Interstellar.

Review #2322: Interstellar.

Cast: 

Matthew McConaughey (Joseph "Coop" Cooper), Anne Hathaway (Dr. Amelia Brand), Jessica Chastain (Murphy "Murph" Cooper; Mackenzie Foy as 10-year-old Murph; Ellen Burstyn as elderly Murph), John Lithgow (Donald), Michael Caine (Professor John Brand), Casey Affleck (Tom Cooper; Timothée Chalamet as 15-year-old Tom), Wes Bentley (Doyle), Bill Irwin (TARS - voice and puppetry and CASE puppetry), Topher Grace (Getty), David Gyasi (Professor Romilly), and Matt Damon (Dr. Mann) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk , #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises, #1618 - Tenet, #2050 - Oppenheimer)

Review: 

“It’s been a really interesting challenge. When you say you’re making a family film, it has all these pejorative connotations that it’ll be somehow soft. But when I was a kid, these were family films in the best sense, and they were as edgy and incisive and challenging as anything else on the blockbuster spectrum. I wanted to bring that back in some way.”

Honestly, the best way to talk about a movie like this is to just go with it. In 2006, Kip Thorne (a theoretical physicist, writer, and future Nobel Prize winner) and Lynda Obst had come up with trying to work with each other again, having previously collaborated on Contact (1997), in which Thorne's study of wormhole space travel had been incorporated into the screenplay (as written by Carl Sagan, a close friend of Obst). Thorne had theories involving “warped space-time" that eventually found Jonathan Nolan assigned to write that outline into a narrative. When the original director in mind (Steven Spielberg) had other ideas in mind to work on, Christopher Nolan expressed interest to direct and to incorporate his own ideas for the screenplay (evidently, the first hour of the film, set in the not-too distant future with inspiration taken from the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s, is pretty true to the original screenplay while one particular shape for the climax came from C.Nolan). Thorne had set out two guidelines for the Nolans in having a film that wouldn't "violate established physical laws" while having wild speculations spring in some sort of science. He later wrote a book on his experiences as a consultant on the film (The Science of Interstellar). The effects by Double Negative had the use of digital projectors to go along with miniature effects from other collaborators for spacecraft (incidentally, that one famous image of an actual black hole came out in 2019). Released in November of 2014, Interstellar was a pretty fair success in its time, with probably the visual effects receiving the most praise (for its 10th anniversary, select theaters showed the film again in 70mm IMAX).

I do wonder if I would like this film better on a re-watch a few years down the line. In fact, the reputation of the film suggests that, well, for all the engineer and craftmanship, the mysteries really can have love as one of the ways forward. It is worthy spectacle and also a mash of human interest for 169 minutes. Time is the important factor in the great vacant reaches of spaces that ultimately lend one to the immeasurable pull of hope in the strange margins. The best way to go with the movie is to watch with as little to really know about it as possible, one in which you don't look for tricks but just try to absorb the film piece by piece. It does not leave one impatient to get to space because of the general commitment shown by Nolan and company to let things breathe in a place filled with blighted surroundings (consider this is a film where textbooks talk about the Apollo missions as one of waste and elaborate conspiracy). In a film with plenty of worthwhile effects, it also happens to be a movie with a worthwhile cast to support it all, since it basically is a fable of people who have to learn to look up again, ones who cannot just be caretakers or "stay" where they are. McConaughey has the calm sense to make it all work in maneuvering charm that is worth playing out for a journey beyond the stars. That first third (rough estimate) in the fields of a blighted world with him and the on-screen youth in Foy and Chalamet to go along with Lithgow make for an earthy quartet to balance out the inevitable when one is brought into the mix of Caine (reciting one particular poem) and the reasoned grace from Hathaway. Of course, the other key is in the latecomer in Damon to round out a look on human nature in all of its facets when confronted with danger, loneliness, love, or the space between (of course, Irwin is there too to convey the robot voice and puppetry to really round out the highlights, I didn't forget that). The enjoyment of the film is in layers, really, managing to walk the frontier tightrope (as one might say) in drawing a sci-fi epic in the eyes of a family and where that leads for meaningful stakes in what really matters most when it comes to the immeasurable qualities of survival. There are plenty of moments that one will find astounding, such as say, the tidal wave sequence or the manual docking sequence to go along with the eventual "clicking together" moment that rewards the curious with threading the needle in not just being a cop out for the sake of sweeping it all up. In totality, it is a pretty neat movie when viewed all the way through in execution in ways that can only be understood for those with the patience to six through such a worthwhile journey. I can't call it my favorite Nolan movie, but it is worthwhile enough to recommend on the best screen possible to absorb for all that it brings beyond the stars. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Welcome again to December 20, the anniversary day for Movie Night, which is now 14 years old. I apologize for the lengthy delay between reviews, I simply wanted to take some time off to refresh myself so that I close out 2024 by not "phoning it in". Surprise: today is a doubleheader day.

