In the Name of the King.

Review #1765: In the Name of the King.

Cast: 

Jason Statham (Farmer / Camden Konreid), Leelee Sobieski (Muriella), John Rhys-Davies (Merick), Ron Perlman (Norick), Claire Forlani (Solana), Kristanna Loken (Elora), Matthew Lillard (Duke Fallow), Ray Liotta (Gallian), Burt Reynolds (King Konreid), Brian White (Commander Tarish), and Mike Dopud (General Backler) Directed by Uwe Boll.

Review: 

Have you ever wanted to see a bad filmmaker get $60 million dollars to make a fantasy ripoff of Lord of the Rings? Here is your chance. Uwe Boll was born in Wermelskirchen, West Germany. He wanted to make movies when he was a kid; he studied at the University of Cologne and Siegen. Of course, he has managed to go viral for all the strange reasons. In 2006, he actually challenged critics who gave him harsh reviews to a boxing match; this resulted in Boll fighting and winning against five participants. I'm sure one already knows that prior to 2006 he had utilized a loophole in the tax system in Germany that meant that he could recieve rebates from his movies if they flopped. In 2015, he tried to crowdfund a film and failed to get the targeted funds; he proceeded to release a video lashing out about failing to fund the movie. Boll initially retired from filmmaking in 2016, doing so he could open up his own restaurant (which actually had fair reviews). However, he has since decided to return to filmmaking. The thing about Boll is that not all of his features have exactly been called terrible (2009's Darfur and Rampage received attention for example). The movie is adapted from Dungeon Siege, an action role-playing game published in 2002. This is one of the numerous video game adaptations he would do in his career, which started with House of the Dead (2003) before expanding to great failures such as Alone in the Dark (2005) and Postal (2007); Boll would direct two sequels (2011, 2014) with decidedly smaller budgets. The movie was done by Brightlight Pictures and distributed by Freestyle Releasing and Vivendi Entertainment in the US while 20th Century Fox did overseas distribution (which explains why I saw a Fox logo on the cover on my DVD). 

Beyond the terrible handling of green screen effects and use of wire fu (as helped by action choreographer Ching Siu-tung) is a hilarious failure. You've got battles that apparently feature ninjas to go along with creatures that are catapulted into the air...while being set on fire (this was written by a man named Doug Taylor, who has exactly the amount of writing credits you would guess). This is 127 minutes of pure tedium, since it is a movie that looks and feels terrible in nearly every frame imaginable, packed with cliches that might make you yearn for the days of Krull. Where did all the money go? Did it really go to packing the cast with a bunch of familiar faces? If that is the case, why does everyone seem thoroughly miscast? I have not seen many movies with Statham as a star, but I do know that he is thought to be a suitable presence for action films in his era (i.e. the 2000s). That said, he is thoroughly unsuited for a film like this, since he looks outmatched in any scene that requires anything other than an attempt at action; the script fails to give him anything to do besides hope he can make these inept words seem useful. Who better to play in a Lord of the Rings "inspiration" than someone from those movies...Rhys-Davies? Well, he is a decent character presence, although one always seems to wonder if he is looking more to when the check will clear rather than a performance beyond "autopilot", and we are talking about a movie that has acting wooden enough to attract termites. Sobieski, Forlani, Loken, and White all suffer from this. Perlman looks like he is waiting to get off the screen and escape. If anybody looks outmatched and out-everything, the honor goes to Reynolds, who as we all know is the sentimental favorite in a variety of mediocre (or terrible) movies on Movie Night. For all of the times he had the knack for curious charisma in any film he did, he also had the knack for having the weirdest film choices ever to cross a screen: Can any man say they have acted with Paul Thomas Anderson and Uwe Boll? He looks befuddled to even be in this role, particularly with that kingly get-up. He grimaces through a role that seems to be suited for has-beens, and while Reynolds clearly had seen better days...there are worse options. At least Lillard seems to know he is in a terrible film, acting with the grand camp value of someone who has decided to go with just having silly fun without looking for a good performance (i.e. range). However, the most dubious performance goes to Liotta, who appears to be wearing street clothes in half of his scenes. He seems to be under the impression that a great evil wizard is best repersented by moving his eyes around while somehow resembling Wayne Newton. His performance in Goodfellas (1990) seems like a lifetime ago (you thought Anderson-Boll was nuts, try an actor who worked with Scorsese and Boll). He is probably just as ill-suited for a fantasy role as Statham is, and the ultimate fight between the two of them is just as hysterical as when Liotta and Rhys-Davies interact with each other (involving swords flying around). As a whole, the fights between the pseudo-orcs and everyone else isn't exactly horrible, but one always has the feeling that Boll is just waiting for the next tax dodge or project to rip off somewhere, complete with a twist near the middle of the movie that makes one go "Oh, we're going that route, are we?". Supposedly Boll had thought about releasing the film in two parts, but he instead settled with having a director's cut released (imagine a two-and-a-half-hour "epic", I bet). Despite its length, the plot manages to be quite inept in moving past first gear, with the only notable thing really happening involving the color starting to look less brown as the film gets to the end, which is handled abruptly. As a whole, this turns out to be a grand joke for those who desire to see what a mismatched cast can do with a mismatched director looking to make money out of a molehill and wind up with one of the dumbest movies I have ever had pleasure laughing at. It isn't exactly terrible enough to be one of the worst, but squeezing a star out of pulp is not exactly an accomplishment.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: One must suffer for the crime of believing there is no such thing as a horrible animated movie - Foodfight! (2012). 

