Mars Attacks!

Review #2160: Mars Attacks!

Cast: 

Jack Nicholson (US President James Dale & Art Land), Glenn Close (First Lady Marsha Dale), Annette Bening (Barbara Land), Pierce Brosnan (Professor Donald Kessler), Danny DeVito (Rude Gambler), Martin Short (Press Secretary Jerry Ross), Sarah Jessica Parker (Nathalie Lake), Michael J. Fox (Jason Stone), Rod Steiger (General Decker), Tom Jones (Himself), Lukas Haas (Richie Norris), Natalie Portman (Taffy Dale), Jim Brown (Byron Williams), Lisa Marie (Martian Girl), Sylvia Sidney (Grandma Florence Norris), Paul Winfield (General Casey), Pam Grier (Louise Williams), Jack Black (Billy-Glenn Norris), Janice Rivera (Cindy), Ray J (Cedric Williams), Brandon Hammond (Neville Williams), Joe Don Baker (Glenn Norris), and O-Lan Jones (Sue-Ann Norris) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman [1989], #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride, #316 - Batman Returns, #969 - Planet of the Apes [2001], #1257 - Pee-wee's Big Adventure, #1295 - Sleepy Hollow, and #1615 - Edward Scissorhands)

Review: 

“I wanted to do something fun with a bunch of Martians with big brains. Basically, make a modern version of Plan 9 From Outer Space or The War of the Worlds.”

Yes, there were two big-budget films about alien saucers coming onto Earth in 1996. Take one guess which ended up as the big audience hit. Of course, the basis for the film was a Topps trading card series of the same name which had a mix of gore and other such content that come with cards that made their debut in 1962 around the Cuban Missile Crisis that gave a couple of kids a curious glance and outcry from parents that led to the culling of production not long after. Alex Cox actually proposed doing a film in the 1980s but couldn't get past the scriptwriting approval stage. In 1993, Jonathan Gems approached Tim Burton about the idea of doing a film based on a Topps card property in "Attack!": Mars and Dinosaurs. Jurassic Park (1993) kind of influenced going away from the latter, to put it mildly. As such, when it came to the screenplay, it was done with a vast array of characters and situations involved, which included that opening sequence of burning cows. As noted by a handful of folks, the spaceship designs were inspired by the film Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1956). Attempts to do stop-motion for the aliens were rejected due to costs, but the CG from Industrial Light & Music was stylized to have a cheap look on purpose. One other film used for inspiration by Burton and Gems was The Towering Inferno (1974), with them relating how they had watched the film a year prior while stoned. Gems was let go from the project by Warner Bros. (because they wanted Gems to take out that opening sequence) in favor of Larry Karaszewski and Scott Alexander (who had written Ed Wood (1994) for Burton) and then he was put back in a year later. Burton also wrote the screenplay but did not request credit. 