Tropic Thunder.

Review #2089: Tropic Thunder.

Cast: 

Ben Stiller (Tugg Speedman), Jack Black (Jeff Portnoy), Robert Downey Jr (Kirk Lazarus as Lincoln Osiris), Nick Nolte (Four Leaf Tayback), Steve Coogan (Damien Cockburn), Jay Baruchel (Kevin Sandusky), Danny McBride (Cody Underwood), Brandon T. Jackson (Alpa Chino), Bill Hader (Studio Executive Rob Slolom), Brandon Soo Hoo (Tran), Trieu Tran (Tru), Matthew McConaughey (Rick "The Pecker" Peck), and Tom Cruise (Les Grossman) Directed by Ben Stiller.

Review: 

''I was trying to push it as far as you can within reality. I had no idea how people would respond to it.'' 

Ben Stiller spent a couple of years making an idea involving actors filming a war movie. He would know, because this idea came about when he had appeared in a small part in Empire of the Sun (1987). He had seen a number of his friends undergo boot camp training for their roles that found them talking like they had become part of a real military unit that seemed like a "sort of self-important, self-involved thing". He kicked around ideas while getting his turn in television such as The Ben Stiller Show and directing with Reality Bites (1994) and The Cable Guy (1996) before appearing in There's Something About Mary (1998) made him a more name presence. At any rate, the script for what became this film was developed by Stiller and Justin Theroux while Etan Cohen helped them write the screenplay. Oddly enough, Stiller intended to cast Keanu Reeves in the lead role and himself as the agent, but when this did not come to pass, he instead took over the lead role. There also is a bit of improvisation present when it came to parts of the storyboard that didn't have scripted dialogue. Spoof, satire, parody, I think you get the idea of what you have with a film that seems right at home with others such as Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse (1991), the documentary that detailed the "rough" time in the production of Apocalypse Now (1979). It sure must have been a surprise that the film attracted minor controversy (something involving disabilities or "blackface", but 2008 crowds had their own standards of ignoring that), because Stiller was even quoted as saying once it has "always been a controversial movie" while noting it as one he is proud of it.

I vaguely remember watching this film about over a decade ago, and I thought it was decent back then before somehow forgetting about it. I wondered a bit how the film was going to look now that it was past the 15-year mark. Hell, I should have realized it was going to be a good time, because, well, it is a fine time to spend in the art of making light of war moviemaking. It makes a solid 107-minute ensemble with plenty of fun spent making light of the excesses that come in moviemaking for those in front of the camera and behind it. The array of spoofs starts right from the get-go with the faux trailers that begin the film by showing four degrees of a star, whether that involves method acting, has-been action stars, Chris Farley models, or, well, rappers trying to be actors. Stiller proves pretty well with the insecure has-been that comes with flailing in the face of rising and dying stars in Hollywood, which includes trying to veer in "Oscar bait" for worthwhile silly insecurity. The best way to describe Downey Jr's performance is, well "dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude." He is so absorbed in playing someone so different from himself (both in appearance and, well, personality) that is quite amusing in the fact he is all in for trying to trigger emotions like a man pressing buttons on a conveyor. You could make the argument that the actor he really seems to hone is not so much Daniel Day-Lewis (method acting and all) but in fact Peter Sellars (hey, The Party (1968) has its own debate over playing race versus playing comedy). Black succeeds fairly well in pathetic addiction, at least when compared to the moments of film acting for the fart-based trailer or those moments in the "war film", I mean. Jackson and Baruchel round out the cast with their own lingering flailing at the insecurities that infringe all of them in the jungle (technically Baruchel is the straight man, but the only different quality for Jackson is a punchline but stay with me on this). The adversaries presented are pretty one note, unless you try to posit that war movies sometimes have their own one-dimensional outlook, but one thing that is delightfully one note in the best way is Nolte, because his gruff outlook in the face of lies is endearing (particularly since he contrasts McBride). Cruise seems to be enjoying himself in the loudest and most obvious cliche (name me one benevolent studio head), which I was surprised to realize actually involved prosthetic hands, and it works out to a few decent jokes (I don't actually believe that a spinoff film would've been the best idea though, but you do you). As a whole, the gags work out pretty well for silly enjoyment over how much insecurity one can have with actors with a biting pace and tone that holds its own in all of the right ways. 15 years hasn't made the humor lessen in impact for those who are up for it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