The Descendants.

Review #1558: The Descendants.

Cast: 

George Clooney (Matthew "Matt" King), Shailene Woodley (Alexandra "Alex" King), Amara Miller (Scottie King), Nick Krause (Sid), Beau Bridges (Hugh King), Judy Greer (Julie Speer), Matthew Lillard (Brian Speer), Robert Forster (Scott Thorson), Patricia Hastie (Elizabeth King), and Mary Birdsong (Kai Mitchell) Directed by Alexander Payne (#635 - Nebraska and #1169 - About Schmidt)

Review: 

I’m deathly afraid of being too sentimental. But a film should be emotional. There is a letter from Chekhov in which a young writer asks him for some feedback, and he’s kind enough to do it. He writes the guy back and says, basically, ‘It’s too damn sentimental. If you want emotional effects, you have to place them against a cold background, so they stand out in relief.’ I think that’s true.”

It's easy to make a film about fulfillment of the self and finding a way through crisis when you have a director ripe for it. Payne was born in Omaha, Nebraska (which to perhaps some surprise has had several notable people come from there, such as Marlon Brando) to parents with Greek descent. He developed an interest with film early as a child from viewings at the theater with his parents (noting several filmmakers that influenced him such as Robert Altman, Akira Kurosawa, and Luis Bunuel), and receiving an old Super 8mm projector from his father as a teenager helped in that regard as well. He made dual studies in college, studying Spanish literature and history at Stanford University before moving on to UCLA Film School that led to a master's degree alongside attention with his thesis film with The Passion of Martin (1990). While a deal with Universal Pictures didn't result in a film with them (the one script they had him write would be made - as About Schmidt, a decade later), he eventually found his way to feature filmmaking with Citizen Ruth (1996) and his breakthrough with Election (1999). Since then, he has made five further films (with a few even set and shot in his hometown) that have made him an interesting auteur filmmaker to follow through with his mix between drama and comedy with a majority of success with audiences.  

The film is an adaptation of the 2007 novel of the same name by Hawaii-native Kaui Hart Hemmings, who described her experiences growing up there as important to understanding ideas she found interest in such as the "complicated issues of land, history, and inheritance," describing the state as like a silent force more than just a simple drama (with this mix of tragedy and dark comedy being apparent as well in the film). As he has done for most of his films, Payne served as a co-writer of the screenplay (although without usual co-writer Jim Taylor, who instead co-produced the film with Payne), doing so with Nat Faxon and Jim Rash, both of whom were making their debut as writers with a script that languished for a while in development. In any case, what we have here is a capably human film that hits its mark with flawed people living in a world past our first impressions (whether that involves a happy life or "paradise" living in Hawaii). It benefits from a useful cast that accomplishes most of what it wants to display about a life turning around on decisions to be made and ones made for them and finding a way out of being trapped by monotonous life or wracked in pity. Sure, there are no easy solutions to said problems in life, but it is how one steps into their contradictions and deals with it that makes them find something more than just living on some land day after day - a crisis of marriage, a crisis of family, and a crisis of business for 115 minutes that is just well enough. In that sense, Clooney does well in lining up these dilemmas and work it out with conviction that represents a worthy challenge to bring together for an actor like him, never drawing upon emotional smarminess or anything meant to guide away from the character as a whole. Woodley proves well in motion over time with this film, growing around the edge with well enough emphasis, and her moments with Miller or with Krause lend well to some worthy inspection and chuckles. Others make their mark in parts with touches of breeze or flint with Bridges and Forster, respectively, or folks for the climax with Greer and Lillard that make effort count. On the whole, it works in a majority of its moments in generating capable drama without lounging itself too much in pity or with condensation while leaving the audience to see where the path lies for them in resonating with it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Hackers.