The film (Burton's seventh as a feature director) was made on a budget of $80 million with a good deal more spent on promotion. The film barely met the budget back, while Independence Day, released five months earlier, was the audience favorite when it comes to setting a trend for blockbusters in a sense. I don't think you need me to say which has aged particularly better, because Mars Attacks! is the superior film in every sense of the word Both films do an attempt at effects extravaganza-making in the manner of Irwin Allen, but this is the one that has the most fun along with not insulting one's intelligence. It is a star-studded delight that comes and goes as a pretty good pastiche of the 1950s B-flicks that doesn't insult them or turn into a puddle worse than the material. This time, it isn't big authority or heroic figures that deal with saving the day but instead the ones you don't really see coming. It kind of frustrates me, how could people of 1996 ignore the fun of this? Nicholson apparently took on the film because he enjoyed working with Burton on Batman so much. Weirdly enough, he makes the Peter Sellars of what might as well be the Dr. Strangelove of alien invasion films, because he plays two different roles. He gets to play a towering force of centrist weirdos and a swaggering puddle of sleaze (complete with a gag about his hair) - how can you resist? Close meanders in snobbery for that time required before the inevitable plop. Bening makes a useful hippie in a film filled with broad amusing stereotypes, which even includes the smallest use of DeVito one might expect. You've got Brosnan (one year removed from GoldenEye) getting to do exposition and silly snobbery next to Parker in bewildering chemistry that has some fun head-play. The most noted presence though is Brown, becuase there has to be at least one person who seems serious enough to take on Martian ass-kicking. Haas and Sidney make a charming pair when it comes to families that sure love to stay together and find the oddest way to take down aliens: one old crooner song. Jones apparently wanted to do something different and thus signed on for this film, where he gets to sing "It's Not Unusual" and pop in and out in escape. Ha. I imagine Steiger loved the bluster as much as the check, and that's alright with me. This was actually one of Fox's last live-action film appearances (prior to going public with his Parkinson's disease diagnosis in 1998), and it is fine to see him play a would-be bigshot before the inevitable. The Martians as a whole look pretty funny, particularly with the "ack" dialogue and their plastic features without needing to be explained too much when it comes to the art of "invaders for the sake of being invaders", where Marie doesn't even have to speak to make an eerie Martian as well. The 106 minutes run off pretty well for amusement when it comes to playing against the Establishment type, and it truly bewilders me that this didn't get the respect it deserved for its time. Over 25 years later, this is one of Burton's most underrated films as a director when it comes to entertaining vision in alien disasters and humor with a star-studded cast to back it up.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Babylon.

Review #1948: Babylon.

Cast: 

Brad Pitt (Jack Conrad), Margot Robbie (Nellie LaRoy), Diego Calva (Manny Torres), Jean Smart (Elinor St. John), Jovan Adepo (Sidney Palmer), Li Jun Li (Lady Fay Zhu), P. J. Byrne (Max), Lukas Haas (George Munn), Olivia Hamilton (Ruth Adler), Max Minghella (Irving Thalberg), Rory Scovel (The Count), Katherine Waterston (Estelle Conrad), Tobey Maguire (James McKay), Flea (Bob Levine), Jeff Garlin (Don Wallach), Eric Roberts (Robert Roy), Ethan Suplee (Wilson), Samara Weaving (Constance Moore), Olivia Wilde (Ina Conrad), Spike Jonze (Otto), and Telvin Griffin (Reggie) Written and Directed by Damien Chazelle (#1146 - First Man and #1577 - La La Land)

Review: 

I am sure you remember this film, one released at the last month of the year that is already considered a massive flop with audiences as a "polarizing" movie. There have been quite a few films that are basically "moviemaking love letters", such as Singin' in the Rain, The Player, Boogie Nights, The Artist, or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Perhaps there is inspiration taken from Kenneth Anger's infamous 1959 book Hollywood Babylon, a book about alleged scandals of Hollywood stars from the silent era that is full of flat-out fallacies, myths, and exaggerations (most notably claiming that Clara Bow once had a night of relations with the entire USC football team). So yes, there are mostly fictional characters present in the film (that take inspiration from real-life folks such as Clara Bow) with a few real names such as William Randolph Hearst or James Wong Howe. One thing I can respect is the fact that Chazelle and company had the balls to actually release the film in theaters. Yes, it seems a bit silly for any studio to need $250 million to apparently break even with a film about a tale of over-ambition and excess in the early Hollywood era, but it is always worth it to see films like this in a theater, packed or not. Decadence and depravity never looked so good in a theater, and I was happy to see this tale of ridiculousness, albeit in an empty theater that meant I could loudly watch the movie on my own terms.

Obviously, any scholars of the silent era can attest to the accuracy of a film depicting a certain time and age. But since we are watching a film that is trying to have its cake and eating it too, how much does it matter? Is it really important that the rage of the time might have been more about morphine rather than cocaine? (Wallace Reid died from trying to kick the habit of it, incidentally). To me, the movie may be presented as a "comedy-drama", but to me it really serves as a twisted "Hollywood Horror" story. I don't think I have ever seen a film that has such a love and hatred of everything it wants to be about, one that practically is screaming for its own head to be cut off so they can eat themselves whole. What other movie shows has a litany of images such as elephant defecating on people, urination on people, projectile vomiting, and the uncomfortable truth that, well, anyone is disposable in the moviemaking world. It is as self-indulgent as you would expect for a film that is 189 minutes long that is clearly not for everyone. I respect Chazelle for daring to make movies that try to be distinct from each other, whether that involves overrated LA love-letters such as La La Land or calm biopics such as First Man. It is the craft of obsession that matters most for Chazelle - now, whether that means Babylon is anything more than a glorified campground for debauchery is another matter. I enjoyed the movie, but it is understandable that someone else won't be as big on it as a gonzo weirdo film to experience in all of its senses that it draws out for three hours. Watching a movie that takes inspiration from the stories of people such as John Gilbert, Clara Bow, and Dorothy Arzner isn't a terrible thing to waste. 