EDtv.

Review #1848: EDtv.

Cast: 

Matthew McConaughey (Edward "Ed" Pekurny), Jenna Elfman (Shari), Woody Harrelson (Raymond "Ray" Pekurny), Ellen DeGeneres (Cynthia Reed), Martin Landau (Al), Sally Kirkland (Jeanette Pekurny), Elizabeth Hurley (Jill), Rob Reiner (Mr. Whitaker), Dennis Hopper (Henry 'Hank' Pekurny), Viveka Davis (Marcia Pekurny), Christian Kane (P.A.), Adam Goldberg (John), Wendle Josepher (Rita), Merrin Dungey (Ms. Seaver), Ian Gomez (McIlvaine), and Clint Howard (Ken) Directed by Ron Howard (#301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas, #546 - Cinderella Man, #1085 - Willow, #1095 - Solo: A Star Wars Story, #1509 - Apollo 13)

Review: 

If you remember, The Truman Show (1998) was a movie that happened to feature a man with his life unknowingly being displayed on television to a captivated audience of the world. EDtv, released on year later, is a movie that happens to feature a man with his life knowingly being displayed on television to a captivated audience of the world. One can be called a "satirical comedy" and the other can fall into the "psychological comedy-drama satire". Well, that isn't particularly fair to this feature, which is actually a remake of the 1994 Quebecois film Louis 19, King of the Airwaves [Louis 19, le roi des ondes]. Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel (who had written the scripts for a handful of Ron Howard movies likes Splash (1984)) wrote the screenplay for this film. Of course, one really shouldn't reference better material in its own film, with this film referencing An American Family (the hit reality TV show of 1973) in its early minutes when talking about its "innovations"...that show happened to inspire its own spoof with Real Life (1979), a comedy movie involving a documentary filmmaker trying to live with an American family for a year. The funny thing is that EDtv came out nine months after The Truman Show as a big-budget production that runs at 123 minutes (longer than you-know-who), and yet it was a considerable failure with audiences at the time. Maybe it was just more interesting to see Jim Carrey try to tap into comedy-drama rather than Matthew McConaughey (fresh from overrated material like Dazed and Confused (1993) to A Time to Kill (1996)), or maybe it was something else. But I think you know the answer isn't just that EDtv is inferior to The Truman Show, because dueling movies with similar concepts can work out for both sides. Besides, this was made in the era of shows like The Real World, what could possibly go wrong? 

Unfortunately, the movie only barely scratches the surface when it comes to any sort of "bite", because it point-blank does not know what the hell it wants to be, fledging between romcom and satire in ways that only an indecisive polar bear could love. I'm not saying that the movie needed to have the bite of Network (1976) when it comes to human nature, but one is basically watching a slightly amped version of The Jerry Springer Show. Of course, even Springer got to "take advantage" with his own movie that happened to have been released around that time with Ringmaster (1998), so perhaps calling EDtv the sitcom-infused love child of Springer and other offshoots is a bit on the mark. Maybe it isn't as much of a fantasy as the earlier 1998 movie, but it sure isn't any more in touch with reality, because its main motivation is never entirely convincing: if you were asked to be on television and have your life broadcast 24/7, you probably would have to be a crazy person to really go with this, and the movie just doesn't hold its own in terms of believability beyond what you would see in a paper-thin sitcom, which seems catered to being a movie made by committee of producers rather than a movie made from any semblance of believability. In other words: when you become a person on camera, you will lose far more of yourself than you prove to gain, and only the best translates well to television (best of course is subjective, since there are countless examples of people being famous on television for the sake of famous). 

