Coyote vs. Acme.

Review #2576: Coyote vs. Acme.

Cast: 

Will Forte (Kevin Avery), Lana Condor (Paige Avery), John Cena (Buddy Crane), Eric Bauza (Bugs Bunny, Charlie Dog, Daffy Duck, Dr. Peter Lorre, Elmer Fudd, Foghorn Leghorn, Gossamer, Porky Pig, The Road Runner, Tweety, Pepé Le Pew), Candi Milo (Granny, Witch Hazel, Miss Prissy), Jim Cummings (the Tasmanian Devil), Tone Bell (Sal Maltese), Martha Kelly (Dottie Jones), Luis Guzmán (Judge Troppogrosso), P. J. Byrne (Bill Pelicanos), John Early (Henry Heslop), Nancy Linehan Charles (Cherry), Kenneth Choi (Oscar Jeon), and Ernie Vigil (Talon) Directed by Dave Green.

Review: 

“You got away with it. You robbed the bank. You made a courtroom drama for kids starring Looney Tunes characters. In so many ways, this movie should not exist."

In 1990, there was a piece in The New Yorker called "Coyote v. Acme" by Ian Frazier that posed Wile E. Coyote (as originally created by Chuck Jones and Michael Maltese in 1949) suing the Acme Corporation for all of the defective products that he received from them in his failed pursuit of the Roadrunner (of course, it wasn't the first humor piece on the subject, National Lampoon did a piece in 1982*). As late as the 1990s, producers wanted to adapt it to the screen but it was only in the mid-2010s that Warner Bros. got the ball rolling. Dave Green (director of such films as Earth to Echo [2014] and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows [2016]) was signed on to direct in 2019; he got the job while positing if it could be akin to a true-crime documentary. Various people worked on the script for years: Samy Burch was credited for the screenplay while Burch, Jeremy Slater and James Gunn were given credit from the story (various "off-screen additional literary credits" were given to Alex Cuthbertson and Jacob Fleisher and Matt Fusfeld and Dan Goor and BenDavid Grabinski and Jon Silberman and Josh Silberman and Craig Wright, respectively). The DNEG studio was utilized for visual effects and computer animation while Duncan Studio was utilized specifically for select characters handled entirely in 2D. Initially, the movie was to be released in July 2023. Obviously, it did not meet that date, specifically because Warner Bros. Entertainment decided to take the $30 million tax write-off rather than release it (which also occurred with Batgirl and Scoob! Holiday Haunt). Eventually, in 2025, Ketchup Entertainment acquired the rights to the film for roughly $50 million (you might recognize that they previously had acquired the North American theatrical distribution rights for The Day the Earth Blew Up in 2024).

I really wanted to like the movie, honestly. With a 103-minute runtime that references the mythological figure Sisyphus numerous times and handily takes inspiration from "underdog courtroom movies" such as The Insider, Erin Brockovich and A Few Good Men, aa...and it felt only mildly funny to me. Have we raised the bar of "Looney Tunes but in the real world" from Looney Tunes: Back in Action [2003] (I refuse to even try to give "credit" to Space Jam)? Have we really moved so little that the high bar for integrating live action and animation is still Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988) from nearly four decades ago? Is the bar so low that a movie daring to posit "the dangers of animal testing but with cartoon characters?" seems funny in the odd times we live in?* There are moments when the animation works pretty well in the live-action environment, and it specifically is when you don't have to look at a close-up cel-shaded animated face. I appreciate the time taken to try and work out gags (as noted here), which probably saves the film from basically being a face in the crowd, mainly since the biggest prominent talking cartoon character is basically Dr. Lorre and Bugs Bunny (this of course does not mean to disrespect Wile E. Coyote, who mainly communicates with signs as the dedicated fanatic of the chase*). It basically goes down to how much you like the time spent with Forte or Cena in the scenario presented of "cartoons just...live here among us", which actually might be funnier for the latter in terms of actual timing (not to take anything from Forte, but there are only so many "underdog" cliches to go around, especially when involves lawyers.). It wants to find the sweet spot between the court room and, well, not in the court room that is basically hit-or-miss (what secrets lie beneath "Project Sisyphus", oh gee). The eventual reveal (get it? cartoon violence can actually seem messed up when presented in a certain way?) bridges the movie from what had been a fairly sluggish middle and at least has the movie close on a high note (if you're making an underdog movie, might as well go with a postscript to patch things up). As a whole, it's the ultimate average movie in ambition versus execution, but with the way that Warner Bros. treated the movie, it is nice to see it around for someone to watch rather than being a tax write-off by idiots. So it goes. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

