who helped bring the film to attention and convince Spielberg to do the film was Kathleen Kennedy (who brought the book to his attention) and composer legend Quincy Jones, who helped produced the film with Spielberg, Kennedy, and Frank Marshall while also doing the music composition (however, a dispute came about with certain music aspects that led to eleven musicians being listed as score contributors when it came to a nomination for its score at the Academy Awards). The film was adapted to the screen by Menno Meyjes from the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel of the same name that had been written by Alice Walker in 1982 (I remember Walker from her short story "Everyday Use", which I read in college).

It is a film of resilience and humanity through and through a story that spans several years that features numerous distinct characters that we find quite a bit to resonate with, even with how tragic it might get, a film involving discussion upon race, gender, and class that eventually leads to hope. It makes the most of its 153 minutes in capturing a tale of adversity with a worthy cast. The one who deserves the most credit for making the film come alive on screen is Goldberg, making her second film appearance after having been noticed by Spielberg because of her one-woman Broadway show (1984-85), and she had written a letter to Walker upon reading the novel about appearing in a film version. It is evident from the very first scene she appears on screen that she is going to deliver a touching performance. There is something about her that strikes at our soul with how true the performance seems in running the gamut of developing inner strength with a fully-fledged performance of conviction. Glover, a city administrator-turned-actor in an early prominent role before appearing in further celebrated films, proves just as tremendous on the other side of the coin, one with stark presence of oppression and fear that manages to not escalate into full caricature. News anchor-turned talk show host Winfrey proves just as worthy in striking power, which also applies to the free-spirited and clever Avery in generating riveting moments. Others to appreciate include the distinct Caesar and an interesting Pugh.

It was a film that attracted controversy because of percieved stereotypes against African Americans (which can come from people who either can't or won't face reality when it comes to perceived slights without reading the film further). There were others who thought that the relationship between Shug and Celie was not given enough emphasis, to which the easiest statement to make to that is this: It was 1985, and one can only do so much in a PG-13 film, and it isn't like the two don't kiss or anything (heaven forbid someone try to do subtlely without needing to go explicit). We are talking about a film (and book) that involves pedophilia, incest, and spousal violence, for God's sake - we may not wish to ever have to deal with these problems, but they exist for all races that we as a society have to still confront, with film being an interesting medium to show these problems in a meaningful way. In that sense, I believe the film does fine with making an interesting story about race and gender without falling prey to too much sentimentalism or heavy-handedness. It never feels too long for its own good, instead moving with poetic pace that earns its many moments, with the climatic reunion being especially well done in emotion.

Walker, when asked about the film, generally has stated that while it may not follow her vision, it does have "its own gift", while noting the differences in translation from novel to book, such as the reduced elements of the lesbian relationship of Celie and Shug or with its tinkering of certain elements of its ending. Spielberg himself noted the fact that he was "shy" about depicting some of the aspects of the Shug-Celie relationship without alienating audiences, saying that he may have been the wrong director to do their encounters. I suppose one could also note that the novel was also turned into a musical two decades later, having two runs on Broadway. For what it is worth, while it is not a perfect film, it generally reaches the heights it sets out to do with a stark tale of hope within a period drama that has a captivating cast alongside music and directing that make the grandest of ventures worth seeking out as a fascinating drama that holds its heart strong in what matters most: hope of the human spirit.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Apocalypse Now.

Review #1460: Apocalypse Now.

Cast: 
Marlon Brando (Colonel Walter E. Kurtz), Martin Sheen (Captain Benjamin L. Willard), Robert Duvall (Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore), Frederic Forrest (Jay 'Chef' Hicks), Sam Bottoms (Lance B. Johnson), Laurence Fishburne (Tyrone 'Clean' Miller), Albert Hall (Chief Phillips), Harrison Ford (Colonel Lucas), Dennis Hopper (Photojournalist), G.D. Spradlin (General R. Corman), Jerry Ziesmer (Jerry, Civilian), and Scott Glenn (Lieutenant Richard M. Colby) Directed by Francis Ford Coppola (#592 - Dementia 13 and #1139 - Supernova)

Review: 
"We were in the jungle, there were too many of us, we had access to too much money, too much equipment, and little by little we went insane"