The cast is here and there, which is not something you really want to say about a movie that likely has its myriad of cameo appearances happen because of some sort of insecurity (most apparent with its moments with Jay Leno, a presence odious enough to insult rather than allow him to make jokes for you). It especially doesn't help when the movie likes to show brief moments with "the average American viewer" from time to time, since it only adds on to the dry factor in all of its unnecessary nature (while homing in on the made-by-committee point). My real problem is that there are just too many characters present here, spiraling out of control for two hours when one could trim a few minutes and lose nothing. McConaughey is technically decent in the film in that he never borders on insufferable when it comes to being "man on television 24/7", because the script does want a presence of warmth within the initial spark of naivety that overrides any sense of wanting a looser script (i.e. either a performance of a loser or someone less likable). In short: he is fine despite the limitations presented. Elfman is wrapped in the least funny part of the film: the rom-com parts, which doesn't help matters when one is trapped like a fishbowl in ways that probably make Dharma & Greg seem completely tolerable, since the chemistry with McConaughey is marginal at best. Hell, even Hurley and her "hired gun" performance is slightly more interesting, even if it ends abruptly. Harrelson is slightly entertaining, but again, the movie needs desperation from its people rather than goofy middlemen (Landau and Kirkland play to form handily, but that isn't saying much). DeGeneres spends half of her time watching the screen of the lead character and the other half coming up with "zingers" that make for a forgettable performance, as if being the originator of 24/7 reality TV isn't exciting enough to make into biting humor besides the use of Reiner, which is as predictable as a meathead insult. Perhaps it is amusing fate that Hopper is in this movie, as he was actually originally cast in The Truman Show before being replaced by the filmmakers for Ed Harris. He just doesn't get much to do for his two scenes, which is surely disappointing for an actor of his stature - granted, the scene where he tries to reminisce about an old memory with his son only to misremember it on live TV.

There is potential for a movie worth watching in the desperation of someone who thinks that the best hustle in life is to go out on television and show their whole lives to the world, but the movie only thinks of it in the most basic of ways that has the effect of a whimper. It might be a cheap thing to say that the movie was steamrolled by a movie with a better director, writer and overall cast, but nobody, and I repeat, nobody, will ever find reason to give abject praise to EDtv, a mediocre movie in every sense of the word, without having to strain hard to not compare it to The Truman Show. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Wolf of Wall Street.

Review #1567: The Wolf of Wall Street.

Cast:
Leonardo DiCaprio (Jordan Belfort), Jonah Hill (Donnie Azoff), Margot Robbie (Naomi Lapaglia), Kyle Chandler (Patrick Denham), Rob Reiner (Max Belfort), Jon Bernthal (Brad Bodnick), Matthew McConaughey (Mark Hanna), Jon Favreau (Manny Riskin), Jean Dujardin (Jean-Jacques Saurel), Joanna Lumley (Aunt Emma), Cristin Milioti (Teresa Petrillo), Aya Cash (Janet), Christine Ebersole (Leah Belfort), Shea Whigham (Captain Ted Beecham), Katarina Cas (Chantalle Bodnick), Stephanie Kurtzuba (Kimmie Belzer), P. J. Byrne (Nicky Koskoff), Kenneth Choi (Chester Ming), and Brian Sacca (Robbie Feinberg) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver, #992 - The King of Comedy, #1276 - Mean Streets, #1463 - Raging Bull, #1496 - Goodfellas, #1544 - The Departed, and #1559 - Hugo)

Review:
"If you look at what occurred in the world of finance—many times now and it will probably happen again—you really have to ask the questions: Is dishonesty acceptable? Aren’t people expected to go too far?”

