Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.

Review #1671: Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.

Cast:

Robin Shou (Liu Kang), Talisa Soto (Kitana), James Remar (Raiden), Sandra Hess (Sonya Blade), Lynn Red Williams (Jax), Brian Thompson (Shao Kahn), Reiner Schöne (Shinnok), Musetta Vander (Sindel), Irina Pantaeva (Jade), Deron McBee (Motaro), Marjean Holden (Sheeva), Litefoot (Nightwolf), Chris Conrad (Johnny Cage), John Medlen (Ermac), J.J. Perry (Cyrax / Scorpion / Noob Saibot, with Ed Boon as voice of Scorpion) Directed by John R. Leonetti.

Review:

The best way to describe this film is with food. The first film is basically the equivalent of a fairly well-cooked dessert for one to eat (for those who want detail, use an éclair). It tastes nice, and one generally will look back on the moment with a bit of relish, even if they know they shouldn't have too much of it. The second film is essentially what would happen if the one of the ingredients was lost in the writing and so the cook decided to replace it and put a bunch of sparklers and streamers on it in order to make sure you don't notice why it tastes like mud. Actually, if you go by what producer Lawrence Kasanoff said, there is apparently one modification to that: imagine if the chef pulled the dish out five minutes before it was fully cooked, since the initial cut that was screened to test audiences and New Line Cinema was meant to have a second run of effects and editing but the studio was so confident that it would make money and be liked that they released the feature as it was. It might be a strange thing to note that Kasanoff has the dubious honor of being behind two odd sequels to movies as executive producer between this and C.H.U.D. II: Bud the C.H.U.D. (1989, which you should hope is the first and only mention of C.H.U.D. II in recorded Movie Night history). At the helm for writing is five writers, with Brent V. Friedman and Bryce Zabel for the screenplay and Kasanoff, Joshua Wexler and John Tobias for the story (you might recognize Tobias as one of the creators of the video game series). You might be interested to note that the director for this film at least had experience with the series...in that the cinematographer for the 1995 film is now the director for the sequel (incidentally, he would not direct again for nine years...with The Butterfly Effect 2, although he would continue on with cinematography work).

To point out all the odd moments in this film would be quite a paragraph, but let's make it a fairly snappy one. The effects have actually degraded from the first film, and it is apt that we see that in the first few minutes of the film (at least after it recounts the first feature's cliffhanger) that leads to the most quotable lines from the feature that goes like this: "Mother...you're alive"/"Too bad YOU...will DIE!" If the dialogue felt a bit silly the first time around, it will feel like a lead weight this time around, made worse by the fact that re-casting most of the actors has only made it felt like one is stuck in a travelling theater show. Characters will be introduced and leave just as quickly, which is stranger with Scorpion and Sub-Zero, who not only come out of the blue from the dead (well, apparently the latter character is the...brother of the one from before and the other is a zombie, but...yeah) but also have a fight scene together (complete with an ice bridge that totally looks like ice if you have never seen it before) and then both disappear from the film entirely. I will give credit though, because they lend to one another amusing scene, where a kidnapping happens and then you hear the voice of Boon saying with no irony the word of "Suckers!" as he leaves stage right. The fact that one of them takes off their mask and talks to Shou about how he isn't ready (because he...didn't participate in the Scorpion/Sub-Zero fight?) and then disappears is the icing on the cake. How about the character of Nightwolf? He talks about three tests that Shou has to go through in order to do the thing that he has to do or whatever...somehow passing the first two tests is all Shou needs, because Nightwolf literally doesn't show up again after that one scene about tests. Raiden revealing his family heritage seems like it should be more impactful, but it manages to hit like a puddle. Characters like Sheeva have the presence of five minutes before she is crushed by a cage (...an action scene was meant to be filmed, but oops). Cables are apparently evident on multiple occasions during fight scenes, since I suppose New Line really believed in the art...of making money. Probably the one bright spot is the music, which continues the electronic trend from the last film (which featured folks such as Buckethead and a music score by George S. Clinton), and it is hard to resist saying that title song from the Immortals one more time.

Shou hasn't exactly improved from the first film, but since the movie doesn't really seem to give him any favors, it would seem forgivable if it was a better project. The silly quest, combined with moments that inspire quizzical responses rather than highlights, combined with a climatic fight scene that has him turn into a terrible CG creation only seals the deal. In that regard, Thompson is a hilariously terrible villain, one that might as well have been tossed out of an episode of Hercules: The Legendary Journeys for being too hammy. I still can't find a reach on Soto when it comes to her acting, because she is basically swept up in a different quality of film this time around, one that is actually too hammy for her to stand out for better or worse. Hess gets to play in the mud and kick a bit, which pairs with Williams for a duo of folks good enough for dinner theater. Christopher Lambert apparently decided that starring in Beowulf (1999, which was also produced by Kasanoff) would be a better prospect than reprising the role of Raiden, so instead one gets James Remar. But at least one can't say Remar is a bad actor, since he has experience in a wide array of features that ranged from The Warriors (1979) to 48 Hrs (1982); of course those movies were villainous roles, but I'm sure that with a better script he might have done better. Here, it seems like half of a performance, one where you are thinking about shambles of a story and the effects around him (take a close look at the opening scene, for example) than the actual character...even the sacrifice is a waste of time. Having a script that was bad enough to chase three of your five primary actors is bad enough, but the fact that the only thing that comes out of it is an endless barrage of fights and effects that aren't as good as before is the true nail in the coffin for the movie. How could New Line see the fight scene at the end between two shambling ugly creations and think that this was even finished? Beyond the need for a polishing, the complete turnover that results from its actors and having too many writers in the room creates an incoherent mess that somehow feels abrupt for 95 minutes. At least there is one reason to watch it: it would make a great movie to laugh at over and over again.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Adaptation.