The 1970s were a tremendous decade for Francis Ford Coppola, so it only makes sense to cover the last film of that era, one characterized by the highs and lows of the "New Hollywood" movement.
He had a hand in six films for the decade: Patton (1970, co-wrote the screenplay), The Godfather (1972, director and co-writer), The Conversation (1974, as writer, producer, and director), The Great Gatsby (1974, screenplay), and The Godfather Part II (1974, co-writer, director, producer), and this film. Coppola was born in Detroit but raised in Queens, New York as the son of music composer Carmine Coppola (who would work with his son on a couple of his films). He graduated from both Hofstra University and the UCLA Film School (the former in theater arts and the latter in film), with one notable influence on Coppola being Dorothy Arzner, a former film director who was on the staff at the time. Coppola's career in film started in 1962 with three films: The Bellboy and the Playgirls, Tonight for Sure, and Battle Beyond the Sun (the first and latter were English edits), with his next feature being the cult classic Dementia 13 (1963). He spent the next few years doing a few scripts and further directorial efforts (such as the hit You're a Big Boy Now) before the aforementioned luck in the 1970s, where he won a total of five Academy Awards on fourteen nominations.

This was inspired by Joseph Conrad's novella Heart of Darkness, written in 1899 under the inspiration of his travels on a river steamer sailing up the Congo River (both focus on a character named Kurtz). The screenplay was written by John Milius and Coppola, with narration by Michael Herr (a war correspondent most known for his book Dispatches that detailed his experiences in Vietnam). The initial director in mind to do the film was George Lucas. He worked for years with Milius to develop the project while busy with other scripts, and he had wanted to do it after THX 1138 (1971) with the intent to shoot in both California and South Vietnam on a modest budget of $2 million with 16mm cameras and real soldiers, although this did not come to pass. Coppola was eventually drawn to the script and initially aimed to produce the film before eventually pressing on to do it himself, which he had described as a "comedy and a terrifying psychological horror story". It would take years to ultimately plan and shoot the film, since it was originally set to be a four month shoot in the Philippines for release in 1977. There were of course a few obstacles that made this impossible. The original choice for the Willard character was Harvey Keitel (since others like Steve McQueen did not want to leave America for a significant amount of time), but Coppola soon found that Keitel was not quite right for the role, which led to Sheen being brought in. Describing the amount of production quirks almost sounds like a routine of dark humor. A typhoon wrecked a majority of the sets not long after production started. Sheen had a heart attack that took him off filming for a month (with his brother Joe filling in as a double and voice over at times). Brando showed up to the set severely overweight and hadn't read the script or the book. The film premiered in May 1979 at the Cannes Film Festival while not fully finished at three hours (where Coppola famously stated that his film was not about Vietnam but rather was Vietnam). Nowadays there are multiple editions to possibly view, such as the original 153 minute version, Apocalypse Now Redux (2001, which re-inserted deleted footage that runs at 196 minutes), and Apocalypse Now Final Cut (2017, which was trimmed to 183 minutes).

For a film that runs at a significant length and with such production quirks, it is amazing how well the film works as a look upon the dark parts of a man's soul when it comes to the horrors of war with such tenacity and depth to make for one of the most seminal films of its era and for epic war films as a whole. It is an experience like no other in ways that other films could only dream to do in terms of haunting timelessness, because it is something that can linger in our mind now more than ever. For a man who had his quarrels with Coppola and takes his time to show up in full detail, Brando generates a tremendous performance of stature, a poet warrior's voice from the dark that is intently fascinating to view in those moments for the clear-minded-but-darkened-soul that doesn't have to say much (Coppola edited down a rambling monologue by Brando to only a few minutes) to generate awe. Sheen follows along with great ambiguity, a passive presence that we have absolutely no trouble in following along with in a path of weariness as a changed man of war, right from the very first scene where he punches a mirror with his bare hand. Duvall makes for quite a fanatical presence in such a quick amount of time, a man that we can smell the napalm with in clear detail. The others in the cast prove worthy to travel along with, including a young Fishburne and a dazed Bottoms to go with the eccentrically on-point Hopper and bit highlights for Spradlin and Ziesmer. This is not a film that tests one's patience as much as it is one that probes into your patience, filled with a tremendous look by Vittorio Storaro in cinematography that makes a devastating classic worth checking out as a portrait of what can drive a man to certain actions in war under the guise of morality that leaves its audience fully stunned and ultimately satisfied for having watched it.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Matrix.