"It’s interesting, because I have been doing this since I was 13. I am almost about to turn 40, and I am looking back at some of the stuff I’ve gotten to do, and at the center of it is this amazing accidental collaboration that I’ve gotten to have with Marty.”

There have been quite a number of director-actor teams over the prevailing decades of cinema, and one could only hope to make one as worthwhile and engaging for both on and behind the camera as Martin Scorsese with Leonardo DiCaprio. They haven't worked with each other as much as another certain duo involving Scorsese, but their five films together have served each other well in terms of audience appeal and curiosity over people at the prime of who they are in direction and acting. Both were well-regarded names before the 21st century had even started, and their first collaboration together would be with Gangs of New York (2002). This is the fifth film that they had made together as star director and actor (with a sixth collaboration reportedly coming sometime in this decade). DiCaprio had wanted to make this film since 2007 when it was brought to his attention by producer Alexandra Milchan, finding interest in its portrayal of people addicted to obtaining wealth by any means necessary and the "author's singular transparency"; this would also attract Scorsese to the project as well to direct alongside produce with DiCaprio and others, while Terence Winter (most known for his writing work on The Sopranos and developer/writer of Boardwalk Empire) was brought in to write the screenplay.

Undeniably, it will spark thoughts of Goodfellas (1990), Scarface (1983), or especially Wall Street (1987). Sometimes one has to embrace the madness that comes from a movie like this, a film with no shame or qualms about showing the nature of depravity within trying to make money alongside uncompromising honesty that makes for a strange wild movie that certainly proved different from viewer to viewer in enjoyment. The film is based on the book of the same name by convicted felon Jordan Belfort, and if you believe what you hear from him, what occurred in the memoir was actually toned down in regards to the levels of debauchery (which already seem high), but we are talking about a movie that fudges with some of the real names (such as Danny Porush, Gregory Coleman, Ira Sorkin, and even Belfort's two wives). If the subject depicted on screen found the film to be fairly accurate, can one really go wrong? If you hear it from his partner Porush (fellow convict and apparent gold-fish consumer), one wonders just exactly was accurate in the incidents depicted. Or how about from the attorney that prosecuted him? Just what does want from a biographical black comedy about excess with fraud? You know Belfort is a felon, and I know he is a felon that now does motivational speaking, yet here we are. Who are we kidding though? It is a movie about people who can't help but want to make money (and lots of it). I think maybe this is a barometer film for those who look at films for their content or about what they really say as a whole, where one could really either find to be a blistering roar of humor within ethical malaise, or perhaps a film bloated on purpose too much for its own good to mean anything. We could go through the wheelbarrow of things to describe al day, whether that means little people being tossed, yacht crashing, shaven heads for big money, etc, etc. I think I fall into the former category, because I did like what I saw here, but there always seems to be something gnawing in my mind that knows it is just pretty good rather than great. If I want a film with more balance towards the authorities with fraud, I could just pass a glance to an American Greed rerun. It is wild, crude, unbalanced, and everything in the book of what makes a film ripe for unrestrained potential. One obviously starts with DiCaprio in highlighting the biggest strength. Simply put, he does a great job in generating a sort of feral charisma, a man you can find yourself yelling along with in the breakroom even when you the viewer knows the result of said practice-making. His asides and voiceovers throughout the film help as well in generating a fascinating performance, one that dazzles the viewer in his range in where he progresses in the pursuit of money and vices that come from such ravenous appetite, and perhaps it isn't surprising that he equated Belfort to being like a "modern-day emperor Caligula". Hill was so desperate to work with Scorsese and play that part that he took a significant pay-cut to do so. Clearly, it seemed to pay off well for Hill, who is such a rapid-fire presence of excellence, one that seems exactly in his element to be part of the pursuit for money as a creature of brashness and budding one-two act with DiCaprio, one that can make eating a goldfish not seem like a hammy moment. Robbie works well in those moments spent with DiCaprio that are dazzling in allure for what is needed in a film building people up in currency beyond just the money on the table. Chandler is the carefully smooth figure in authority, driven in those little moments without needing to be a bigger focus - the sequence on the yacht with him and DiCaprio is a skillful one to see the wheels turn in cat-and-mouse play. Reiner, the TV star-turned-director-turned-occasional actor, does well in handing in some blustery sense that is needed. Bernthal lends a deliberate coarse hand that works with the other associates seen mostly for the first half alongside the other associates of growing wry sellers. McConaughey isn't in the film long, but the chest beating and humming scene is easily the sparkplug scene that rolls the film along rightly, while others lend supportive hands for dubious measures in Favreau, Dujardin and Lumley. As a whole, it is definitely a film to set a whole day for to see the mayhem of moral bankruptcy for three hours that will reward those who find its intent useful without thinking it as unsubtle. If you are into what the film is selling, go right on ahead for one of the most interesting features to sit through for its era from a prime duo worthy of seeing on screen to do it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Bernie (2011).