Review #1128: Hackers.

Cast: 
Jonny Lee Miller (Dade Murphy / "Zero Cool" / "Crash Override"), Angelina Jolie (Kate Libby / "Acid Burn"), Fisher Stevens ("The Plague" / Eugene Belford), Renoly Santiago (Ramόn Sánchez / "The Phantom Phreak"), Matthew Lillard (Emmanuel Goldstein / "Cereal Killer"), Laurence Mason (Paul Cook / "Lord Nikon"), Jesse Bradford (Joey Pardella), Lorraine Bracco (Margo Wallace), Alberta Watson (Lauren Murphy), Penn Jillette (Hal), and Wendell Pierce (Special Agent Richard Gill) Directed by Iain Softley.

Review: 
I suppose it makes sense that this I encounter Hackers, since it seems to linger on how hip and weird it wants to be, even if it shows its age more so than actual people from the 90s. After all, what other movie can you think of that showcases Jolt Cola? (of which I can safely say I have had a cup of). Or offbeat hairstyles and fashion choices that make bow-ties seem sane by comparison? No doubt, the highlight of this is seeing the virtual environment and computer screens that we can see on people's faces without much problem. This is a film that certainly had some sort of curiosity about hacking and cyberpunk subcultures, where Rafael Moreu (screenwriter for the movie) talked with actual hackers to help develop inspiration for the movie, which the cast also ended up doing, to the point where Miller attended an actual hacker's convention. By the time this film was released, hackers even had their own manifesto out in the open. Sometimes, the best thing to say about a movie is to say that it's "just a movie", for better or worse. How can I take this movie seriously when the stakes and situations presented are so ridiculous in execution? This is a film that has a scene of our main lead hacking a local TV station's computer network to get it to show The Outer Limits (not that there's anything wrong with that choice) and leads into a hacking showoff with another hacker that has the imagery of cassette machines fighting over what tape to show. On one side of the film is a bunch of hacker heroes who like to roller-blade and listen to electronic music, while on the other side is a villain who un-ironically goes by "The Plague" who likes to skateboard around when working who plays the cliche of the corporate adversary, complete with a theft scheme right out of Superman III (1983). Actually, the fact that Penn Jillette (of the comedy magic duo Penn & Teller) is featured in a supporting role probably doesn't break the top five of weirdest things to note in this movie. One could probably write an entire essay over the strange nature of a film made in a time where people weren't as familiar with the Internet as they are today - you're reading this on a virtual screen, after all. Although the movie (made on a budget of $20 million) was not much of a success with audiences at the time, it does endure with its own cult following.