Review #1272: The Matrix.

Cast: 
Keanu Reeves (Thomas A. Anderson / Neo), Laurence Fishburne (Morpheus), Carrie-Anne Moss (Trinity), Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith), Joe Pantoliano (Cypher), Marcus Chong (Tank), Anthony Ray Parker (Dozer), Julian Arahanga (Apoc), Matt Doran (Mouse), Gloria Foster (The Oracle), and Belinda McClory (Switch) Directed by The Wachowskis.

Review: 
One wonders how a film likes this has endured for two decades. The answers may differ slightly from person to person, but it is likely the entertainment value alongside a fairly developed philosophical core that stays on a steady path for most of its 136 minute run-time. How many directors have their main cast read works such as "Simulacra and Simulation" by Jean Baudrillard? One can't fault the Wachowskis for being ambitious with their story ideas, but credit also must go to others such as Yuen Woo-ping for coordinating the fight scenes or the visual effects headlined by John Gaeta (most notably with the bullet time parts). It has plenty of style and just enough substance to not collapse under its own weight, which would've happened under lesser hands or interference over the intended vision of a sci-fi action film that has its own voice involving a dystopia. Looking at the rooftop sequence for the beginning is certainly interesting, one for the way it grabs the viewer but also because the scene is one that uses sets from Dark City (1998) - bad movies sometimes makes you want to pick other movies instead, but sometimes good ones help inspire interest for additional ones too, I suppose. Maybe it isn't as great as something like Blade Runner (1982) or The Terminator (1984), but it belongs up there as something worthy to be watched alongside those kind of films without needing to defend it so heavily, where expectations for a first time viewer can be moderately high without being obnoxious.

The characters don't seem as developed as they likely should be (name one defining characteristic of the supporting cast-mates), but at least the actors don't squander their time by looking completely vacant. One can barely even see the seeds of a romance between Reeves and Moss (maybe they just bond over blank stares over "lunch" or something). For all that can be made fun of the film with its philosophy at times, at least one can give credit to Fishburne for keeping to his convictions and selling this whole-handily. Reeves generally goes through the motions with an oddball plot, but at least he seems ready to engage with the film without being too dull or too quippy with what is meant to be an interesting journey. The what-ifs for this film certainly are interesting - Will Smith was a potential choice for Neo before he turned it down (for Wild Wild West, but also because he didn't feel he was mature enough for it), but one noted choice for Morpheus was Val Kilmer. Moss does fine with handling herself when it comes to the action (such as the noted beginning, although the second half doesn't leave her too much to go with, for better or worse. Weaving is pretty involving as the non-generic AI program adversary, seeming like a mirror to Reeves that works out pretty well. Pantoliano does pretty good with a slick role that always proves watchable when needed. The film sure knows when to have an action sequence, or show off an interesting effect or two, and while it may take over the film for its climax to where the philosophy it taking a break, at least things do not end up crashing down by the time it reaches its endgame. One retains interest in seeing more from this interesting world and what can happen next, which did happen with two sequels released four years later. It may prove to be an experience for the viewer in more ways than one if it reaches its high points, but even when it seems like it wants to collapse, there is enough conviction and craftsmanship to make the whole thing worth it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum.

Review #1222: John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum.

Cast: 
Keanu Reeves (John Wick), Ian McShane (Winston), Mark Dacascos (Zero), Laurence Fishburne (The Bowery King), Asia Kate Dillon (Adjudicator of the High Table), Halle Berry (Sofia), Lance Reddick (Charon), Anjelica Huston (The Director), Saïd Taghmaoui (The Elder), and Jerome Flynn (Berrada) Directed by Chad Stahelski (#905 - John Wick and #906 - John Wick: Chapter 2)

