Independence Day: Resurgence.

Review #2556: Independence Day: Resurgence.

Cast: 

Liam Hemsworth (Jake Morrison), Jeff Goldblum (David Levinson), Bill Pullman (President Thomas J. Whitmore), Maika Monroe (Patricia Whitmore), Jessie T. Usher (Dylan Hiller), Travis Tope (Charlie Miller), William Fichtner (General Joshua T. Adams), Charlotte Gainsbourg (Dr. Catherine Marceaux), Judd Hirsch (Julius Levinson), Brent Spiner (Dr. Brackish Okun), Sela Ward (President Elizabeth Lanford), Angelababy (Rain Lao), with Joey King (Sam Blackwell), Vivica A. Fox (Dr. Jasmine Dubrow-Hiller), Robert Loggia (General William Grey), Nicolas Wright (Floyd Rosenberg), DeObia Oparei (Dikembe Umbutu), and Chin Han (Jiang Lao)

Directed by Roland Emmerich (#193 - Independence Day, #413 - The Patriot, #2161 - Godzilla [1998])

Review: 

Hey, remember Independence Day? Apparently, the impetus for the original film was a question posed to Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin when they were promoting Stargate (1994) about believing in aliens building the pyramids that saw them ask, well, what if there were "14-mile-wide spaceships covering the sky?" Sure, Mars Attacks! (1996) loomed on the calendar, but Emmerich and Devlin aimed to make their movie anyway, which saw them basically write (in three weeks) a disaster movie akin to the 70s disaster flicks such as The Towering Inferno (1974) and Meteor (1979). When it came out in July 1996 to plenty of hype and fanfare, it actually was the highest-grossing film of that year (beating out poor Mars Attacks!. which sucks because that movie was probably better in actual quality). Cool, now do you remember Independence Day: Resurgence? As early as 2001, Emmerich and Devlin thought about doing a sequel, but they had curtailed those plans the first time in 2004 because they couldn't figure out the story. By 2011, there were rumblings again about doing not one, but two sequels. Through re-writes and various drafts (mainly because of the omission of one certain actor before filming), four people were credited with the story: Emmerich, Devlin, James A. Woods, and Nicolas Wright, while James Vanderbilt was credited along with the four for the screenplay. Made on a budget of $165 million and released in June 2016, the movie was not a major hit for anyone involved, with Emmerich and Devlin both stating that there was little chance of doing a third film.

Is it a quality defense when the director says he should've stopped making the movie? As early as 2019, three years after the release of Resurgence, Emmerich stated, yes, he "should have just said no" once Will Smith wasn't going to be in the film, which happened as a result of scheduling and salary demands. It is almost amazing to have five total writers and have little to nothing come out of the characters to actually root for beyond "the bare minimum". As I remember, the characters in the original were basically cardboard, but you could at least say there was a sense of interest in seeing what was under the curtain for a surprise (which in this case was, are you shocked, alien stuff in "Area 51" and a computer virus to start the process of telling the aliens to permanently go to sleep). Corny as the movie was, you at least felt there was some semblance of dignity in depicting folks all coming together (on the 4th of July you see) and being ready to kick ass (okay, maybe non-Americans didn't go ra-ra for it, but well, "Murica, baby!"). Twenty years later, with the presentation of "world peace" and a space defense program with alien technology....there is just a weird feeling that one is watching a film with nowhere to actually go. You see the designs of the (reverse-engineered) tech and a spiffier Washington and you wonder if they really thought people would be fine looking at something that reminded them of a video game cutscene. The aliens still look at forgettable as ever, and the Sphere (the "virtual intelligence") reminds me of someone trying to make a smaller version of Gort from The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951). 