Miller does an okay job at handling a main role, but there are times when he feels a bit dry and not always too interesting, particularly when others are on screen who stand out in their own ways. After all, you might say he's a hacker, not a fighter. Jolie (in her third ever appearance on film) for example, has a certain kind of energy and nature to her that invites interest even with her closed off character and a hacker rivalry with Miller that goes (mostly) the way one would probably expect. They do share some chemistry with each other, at least, although the fact it is in a movie as weirdly built as this one is amusing. It proves amusing to see itself try to subvert the cliche romance, mostly because you'll find yourself involved with the hacking more. Santiago is fine, and Lillard certainly inspires hit-or-miss moments with his scene-stealing moments of hacking and weird hair. Mason and Bradford round out the hacker group, and they are both fine in their brief time. Clearly, the one who munches attention is Stevens, the keyboard cowboy (as he puts it) who makes the experience worth it in playing the role of the adversary without taking it too seriously or too amusingly. In lesser hands, it would've come off as silly nonsense, but Stevens is adept at being compelling to watch be the smug and clever foil, even if the stakes aren't particularly too high. Oh sure, a bunch of oil tanker fleets will capsize to cover a hacking scheme, but there is something truly amusing about the levels of tension (and occasional humor) the film wants to draw for its climax, complete with rollerblading, hacker-themed pirate TV show hosts, and splotches of color and imagery for a hacking showdown. Interestingly, the cyberspace effects are not computer generated imagery, but instead naturally created, using methods such as animations, motion control, or other methods. The cutting edge-ness that I'm sure the film had in 1995 is more of a soft edge now, but there is something to watch in its entertainment value regardless, whether for laughs or not. It's dumb and cheesy, but there's a certain feeling to its cheese that makes it one you can't reject too easily out of hand. I'd hesitate to easily call it a cult classic, but it's certainly the kind of film you could watch late at night and point at with chuckles, for better or worse, even if I can't quite give it a positive endorsement. It isn't much as a crime film, but it is certainly something on an entertainment level. It's entertaining junk of the weirdest order even with over two decades of age behind it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Scooby-Doo.

Review #621: Scooby-Doo.

Cast
Freddie Prinze Jr (Fred Jones), Sarah Michelle Gellar (Daphne Blake), Matthew Lillard (Shaggy Rogers), Linda Cardellini (Velma Dinkley), Rowan Atkinson (Emile Mondavarious), Neil Fanning (Scooby-Doo), Isla Fisher (Mary Jane), and Scott Innes (Scrappy-Doo) Directed by Raja Gosnell (#495 - Home Alone 3)

Review
Scooby-Doo was at always at least somewhat enjoyable, Scooby-Doo, Where Are You! was fine for all its flaws (the laugh track, the questionable animation), and it is probably the show most remember of the 11 shows that have been broadcast in nearly 45 years, and so they made a movie. Let me clarify that, they've made a few direct to video films (22) and telefilms, but then there's the two theatrical films, but we're only covering the first film tonight. So...yeah, what about this film? It's like the movie can't decide on what it wants to be, does it want to make fun of the show or does it want to just embrace the show and its quirks? Part of the problem is that the movie is unbalanced, it just doesn't have a proper focus, though I guess it is sometimes fun, it has it moments, the climax is actually decent, even if Scrappy-Doo is in it. The CGI is weird, maybe it's the fact that the demons look like weird stick figures, and their weakness to the sun doesn't help much. This is a movie where you really can't care if it stinks because it's not like you were expecting anything special from a movie with a competition of burping and farting between Scooby and Shaggy. The acting is fine, but the movie neither benefits nor suffers from the actors, it's just an average movie that while sometimes fun, isn't anything special. Watch at your own risk.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Scream.

Review #558: Scream.

Cast

Neve Campbell (Sidney Prescott), David Arquette (Dewey Riley), Courteney Cox (Gale Weathers), Matthew Lillard (Stuart), Skeet Ulrich (Billy), Rose McGowan (Tatum), Jamie Kennedy (Randy), Henry Winkler (Himbry), Roger Jackson (Phone Voice), and Drew Barrymore (Casey Becker) Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street)

Review

Scream essentially gave new life to the horror genre, with a self aware nature and much success that would lead to three sequels. But enough about the history, let's get to the film itself. The actors are all fun to watch (my favorite to watch is Henry Winkler, who while having only a small cameo, manages to make me laugh. There's a scene where Winkler's character is playing with a Ghostface mask he confiscated, acting like the killer, silly faces and all, which is pretty amusing to me), and Neve Campbell certainly does a great job, especially at the end. Drew Barrymore (who I know for co-hosting TCM's The Essentials, which she does a good job co-hosting, BTW.) may be just an extended cameo, but her scene (the opening scene, rather) is a really memorable scene because it's more than just the intro to a horror film. I like how the movie ends, it's kind of clever and I like how the motive isn't precisely revealed, it leaves you guessing (Or you could just go onto IMDb forums and find answers for yourself, but that's another story), and Craven does an excellent job directing (Especially the horror, which is pretty good, not overblown in blood, a bit subtle), this is a good movie to watch.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.