Review: 
It goes without saying that these have proved to be entertaining movies to sit through. They have plenty of action to go around, along with good pacing and a fairly well-thought-out story that makes these more than the mindless entertainment pieces that they might have been under lesser hands. It certainly seems like Reeves is having a great time with this role, having plenty of discipline when dealing with a glut of action sequences and a fair bit of plot without seeming lost in the background. This remains true here, with no real sense of stopping the ride of entertainment in sight (after all, a sequel was announced not long after this film's release), and I certainly can't wait to see where they want to go from here. Stahelski returns to direct, with screenwriter and story writer Derek Kolstad now being joined by Shay Hatten, Chris Collins and Marc Abrams in the former department, and there is certainly a good degree of consistency from one feature to the next as it continues to do a bit of storytelling beneath just people trying to take down Wick over and over again, remaining energetic with its resemblance to hard-boiled film noir and western types without becoming a parody of them. Sure, the action is the key highlight, but the fact that it doesn't feel overbearing with a run-time of 131 minutes is the underlying part of what makes for a winning experience. When the focus isn't so much on its main character (or more specifically, when it wants to take a breather), at least there is some sort of interesting nature to this world of assassins without blathering on too much. Reeves plays the role with subtle relish as ever, having no trouble at all. Dacascos shines finely in the way an adversary should, fairly agile and imteresting to view when faced with a climax battle. Fishburne goes along with the fun for his moments once again. McShane comes off fairly interesting for his moments on screen, amusing and watchable.  Dillon does fine as a newcomer to the series; the film doesn't really have a big enemy at the end, but at least Dillon manages to play an adversary (a bureaucrat of penance, egads) with smarmy effectiveness that will I surely see again soon. Berry is fine for her time on screen, showing some agility even when not having too much time on screen for the first half. On the whole, the film has plenty of movement and energy to make for a quality thrill ride that keeps up mostly with the quality of the first two without losing the spirit of what makes a film with a force like its title character so fun to be watching. They make for good shows of weapon work, editing and look, but most importantly good shows of people to look around with every now and then.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Mission: Impossible III.

Review #1109: Mission: Impossible III.

Cast: 
Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Owen Davian), Ving Rhames (Luther Stickell), Billy Crudup (John Musgrave), Michelle Monaghan (Julia Meade), Jonathan Rhys Meyers (Declan Gormley), Keri Russell (Lindsey Farris), Maggie Q (Zhen Lei), Simon Pegg (Benji Dunn), Eddie Marsan (Brownway), and Laurence Fishburne (Theodore Brassel) Directed by J. J. Abrams (#009 - Star Trek, #150 - Super 8, #665 - Star Trek Into Darkness, and #769 - Star Wars: The Force Awakens)

Review: 
It is interesting to look back at the first three Mission: Impossible films and look at how each stand out clearly from the previous one despite being popcorn spy flicks. It's also interesting to see the gap between these films, in that this one was released six years after the previous film (with this year's release of the new film being the sixth in the franchise that has spanned 22 years). I try to not make it a habit to compare a film sequel to the one before it every single time, but it is pretty obvious that this one is an improvement in nearly every single way from the earlier one, and it manages to improve in aspects from the first installment. Perhaps it is the infusion of different writers in Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci & J. J. Abrams, with the former two previously being responsible for their work on The Island (2005), while Abrams had created television shows such as Felicity, Lost, but most importantly Alias, which Cruise had watched episodes of prior to offering the directorial job to Abrams. The opening scene certainly helps spark interest with the tension that it inspires from Cruise and Hoffman, that's for sure. The parts with Cruise and Monaghan manage to come off well together, having a bit of refreshing nature to them that is different to the conventional elements in its spy nature without becoming a cloying detriment nor becoming something overtly cliche. As one would expect, it is nice to see Cruise again in the role, with a clear confidence and clear action look that you would expect from before while also seeming fresh and welcome. Hoffman proves to be a serviceable adversary for the moments that require it, with his motivation being at least somewhat clear to breeze through. The group of Rhames-Rhys Meyers-Maggie Q are fairly useful to watch paired up with Cruise in the plot, being capable in any scene (action or small moments of interaction) for comfort. Monaghan does fine for the part written. Crudup plays his role quietly, but it serves the job alright. Russell and Pegg each don't have much time, but they make fair impressions ultimately. Fishburne rounds out the cast with a fairly watchable chief role that cuts the corners you would expect. While the film may not have the highest of stakes to it, it never gets bogged down by complicating its plot or pretending to be anything that it isn't. At 125 minutes, the film runs itself at a fine pace with its action and plot by making sure that neither gets lost too far in its own excitement, being a fair piece of entertainment.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Ant-Man and the Wasp.