Robbie has manic energy and physical bravado that swallows the film whole in dazzling charm that is meant to emulate "it girls" such as Clara Bow (it is Bow who once stated that she just had to think about "home" when it came to crying on cue). Of course, her self-destruction isn't quite like Bow, but Robbie makes the role her own in ferocious edge that makes it an absorbing performance beyond just being a brash fighter from the ground up, which makes the resulting tragedy all the more interesting. The same goes for Pitt in all of his bravado and melancholy, representing the falling star with tremendous confidence in where he believes the role must go to make it that more poetic in how it ends up. These two may be weird and wild in their gusto, but they are still people that you can still find worth your attention. Calva is fine to act around them, with a semi-effective story of soul-stirring passion that isn't too far removed from the action or the bigger names that come and go. Smart provides worthy support in acid-tongued charm that would make Hedda Hopper blush. Adepo and Jun Li are neat in their own ways when it comes to filling an ensemble of a certain time and place with roles that aren't merely there for the sake of being there, whether that involves a cabaret act or a particularly somber scene of a man being convinced to darken his skin for the sake of "film". The best all-around sequence is one involving the depiction of a filming day that sees a variety of amusing mishaps on the way to movie magic. Of course, the sequence involving Robbie and company trying to get one successful take on a sound set is exquisite in all of the painful ways that make it both tragic and amusing. Pitt and his inevitable fall from the stars is a close second, but that scene with Smart involving how one could be immortal in a sense by what they did on celluloid is right on the spot.

Personally, the supporting cast members are far more interesting to see. Calva, Smart, Adepo, Jun Li, yeah sure. Forget Garlin and all of those other names, this is a movie where you can see actors like Eric Roberts and Ethan Suplee have little scenes to make their mark (the former drunkenly stumbles onto a snake fight and the latter spits a bunch, but still). Hell, Tobey Maguire and his makeup that reminds one of a ghoul going around trying to show a producer a subterranean gathering space for debauched party of the underground is splendid to view in a perverse sense. You haven't lived in the world of weird film-land until you see what the hell one does for "fun" with a pale druggie that could top a man eating a rat. The bottom line that comes from the film is that a movie takes plenty of hard-nosed circumstance and crap to work its way into something for the rest of the world to see, and that it sure was a party for those who got to be a part of it. Any good movie worth their salt will have splendid cinematography, which is the case here by Linus Sandgren, as this really is a movie that pops in all the right ways, while Justin Hurwitz provides worthwhile music. The only thing that may rankle anyone daring enough to see the film all the way through in the row of debauchery is the ending, since it is a film that wants to have the whole cake of running through the gamut in a montage of films that dawned after the silent era came and went (such as Singin' in the Rain or 2001: A Space Odyssey, for example). It just seems quite unnecessary to have the montage for what really could've just ended a bit shorter when it comes to the image of a man looking back at a long-gone era interpreted by the status quo of Hollywood and weeping. I guess it depends on how one feels about a movie all about the debauchery of people in Hollywood going from weird and wild in the 1920s to, well, sound and less wild in the sound era...ending with a "gee, look at what film became!". Maybe that shameless rug pull is supposed to be the point. So, is the film and the response it received from audience some sort of representation of the movie-making landscape in 2022 when it comes to the divide between streaming and theater-aimed features or between the divide of "blockbusters" versus "movies for adults"? Having seen the film for myself, I can only state this: who gives a shit? Either you will like this movie for its sheer audacity or not care for it, it does not get any simpler than that. I personally think it is a secret film in human horror that screams at the viewer as much as it screams at itself. I doubt I will return to seeing this film in the near future, but screw it, the film is pretty weird, pretty loud, and all around...pretty bold to do what it does in wild child style. The fate of the film and its plot may be inevitable, but that is where the fun is.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Another year, another time. This closes out Movie Night's twelfth year of operation (hence the end of using a particular twelve-sided shape in every title card, hint hint), which has seen a review ten times on New Years' Eve, and this is the third straight Eve to close out with a movie from the year that was. 2022 ended with 1,781 total reviews, which means I did 167 reviews for Season 12. This is the fifth busiest year in Movie Night history, but the best is yet to come. Review #2000 looms, but the big thing is the advent of theme months to start the first quarter of the year to spotlight plenty of new and familiar faces in cinema. With that in mind, Have a Happy New Year in 2023.