Review #1533: Adaptation.

Cast: 
Nicolas Cage (Charlie Kaufman / Donald Kaufman), Meryl Streep (Susan Orlean), Chris Cooper (John Laroche), Cara Seymour (Amelia Kavan), Brian Cox (Robert McKee), Tilda Swinton (Valerie Thomas), Ron Livingston (Marty Bowen), Maggie Gyllenhaal (Caroline Cunningham), Judy Greer (Alice), Bob Yerkes (Charles Darwin), Jim Beaver (Ranger Tony), and Litefoot (Russell) Directed by Spike Jonze (#1308 - Being John Malkovich)

Review: 
It begins with a customary quote from someone involved with the film, since Robert had felt was a fun way to differentiate reviews from 2019 to now, with this one being from Charlie Kaufman.

"I really thought I was ending my career by turning that in!"

INT. NEIGHBORHOOD - ROBERT'S HOUSE - NIGHT
Robert sits on his couch, appalled at what he tries to write on his laptop, working at 7am like usual on yet another display of adapting words of thought of someone else's work of brilliance. He looks at his screen and some basic data about what he saw, his eyes begging to be shut for some sleep rather than yet another nap built to cheat himself until the next time. He wonders about how to start a review about a film about writer's block and originality while acknowledging the sheer talent of its cast without seeming repetitive after over 200 reviews in a year, wanting to also acknowledge the accomplishment of a writer that solved his problem by simply putting themselves into what they wrote. Perhaps he should take up making pizzas. He takes a left and then a right with his fingers as he starts typing.

It never hurts to talk about actors, particularly one involving a talented award-winning trio of actors for a film packed with such originality and talent within a main trio of actors. One can make whole paragraphs about Cage and his self-described "Nouveau Shamanic" style of acting that has made him an object of curiosity since Valley Girl (1983) with his style of mega acting. That might be enough for a film, but Meryl Streep elevates it further, since she has made a career of versatility and range since her start in theater in 1975 that evolved to television and film with productions such as The Deer Hunter (1978), Kramer vs. Kramer (1979), and Sophie's Choice (1982). The third and final key to the puzzle is in Cooper, who actually took up acting after initially doing theater for set design as a way to overcome shyness and subsequently worked for years in theater an construction before shuffling the ranks to supporting roles with Matewan (1987). The Orchid Thief began originally as an article that Susan Orlean wrote for The New Yorker (published on January 16, 1995) that detailed John Laroche's efforts to poach orchids (looking for the rare ghost orchid) in a Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve with a group of Seminoles, having believed to have found a loophole in studying Indian law with the case of Chief James E. Billie, which the film mentions as having avoided conviction for hunting an endangered species of panther. Writer Charlie Kaufman was tasked to write a screenplay adaptation of the subsequent 1998 book The Orchid Thief. However, he suffered through a lack of ideas in making a film out of it (since it wasn't particularly suited for a basic film, which is why executives had approached Jonze to direct an "unfilmable" book), so Kaufman decided to use his frustrations into making an exaggerated script with a fictional twin brother, and Columbia Pictures found it fairly suitable enough to make a film of (with filming starting in 2001). Orlean, when approached about the screenplay, was not exactly supportive of what she read, but she did not get in the way of allowing the film to move forward; Orlean found that it turned out to be "very true to the book's themes of life and obsession."

INT. NEIGHBORHOOD - ROBERT'S HOUSE - NIGHT, HOURS LATER
Now the writer is pleased and can go on with his night, confused over the fact that his cluttered table seems rearranged and his computer tabs seem smaller for 6am. He motions to acknowledge the real meat of what is meant to be writing and not words on a screen before he decides to take a nap instead. He struggles to wonder what the true difference between a 10-star film and a 9-star film in terms of "really good" and "great" without automatically tracing back to what was thought of either category. 

What we have here is a fairly playful film, one that writes the book on what it means to adapt and persist within a sense of longing and disappointment that come from trying to reach a certain passion without getting lost in its process. After all, this is a film about a writer trying to adapt a writer's tale about orchids while also getting caught up in a tale stranger than fiction. In this sense, Cage is exactly the type of actor for an dauntingly ideal situation - two performances for the price of one, complete with a fat suit and split-screen photography. In this sense, Cage does great because of how he holds true to making each Kaufman a distinct presence that isn't merely just one talking to themselves, capturing equally the weariness and foolish abandon that comes from belief (or perhaps fear) in one's ability to tell a good story that can be splattered on screen. While it does have comedic elements in it, Cage never takes the meta aspects too far into stretching credibility or making it a self-centered work. In between scenes with Cage and Cage are conversations spent between Streep and Cooper that border the lines of fact and fiction, and it takes a dedicated person like Streep to not have the other author get lost in the process of adaptation. She captures an essence of longing in passion that results in an excellent performance, engaging and right at home in conviction. Cooper has the task of playing someone once described by Orlean as "pale-eyed, slouch-shouldered, and sharply handsome, in spite of the fact that he is missing all his front teeth." - to which I say he does a tremendous job in conveying someone filled with charm that captures the essence of a man with nuance for doing things his way with no sort of false pretense or cheap tricks needed to push his passion to something we can understand. Others in the cast do fine with gradual moments, such as Cox and his portrayal of the only other real figure in lecturer/story consultant McKee, which he does quite well in measured

The writer looks upon his work. He notices that yet again he has to make that lasting decision over how much he really enjoyed this movie. It isn't like flipping a coin, because at least the coin doesn't really seem to somehow look right and wrong. You win this round, writing voice in my head.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.