The attempt at mixing in people from the original (ranging from Goldblum/Pullman/Hirsch/Spiner to basically cameos from Fox and Loggia*) with a new generation (Hemsworth, Monroe, Usher, and to a lesser extent, Topo and Angelababy) that each have had their lives shaped by one horrific week all leads to the least compelling and least interesting drama imaginable. This film feels ten years too late to actually say anything of note (once you destroy the White House, what is there left to move around for the sequel), so it instead just aims to be paid half-attention to by people on their phones. I probably care less for Goldblum than I did in the last film, and that's saying something for what was basically a wannabee Dr. Ian Malcolm in the first place, even with the addition of Gainsbourg (who ...is given nothing to do). Hemsworth and Usher might actually be competing for who achieves less with less: what the hell was Smith going to do in this film that changed the script so much to basically focus on the youth (meanwhile, Monroe, cast to replace Mae Whitman from the original, is given, wait for it, nothing to do). I can't tell who has the more unceremonious exit: Fox, who can't get off a falling building in time (after getting, what, 4 lines?) or Ward (as Madame President) goes the way of the dodo in a murky-looking scene. Probably the only people who look like they like having some work is Pullman or Spiner, and that sure says something when the latter has a scene where they gallivant around a bit in a barely contained hospital gown*. You get a few chuckles beneath basically a boring movie. For a movie that is two hours long (25 minutes shorter than the original, in one of the stranger cases when a sequel is shorter), it always seems to be two steps behind in actually going anywhere: it dangles an idea that some African war lord spent ten years fighting aliens in hand-to-hand combat, but his son is given the job of being the straight man to a middling subplot about a nerd wanting to get into combat. Hive minds and "Harvesters" and drilling to the Earth's core (with a timer) while buildings get thrown around just seems like a movie that either was postmarked "2006" or simply didn't have enthusiasm to actually make it worth looking further.  It just reeks of trying to make a franchise without actually focusing on spectacle and believing they had enough in the tank to bait people into hearing more, complete with an ending that sequel baits with probably the least amount of conviction possible. If the original film was "dumb fun" that the viewer either enjoyed or disliked with the clear flaws (dialogue, design, general Emmerich weaknesses), the sequel film manages the honor of just being dumb with middling return value for all involved. 

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Happy 4th...

*Loggia died on December 4, 2015, six months before the film was released. At least he was cool in the first film.

*Okay, so Spiner's character is apparently gay and spends most of the action with his partner, who I guess loved giving out flowers in the hospital ward for years. Honestly, I forgot if they were partners before 1996 or if this guy just fell for a dude in a coma that had long hair.

The Hunger Games.

Review #2170: The Hunger Games.

Cast: 

Jennifer Lawrence (Katniss Everdeen), Josh Hutcherson (Peeta Mellark), Liam Hemsworth (Gale Hawthorne), Woody Harrelson (Haymitch Abernathy), Elizabeth Banks (Effie Trinket), Lenny Kravitz (Cinna), Stanley Tucci (Caesar Flickerman), Donald Sutherland (President Coriolanus Snow), Wes Bentley (Seneca Crane), Toby Jones (Claudius Templesmith), Alexander Ludwig (Cato), Isabelle Fuhrman (Clove), Amandla Stenberg (Rue), and Jacqueline Emerson (Foxface) Directed by Gary Ross.

Review: 

"There were so many conversations with Suzanne that it’s hard to narrow down to a single thing. One thing I found fascinating was how steeped she was in Roman history and how much of this came from the Roman arena and how she was informed by that. She was exploring how a culture devolves into spectacle and Rome was her starting point. I found that really interesting."

Sure, franchises do leave a tight space for directors to make their presence known. But some are different from others, as with the case for the first film of what became a four-film franchise, with this first one being directed by Gary Ross. Ross had studied at Penn University with a major in English, where he became active in student theater. He was interested in writing as a career for a long time, but he became interested in being a director during this time, which included dropping out of Penn after three years in 1977. He soon became a consultant with speechwriting in two different presidential campaigns. In 1988, he and Anne Spielberg (his neighbor) wrote the screenplay for what became Big, which resulted in an Academy Award nomination. His first script as a primary writer was Dave in 1993 (which resulted in a second Oscar nomination). A couple of script collaborations later, his first film as a director was Pleasantville in 1998, which was followed by Seabiscuit (2003). Ross was attracted to the idea of doing a film of the Hunger Games book because his children liked it, which led him to read it quickly. Ross ended up not doing any of the subsequent Hunger Games films (released in 2013, 2014, 2015) due to the tough schedule that resulted in directing and writing, with him doing the latter with Suzanne Collins and Billy Ray; Francis Lawrence did the latter three films.