Review #1206: Bernie.

Cast: 
Jack Black (Bernie Tiede), Matthew McConaughey (Danny Buck Davidson), Shirley MacLaine (Marjorie "Margate Nugent), Brady Coleman (Scrappy Holmes), Richard Robichaux (Lloyd Hornbuckle), Rick Dial (Don Leggett), Brandon Smith (Sheriff Huckabee), Larry Jack Dotson (the Rev. Woodard), Merrilee McCommas (Molly), Mathew Greer (Carl), and Gabriel Luna (Kevin) Directed by Richard Linklater (#645 - School of Rock and #1138 - Dazed and Confused)

Review: 
It could be argued that this is an oddball kind of film. After all, it is a dark comedy chronicle of a 1996 murder in a small town by a mortician that had respect from his community despite keeping his victim in a freezer for nine months. Of course, most films don't try to have gossip elements involving a mix of actual townspeople interviews and performers that likes to muddle the line of fiction and documentary. The screenplay was done by Linklater and Skip Hollandsworth, who had wrote an article about the case called "Midnight in the Garden of East Texas" two years after the murder. It is an interesting kind of film in what kind of story it wants to tell, being quick to not veer too hard into being either drama or black comedy, with the key to the film's success being Black and his performance. He plays it with a subtle edge, having the task of trying to make a person who we know killed someone from the get go be someone that we don't immediately recoil from, and he does a fine job in seeping into a kindly tactful type of guy that never seems inauthentic or too out-of-depth for Black to roll with - whether that involves trying to help a couple pick a nicer coffin or partake in singing practice for a show, being quirky without feeling like a bit being done for show. McConaughey (showing up mostly in talking-head segments) is fun to sit with for the moments he gets to show up. MacLaine is mostly utilized to show some dourness and compulsive control over things for a lady described by someone as one with a "...nose was so high, she’d drown in a rainstorm.” Perhaps the portrayal of Nugent could have certainly been expanded on in some ways, but she does play the final side of the film's triangle of main actors just fine. The other actors blend in without too much trouble when needed. It is interesting at times to see the gossip talked about in the segments involving town members that goes on long enough without choking the film's momentum or run-time of 99 minutes too much. With a budget of $6 million and a shooting schedule of 22 days, Bernie certainly stands out as quirky if not mostly effective entertainment that is given life through the portrayal of the title role from Black that proves to be a little gem that works itself out just fine in the long run.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Dazed and Confused.

Review #1138: Dazed and Confused.

Cast: 
Jason London (Randall "Pink" Floyd), Wiley Wiggins (Mitch Kramer), Sasha Jenson (Don Dawson), Michelle Burke (Jodi Kramer), Christine Harnos (Kaye Faulkner), Rory Cochrane (Ron Slater), Ben Affleck (Fred O'Bannion), Adam Goldberg (Mike Newhouse), Anthony Rapp (Tony Olson), Marissa Ribisi (Cynthia Dunn), Catherine Avril Morris (Julie Simms), Matthew McConaughey (David Wooderson), Shawn Andrews (Kevin Pickford), Cole Hauser (Benny O'Donnell), Milla Jovovich (Michelle Burroughs), Joey Lauren Adams (Simone Kerr), Christin Hinojosa (Sabrina Davis), and Parker Posey (Darla Marks) Directed by Richard Linklater (#645 - School of Rock)