I apologize, of course, for how long it took to review this movie. I saw it on September 1 (Tuesday afternoon) but honestly wasn't feeling too great by the next day. As it turned out, I needed a tooth extraction, so please excuse the delay.

*And of course Night Court did a little gag with the Coyote in 1990 - Wile E. Coyote On "Night Court"

*What's next, Looney Tunes: Daffy and Bugs re-enacting the Civil War?

*Speaking of voices. Maybe I should see more cartoons, but I really don't care for Tweety. At least the Roadrunner doesn't speak when confronted with their counterpart (as opposed to Tweety vs. Sylvester). 

The Adventures of Pluto Nash.

Review #1930: The Adventures of Pluto Nash.

Cast: 

Eddie Murphy (Pluto Nash / Rex Carter), Randy Quaid (Bruno), Rosario Dawson (Dina Lake), Jay Mohr (Anthony Frankowski / Tony Francis), Peter Boyle (Rowland), Luis Guzmán (Felix Laranga), Joe Pantoliano (Mogan), James Rebhorn (Belcher), Pam Grier (Flura Nash), John Cleese (James), Burt Young (Gino), Lillo Brancato (Larry), and Victor Varnado (Kelp) Directed by Ron Underwood (#808 - City Slickers)

Review: 

"I knew we didn’t have the kind of wit and the fun that I would want...I felt that it was not really working fully...But it wasn't very obvious how to correct it." 

Poor Ron Underwood. He was an exchange student in what is now known as Sri Lanka for AFS Intercultural Programs, and it inspired him to become a filmmaker by what he saw there. He studied at the USC School of Cinematic Arts (after changing his mind from studying at Occidental College as a pre-med student). After doing short film and television projects, Tremors (1990) became his very first film as a director, and he also served as a co-writer. Underwood did four further films in the 1990s such as City Slickers (1991) and Mighty Joe Young (1998). When he was finishing work on the latter film, he received an offer to work on a script by Neil Cuthbert that had Eddie Murphy attached that dealt with a colony on the Moon. The Cuthbert script had been bouncing around Hollywood for years, first being brought as a project at Universal...in 1983. 1989 even saw an attempt to see at Universal with Peter Faiman (the director behind Crocodile Dundee) as director. Keep in mind, when Underwood was brought in, he joined in with the understanding that they had 7-9 months to work on the script before Murphy could join in to help with shooting. Underwood felt that there was an issue with the main core in the script, and yet it never came together. Murphy did not care for the script that was presented to him, nor the handful of scripts presented afterwards, and he seemingly wanted a film that was written for someone like Sylvester Stallone or Harrison Ford that would have him bring the comedy...which meant a straight draft. Underwood stuck with Castle Rock Entertainment because of the obligation he had to friends that worked with there despite the fact he had other offers while the film process "seemed to just be going and on"...the result was that he was on the production for four years.