Review #1108: Ant-Man and the Wasp.

Cast: 
Paul Rudd (Scott Lang / Ant-Man), Evangeline Lilly (Hope van Dyne / Wasp), Michael Peña (Luis), Walton Goggins (Sonny Burch), Hannah John-Kamen (Ava Starr / Ghost), Michelle Pfeiffer (Janet van Dyne), Laurence Fishburne (Bill Foster), Michael Douglas (Hank Pym), Bobby Cannavale (Jim Paxton), Judy Greer (Maggie), Tip "T.I." Harris (Dave), David Dastmalchian (Kurt), Abby Ryder Fortson (Cassie), and Randall Park (Jimmy Woo) Directed by Peyton Reed (#728 - Ant-Man and #789 - The Break-Up)

Review: 
Three years ago, Ant-Man came onto the screen with a bit of production struggle but also a dynamic cast, with the final result being something that I described as one that "has fun with itself and its premise", which seems easy to still say today. With the sequel, the fear of staleness in terms of its charm and action is avoided, with a good majority of the credit being attributable to the cast, particularly Rudd and Lilly. Rudd (who is listed as one of the five co-writers of the film)does a fine job once again, having a degree of humility and amusement that is always watchable on-screen, whether when dealing with aspects of family or the main plot as a whole, and his moments with Forston are pretty neat. Lilly does fine with making her character an engaging one to see through that brims with confidence and energy (signified during her action sequences) that balances well with Rudd. If you enjoyed the trio of Peña-Canavale-T.I from the previous film, you will get a few laughs from them, particularly from Peña, and they help keep the flow of the movie go fine at times, even if they aren't as the forefront of the movie like with before. Goggins is fine, even if his adversary role is a bit standard for some tastes. John-Kamen does fine with her adversary role in showing a degree of menace but also a degree of vulnerability, and it is refreshing in some way to have one of these Marvel movies to not have a villain and their arc play out in the routine way like other films, and she is just as interesting to watch as the villain (and his arc) from the earlier one, with Fishburne being an acceptable accomplice in her sequences. Her sequences involving her power and the action scenes are also fairly well-done. Douglas is also interesting to see again, and Pfeiffer proves refreshing in her brief time on screen. The effects are to the standard that you would likely expect from these comic book films, with the highlight being the Quantum Realm sequences, and the parts involving size also prove acceptable. The plot moves itself at a fine pace, juggling itself handily without becoming too routine or having the stakes present themselves to be too low (or improbably high). It's a riveting experience that never wears out its welcome even at 118 minutes. On the whole, this is a fairly nice crowd-pleaser kind of film that improves itself from the original in small but crucial ways that will satisfy audiences looking for some neat fun.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

John Wick: Chapter 2.

Review #906: John Wick: Chapter 2.

Cast:
Keanu Reeves (John Wick), Common (Cassian), Laurence Fishburne (The Bowery King), Riccardo Scamarcio (Santino D’Antonio), Ruby Rose (Ares), John Leguizamo (Aurelio), Ian McShane (Winston), Bridget Moynahan (Helen Wick), Lance Reddick (Charon), and Thomas Sadoski (Jimmy) Directed by Chad Stahelski (#905 - John Wick)