Witness (1985).

Review #1185: Witness.

Cast: 
Harrison Ford (Det. John Book), Kelly McGillis (Rachel Lapp), Josef Sommer (Chief Paul Schaeffer), Lukas Haas (Samuel Lapp), Jan Rubeš (Eli Lapp), Alexander Godunov (Daniel Hochleitner), Danny Glover (Lt. James McFee), Brent Jennings (Sgt. Elton Carter), Patti LuPone (Elaine), Angus MacInnes (Fergie), Frederick Rolf (Stoltzfus), Viggo Mortensen (Moses Hochleitner), and Timothy Carhart (Zenovich) Directed by Peter Weir (#960 - The Year of Living Dangerously)

Review: 
Witness is an interesting crime thriller, standing out for its well-done structure and story (which won an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay) with plenty of entertainment value and a game cast. The story was written by Pamela Wallace, Earl W. Wallace and William Kelley, with the latter two doing the screenplay. Kelley had contributed to scripts for Gunsmoke in the 1970s while Wallace served as executive story consultant, and it was the development of an outline for the show that resulted in a film script, originally named Called Home. The script (consisting of 182 pages originally) languished for years, with 20th Century Fox rejecting it due to the fact that they didn't make rural movies. A re-write of the screenplay resulted in Ford expressing interest in doing the movie, and eventually the film found its studio in Paramount Pictures. Weir was hired to do the film after funding for The Mosquito Coast (which was made the following year with Ford) fell through, and this was his first film made in America after several features made in his native Australia.

In any case, it is interesting to see a movie set within the community of the Amish, particularly with the differences shown between the kind of life lived by Ford's character as opposed to the Amish characters and how he adapts to spending some time there. It comes off as more than a crime thriller at times, having moments of passion and romance between Ford and McGillis that helps give the film plenty of energy to go around. Ford is superb, playing his role as if he was in a modern Western drama (and not in a usual action kind of film), resourceful in his pursuit for justice while also taking note of the people around him and how he stands out quite clearly from them. This is particularly notable in one scene near the climax, where he stands up for one of his fellow Amish when they are harassed by town-folk who seem to view them as a curiosity or something to pick at, particularly when mocking their committal to nonviolence in war. McGillis shines as well, being a warm graceful presence with a degree of curiosity, whether when interacting with Ford or with Haas, who does fine for his scenes. The other members of the cast have their moments to shine, such as Sommer and his quiet but lurking presence or Rubeš and his wise and thoughtful presence. It is interesting to see Glover playing against type, although he doesn't have too much on screen. The film never feels flat at 112 minutes, having a fine balance between drama and action that never feels overwrought or disrespectful. You never get the sense of boredom at any real point, with each scene having a real sense of purpose and a well-made look from cinematographer John Seale. The movie has its fun moments, such as the barn-raising sequence or when Ford is trying to get the kid to identify the suspect through a ride-along. The climax is certainly effective enough with a quiet ending that wraps things up just fine. On the whole, this is a gripping tale that has its elements of thriller and romance wrapped within a community story that makes it stick out from other films in an captivating and entertaining way that is a solid pick worth recommending.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

First Man.

Review #1146: First Man.

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

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.