The film was such a tremendous failure with audiences and critics, being one of the few $100 million movies to not even make ten percent of its budget back. Underwood would direct for television on a fairly regular basis in 2003 (one year after this film) while having just one film credit since that film: In the Mix (2005), although he at least seems happy by what he gets to direct. Even Eddie Murphy made light of the failure of the film, although if anyone is to be blamed for this film, it is him (Underwood, while being charitable about him being nice, thought Murphy wasn't feeling funny in production). The problem with the movie is that it isn't particularly funny, and it desires an actor with some sort of energy to it due to how the bland story is not particularly interesting as an adventure nor as a "mystery". It doesn't feel particularly like a science fiction worth gawking at, looking like the world's cheapest expensive film, never insipiring curiosity over the time or tech beyond demo levels. The only highlight might be Quaid, having a bald head while trying to play an old robot. Somehow, he proves the quirks that are just begging to be let out here, having the rare distinction of being funnier than the actual lead. Murphy has the "in it for the money" face, not inspiring anything for comedy or for adventure, and the fact that he has a double role as the villain doesn't do him any favors either. The only one to possibly pity would be Dawson, adrift in a film with no energy for her to tap into/absorb for fun. John Cleese being in this film in the shape of a hologram is the very definition of "phoned in", as if he was tricked into believing that he had to top Eric Idle in phoned in supporting performances (hey, speaking of Idle movies...next year?). Faking one out with a few seconds of Alec Baldwin is more amusing than the gags presented (such as Hilary Clinton being on a $100 bill or a Trump Realty sign), sadly. The less said about Pantoliano, Boyle, Guzman, and Mohr, the better. As a whole, what we have here is a movie that is not particularly funny, not particularly adventurous, and not particularly fun. It is a snooze fest for 95 minutes that only avoids being called one of the absolute worst after 20 years because there isn't even enough to remember in how bad it is. 

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Last one: Valley of the Dolls.

Traffic (2000).

Review #1526: Traffic.

Cast: 
Michael Douglas (Robert Wakefield), Benicio del Toro (Javier Rodriguez), Don Cheadle (Montel Gordon), Catherine Zeta-Jones (Helena Ayala), Dennis Quaid (Arnie Metzger), Erika Christensen (Caroline Wakefield), Luis Guzmán (Ray Castro), Jacob Vargas (Manolo Sanchez), Tomas Milian (General Arturo Salazar), Topher Grace (Seth Abrahams), Miguel Ferrer (Eduardo Ruiz), Amy Irving (Barbara Wakefield), Steven Bauer (Carlos Ayala), D. W. Moffett (Jeff Sheridan), James Brolin (General Ralph Landry), and Albert Finney (White House Chief of Staff) Directed by Steven Soderbergh (#984 - Logan Lucky)

Review: 
"Well, I think a part of you has to be scared, it keeps you alert; otherwise you become complacent. So absolutely, I'm purposefully going after things and doing things that I'm not sure if it's going to come off or not."

There's a difference between one doing films for a living and one making cinema, particularly when it comes to a process-driven director like Steven Soderbergh. He had an interest in film as a teenager that led to him doing his own shorts with a Super 8 and 16 mm camera. He moved to Hollywood by the 1980s and moved his way gradually through roles such as game show composing to concert video directing. His first directing responsibility was the 1985 concert film 9012Live, which featured the band Yes. An idea for a film combined with a cross-country trip led to the development of his first feature in Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989), a film regarded as an independent classic. Soderbergh (who once described himself as a synthesist) has done a mix of independent and mainstream films over the years, with noted works including Out of Sight (1998), Erin Brockovich (2000), and Ocean's Eleven (2001) that represent a versatile director of heist and psychological movies.