Review:
For #32 in the Theater Saga (and the first film reviewed of a movie released in 2017), it only makes sense to the sequel to John Wick...considering I just did the first one four days ago. I had planned to do this ever since this film had come out last week, and I'm happy to say it worked out well. While this sequel may not be as gripping with emotional depth as the first film, this film certainly has enough top-notch action and fine work by the cast to make for an exceptional sequel. The film doesn't fall to the trap of trying to emulate the previous film nor try to settle itself in a familiar hole. Reeves does a fine job once again, being a capable action hero in part because he once again manages to make Wick a compelling character (who isn't merely a killing machine) again. Common and Fishburne show up around the second half of the film, but they both are entertaining in how professional they are, with the former having two great action scenes with Reeves and the latter being enjoyable to watch interact with Reeves, with pigeons included. Scamarcio is a decent villain in part due to being realistic while being capable in action scenes. Rose is also a pretty good standout, a wordless but efficient performance with good timing for her action scenes. The rest of the cast is also pretty good when the movie needs them (such as with McShane), much like how the action shines when required. It's hard to say what is the best part, but the scenes in the subway and the final fight in the art museum are pretty good highlights, with a good deal of brightness and high paced fun. Even within the blood is a bit of lightheartedness, and it's always nice to see that pitbull dog (when you own a dog, you love seeing dogs on screen a bit more) on screen. The action and story work well with each other to make for an entertaining sequel that will surely open the door for another installment of Wick that I wholeheartedly approve of.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Review #788: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Cast
Ben Affleck (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Henry Cavill (Superman / Clark Kent), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), Jesse Eisenberg (Lex Luthor), Diane Lane (Martha Kent), Laurence Fishburne (Perry White), Jeremy Irons (Alfred Pennyworth), Holly Hunter (Senator Finch), Gal Gadot (Diana Prince / Wonder Woman), Scoot McNairy (Wallace Keefe), Tao Okamoto (Mercy Graves), Ray Fisher (Victor Stone / Cyborg), Jason Momoa (Arthur Curry / Aquaman), and Ezra Miller (Barry Allen / The Flash) Directed by Zack Snyder.

Review
The idea of a movie with Batman and Superman facing off against each other is not a new concept (in fact, a script had been written back in 2002, though naturally that idea did not come to fruition), but in theory the concept shouldn't work, considering that Superman is....well, Superman. But of course this is not a movie about a face-off, it's a movie that attempts to establish other DC superheroes (such as Wonder Woman, Cyborg, Aquaman, the Flash) which I do applaud in the sense that the DC movie universe has had very little success with franchises not named Batman or Superman, with their biggest problem being that it took them this long to even put these characters to screen. But does it make sense to include numerous heroes in the same movie?

The answer to all the questions (including the unasked one of if it is actually any good) is a no. And yet, it works for April Fools Day because of the fact that I was laughing at it. It was the only way that I kept myself sane for a movie that has the nerve to be 151 minutes long and manage to feel even longer (apparently there is even a 3 hour edition, because I guess home media releases will really need it). When I said "establish" other superheroes, I did not mean a conventional way of say, having the heroes we know (like Batman and Superman) encounter them (save for Wonder Woman, who is in the movie for about 20-25 minutes)...but instead have them introduced to us via video files. The fact that the movie really doesn't do a great job in actually giving us a glimpse into heroes not named Superman and Batman is troubling, but not exactly the biggest sin in this movie.

The movie starts out with (spoiler alert for anyone who's never heard of Batman's origins - which would be no one) the death of Bruce Wayne's parents (with some inspiration taken from The Dark Knight Returns, which I had read earlier in the week), but honestly there's no point to the scene because that (plus the scene with the bats) is completely unnecessary. The acting in the movie ranges from passable to deserving of mocking. Affleck is pretty decent, and it is nice to see an older Batman for once (unnecessary opening scene non-withstanding), but not even he can save a movie that can't keep focus. The plot feels very ham-fisted together, with events happening and going without any real definition. The dream sequences are especially jarring, mainly because they don't really gel well, only seeming to make the movie feel even longer. Saying the words "Jesse Eisenberg playing Lex Luthor" does seem a bit ridiculous, and his performance actually makes me wish I was watching Robert Vaughn in Superman III. He never seems evil, coming off more as a Willy Wonka reject, and he just gets on your nerves after a while.

Batman and Superman do indeed fight...for maybe 10-15 minutes. Naturally, it's a one sided fight (that is predictable if one saw the trailers beforehand), and while I will admit that it is a decent fight...it ends in the most idiotic of ways. It isn't a spoiler to mention that both of the heroes' mothers have the same first name of Martha. Yes, that is actually the word that essentially stops their conflict. Not an epiphany, not a third party hero, a coincidence that someone probably figured out when reading Wikipedia articles on Batman and Superman. It's weird how one can make a movie that feels so detached from reality (compared to other, better comic book movies); even scenes where cities are being totaled don't really evoke any feelings. The final fight in the movie (with Doomsday, who also was spoiled in the trailer, and manages to look really ridiculous) is a jumbled mess, but at least Wonder Woman is finally given something to do, like fight, for one thing.