I do remember reading the trilogy of books (released in 2008, 2009, and 2010) when I was in 8th/9th grade, but for whatever reason, it never really dawned on me to actually see the films, even as a teenager. I do vaguely remember the first-person perspective of the books from its lead character of Katniss, even if the gore of that first book is toned down here to fit a PG-13 rating (remember that 24 teenagers walk in only to see all but the "lucky" get mowed down). Televised games of people kicking ass is as old as The Running Man, or Battle Royale, or wrestling, complete with narratives to go with the whole thing. The procession of 142 minutes makes for a decent if not somewhat lengthy experience in trying to stand out as a potential "franchise for the youths". The result is fine, but I find myself wondering if there is something lacking in a film that maneuvers a majority of the beats required in action and decadence. It shakes (literally) and moves on the strength of Lawrence. Only the best can make such a selfless action hero that was once described as a "futuristic Theseus" work the way she does in worthy timing. You can see the ideas of hope in this one person that is driven to survive not just for themselves but for others (such as the similar dynamics that come between Katniss / her sister and Katniss / Rue). That realization of hero-to-symbol is especially helped when seeing her with Hutcherson that eventually serves as more than just theatrics. One does see the cynical heart within Harrelson, even if it begs for more guilt than on the side, at least when compared to the plastic pomp of Banks or that soothing sinister nature of Sutherland that lurks in moments (apparently, he wrote a letter when expressing interest to be in the film) or the theatricality that comes with Tucci in doses. I'm not sure exactly how, but there is something lacking in the dreariness of the spectacle that hinders it from being more than just efficient. It isn't like the film bugs me on a "shaky cam" level or with its effects, that much is true. It yearns to be a striking film with the idea that people are watching youths killing each other for sport, but it only scratches the surface of that shock and awe. In short, it is efficient entertainment that sets a stage for looking further for what could lurk further within this rendition of bread and circuses when routine is thrown for a shock.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up, wait, don't laugh: Michael Moore's Canadian Bacon.

Movie Night: The Expendables 2.

Review #675: The Expendables 2.

Cast
Sylvester Stallone (Barney Ross), Yu Nan (Maggie Chan), Jason Statham (Lee Christmas), Dolph Lundgren (Gunner Jensen), Jean-Claude Van Damme (Jean Vilain), Bruce Willis (Church), Arnold Schwarzenegger (Trench Mauser), Terry Crews (Hale Caesar), Randy Couture (Toll Road), Chuck Norris (Booker), Jet Li (Yin Yang), Liam Hemsworth (Billy the Kid), and Scott Adkins (Hector) Directed by Simon West (#458 - Lara Croft: Tomb Raider)

Review
It figures that I'd get to this eventually. And 628 reviews later, a review of the sequel to a movie that to begin with was a nice little capsule for action stars old and new...now with two sequels in tow. Granted, it is fun to see Schwarzenegger in an action role (as opposed to a cameo) again, and I admit, this is more of a guilt pick for me. And yes, Van Damme plays a villain called Jean Vilain. He's actually pretty decent in this film, and he's about as right for this film as tanks getting blown up. Really when you think about it, this is a sandwich of action with a slice of referential humor in there for effect, with the plot representing the condiment on the sandwich (or bagel, if you prefer), which I guess makes sense. Or it makes me hungry. The cast is enjoyable (Terry Crews especially, but hey, even Lundgren is cool). Nan provides a breath of fresh air to the movie, which is a good thing. The movie is what you want: awesome fun that doesn't drag too much. Honestly, it's better than the first film, even if still gets the same rating, so make up your mind on that one. Tomorrow (December 20th) is the 4th Anniversary of the show, so I've got something planned for it. Stay tuned.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.