The basis for this film was Soderbergh wanted to make a film about the drug trade without having it be about addicts. With the rights to a property that seemed like what he wanted, producer Laura Bickford presented him with the rights to Traffik, a six-part 1989 miniseries written by Simon Moore that dealt with the illegal trade that wove a story between suppliers, growers, and customers from Pakistan to Germany to England, respectively). Looking for scripts led to one by Steve Gaghan that was about high school students and their problem with drugs and gangs that had Edward Zwick involved as producer, but the writer got him to try and do a film together with both Soderbergh and Zwick. After spending time consulting on the outline and doing films on the side, a script was finished that would have over a hundred speaking parts and split storylines to be shot in two months. The film was released by USA Films after 20th Century Fox went through wanting Harrison Ford for the lead, getting him to sign on, and dropping out even after script changes (which Douglas liked enough to take on the role after declining it initially). Soderbergh (who also shot the film himself) wanted a distinct vision for each of the three stories in order, such as having that involved different filters and contrast, such as no filter for a blue tinted Wakefield story or overexposed film with diffusion filter for Ayala's story or tobacco filter in Rodriguez's story.

It is interesting to view the film through its numerous perspectives that says what it wants about the approach to various cultures and the way that vices inhibit their little worlds in big and small ways of cruciality that shows shades of gray in every place with no real clear answer, with a war that isn't what it looks like on television. It has a cohesive edge in most areas that will inspire curiosity alongside certain emotions that make it stick with a viewer now as it did back in 2000. It doesn't compromise itself with trying to make a definitive statement or judgement on any of the three linked stories but instead lets the viewer make their own impressions on how vices (whatever kind of substance they are) can affect us or others around us without having easy solutions whatever border you live in. Obviously there isn't just one key star in the film, but the one that seems the most prominent to focus as first is Douglas, then followed by del Toro, Cheadle, and Zeta-Jones, although this isn't to diminish the effect others have in support. Douglas proves fairly captivating, one who runs with a hard-lined naivety that makes for a high-strung and capable performance that we can at least see some of which in others or ourselves in what we believe seems right. The speech at the end for example makes a point in what it doesn't say just as much as what actually is said about a fight against substances and ourselves, which Douglas handles neatly. When it comes to del Toro (a Puerto Rico native that shifted his focus from studying business to drama at the age of 20), he sticks out just as well in his distinct storyline (told to us primarily in Spanish with subtitles, which is what Soderbergh desired) in jaded honesty that we follow with great interest because of his well-timed instincts for what seems to be necessary to eke out a living within authority and corruption. This works out best in a little scene involving tourists looking for their car and del Toro telling them about calling a man to help them find the car (after stating the police won't find their car) - it is a fascinating moment that would've probably just been a one-shot blip with a less intuitive actor (incidentally he would later star in another drug war related film with Sicario, which also rules). Cheadle does just as well in reliable nature with a sort of cat-and-mouse game involving procedure and coercion, which he does with careful tension. This reflects just as well on Zeta-Jones in her evolution of principles and moments shared with a sneaky (and fairly effective) Quaid.

There are other aspects that do well, such as Christensen in driving the angle of shocking addiction without seeming like an after-school special act, but it ultimately is the balance of its three storylines in look and tension that makes it a mostly well-done film for its era. It will hold the attention for most of its intentions in 147 minutes that rewards patience through a mostly intact plot and fair camerawork and editing. It accomplishes most of what it wants to speak to us by knocking us over in its statements said and unsaid that excels in uncompromising uncomfortability that speaks truth to hypocrisy now more than ever.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Arthur (2011).

Review #203: Arthur.

Cast
Russell Brand (Arthur Bach), Helen Mirren (Lillian Hobson), Jennifer Garner (Susan Johnson), Greta Gerwig (Naomi Quinn), Luis Guzmán (Bitterman), Nick Nolte (Burt Johnson), and Geraldine James (Vivienne Bach) Directed by Jason Winer.

Review
I am aware that this is a remake (The first being made in 1981 with Dudley Moore, who I've covered before) However I haven't seen the film, so there ya go. Anyway, Russell Brand is...I don't know how to describe him other then a mix of a off-my-meds pirate with a bit of hazes added in. But playing the role of a rich alcoholic, he just works. Brand and Mirren have some good deliveries that keep the film from just being a remake. It can stand on its own legs and not need to be collapsed by fears of being not as good. A decent film that doesn't have much against it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.