The movie feels so bloated and so untrained that it made me laugh (albeit in a sad way); the fact that I saw it in a half empty theater is also a bit sad, but the fact that Marvel not only had a head start on making a movie universe, they also seemed to be the only one who can properly set a timetable on what to do. Even though the movie is bound to be a moneymaker, not even money can hide the sad fact that this movie just does not work. I understand if people like the movie (grim-dark is admittedly entertaining, and I did like reading The Dark Knight Returns), but for me the movie was only really enjoyable when I laughed to myself about it.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors.

Review #649: A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors.

Cast
Heather Langenkamp (Dr. Nancy Thompson), Patricia Arquette (Kristen Parker), Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger), Craig Wasson (Dr. Neil Gordon), Ken Sagoes (Roland Kincaid), Jennifer Rubin (Taryn White), Bradley Gregg (Phillip Anderson), Ira Heiden (Will Stanton), Laurence Fishburne (Max Daniels), John Saxon (Donald Thompson), Rodney Eastman (Joey Crusel), and Penelope Sudrow (Jennifer Caulfield) Directed by Chuck Russell (#157 - The Mask)

Review
I described the second movie (Freddy's Revenge) as "a mismatch of random ideas that spring into a less than mediocre horror film." With that in mind, the third film can't be as bad because Langenkamp returns to the series, and she does a pretty good job once again, she doesn't get on your nerves (like the doctors in this movie), and she's not annoying, like some of the characters, such as the doctors (save for Wasson and Fishburne), who just keep believing that the dreams aren't killing them, despite two of them dying, because apparently none of the doctors have ever heard of Freddy Krueger. At least the actors are pretty good, Arquette is a pretty decent co-lead, though for me one of my favorite actors that return is John Saxon. He doesn't get too much screen time, but he is awesome to watch, for me it's his expressions and how he reacts to all of this, Saxon is just so cool to watch. The effects are pretty good, although for some reason my favorite scene is when Dick Cavett (in the strangest cameo for a horror movie I've seen in a while) suddenly turns into Kreuger while interviewing Zsa Zsa Gabor (2nd strangest cameo), which segues into one of the kids' deaths, which is a cool scene as well. The fact that Wes Craven returns to help write the screenplay is also a big help, and Russell does a pretty good job directing, I like how Kreuger is given something new to do, and Englund excels at that. The movie is not near the first's level of scares, but it's better than the second film and it's entertaining enough for October, or as I call it, Spooktober. Check it out, and have some fun-I mean fright.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer.

Review #013: Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer.

Cast
Ioan Gruffudd (Dr. Reed Richards/Mr. Fantastic), Jessica Alba (Susan Storm/Invisible Woman), Chris Evans (Johnny Storm/Human Torch), Michael Chiklis (Ben Grimm/The Thing), Doug Jones (Norin Radd/Silver Surfer), Laurence Fishburne (Voice of Norin Radd/Silver Surfer), Julian McMahon (Victor von Doom/Doctor Doom), Kerry Washington (Alicia Masters), and Beau Garrett (Captain Frankie Raye) Directed by Tim Story.

Review
Speaking of trying and flailing around...The film is better then the first one as the actors at least try to be better with a story that tries to be unlike the first, which was a little too easy, though the movie doesn't quite exceed the level of acceptable excitement that a movie needs. The acting is decent, but it still really doesn't make an impression on you, seeming more like sock puppets trying to yell you to wake up in muffled voices, though once again Chiklis is decent. At least the Silver Surfer is entertaining. It's a little better then the first one, but it seems rushed (how so if its short I wonder) at 91 minutes, with the action happening quickly. Unsurprisingly, Doctor Doom is back, and he...still can't be a menacing villain. But it's still an okay film, better then the first, but if you expected way better (which I didn't), you might be disappointed. The film makes a few marks, but not enough.

With any luck (which looks dim), the new Fantastic Four will be better than this.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.