Review: 
It seems only natural to cover this film, released in the years after other coming-of-age teen comedies such as Porky's (1981), Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982), Sixteen Candles (1984), but with an intent to stand out from those by trying to depict high school without trying to verge into any unnecessary drama while having an assortment of 70s songs wrapped up in a small-town movie without too much plot. I suppose the best words to describe it would be to just describe it as something wrapped in a time capsule with a bunch of albums and a bunch of items of leisure stuffed inside that will certainly take some people back while being handy entertainment for others. With such a big group of actors and characters like this, it's interesting to see who doesn't get lost in the shuffle too much and stick out.  London is a pretty fair lead to follow along with, a casual kind of guy that proves useful for a few laughs. Wiggins is also pretty casual, fitting in with what the film wants to go without looking out-of-place. Others such as Jenson, Burke and Harnos are okay, and Cochrane is pretty amusing to be around with. Affleck, in one of his first film roles, stands out handily, making something out of his bully material that can certainly seem familiar - for better or worse. Goldberg, Rapp, and Ribisi, playing an intellectual trio occasionally mixed in with the fun times, prove to be alright with having a few awkward laughs. Easily, the one who stands out is McConaughey, starring in his second ever role (appearing in a bit role in My Boyfriend's Back the same year), doing well with what he is given that makes for such amazement. He just sticks out with the way he chooses to interact in this landscape, whether when talking about a car or when talking about "livin'", it's easy to see in retrospect how he became such a prominent star. It is clear that there was a dedicated effort to capture an exact feel for the setting of the summer of 1976, with one-sixth of the six million dollar budget going towards licensing for usage of the songs featured from "Rock and Roll, Hoochie Koo" by Rick Derringer to "Slow Ride" by Foghat.

The movie isn't really about anything too deep in particular through its 102 minute run-time, but what it shows through its numerous characters is people certainly having some sort of good time. There isn't any kind of overtly cliche characters, everyone seems to just blend in, for lack of a better term that will prove interesting to follow through with for the most part. There isn't too much of an aim beyond just where it wants to show, but it isn't just a nostalgia trip that worships the "glory days" of high school; obviously the lens one views that era of their lives is different for a teen from the 1970s than a kid from the 2010s, and it'll play into how they see scenes in the film such as the scenes with the teens at the main hangout place or the casual conversations that go on there or elsewhere, or the scenes involving hazing the incoming freshman or the scene with neighborhood cruising while wrecking mailboxes. Perhaps having good memories of the times of the youth make this a great sit-through. I can look back on my times of youth decently enough, but I can't for the life of me think that I need to recollect these memories too much, but perhaps that's not the whole point. I myself am not too hard on movies for relying a bit on nostalgia, just as long as it doesn't go overboard - which the movie does fine with. The film resonated with me more often than not, but I can't find myself thinking that this is anything too particularly great, just being a decent feature. It will serve as handy entertainment for those who are curious to seek it, whether if looking for a decent time, palatable music or a trip to a different age.

Next Time: Spooktober officially begins.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Kubo and the Two Strings.

Review #836: Kubo and the Two Strings.

Cast
Art Parkinson (Kubo), Charlize Theron (Monkey/Kubo's mother), Matthew McConaughey (Beetle), Ralph Fiennes (Raiden the Moon King), Rooney Mara (the Sisters), George Takei (Hosato), Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa (Hashi), and Brenda Vaccaro (Kameyo) Directed by Travis Knight.

Review
In the two films I've reviewed done by the studio Laika (#189 - Coraline and #240 - Paranorman), they were both enjoyable and wonderfully made animated movies. Fortunately, this film continues that trend. This is an exquisite piece of work that manages to establish (and maintain) a dark sense of adventure and fantasy, with a fair cast of characters and gorgeous imagination and animation. Parkinson does a fine job in the lead role, giving this character the needed weight and depth to make him more than just a typical fantasy kid lead. Theron and McConaughey are also exceptional, managing to keep the movie on its heels, with a few moments of laughs between the trio as a whole. It's a fun movie, complete with enough of everything for everyone; mot to spoil anything, but this is also a movie that pulls enough strings and twists correctly as well. The stop-motion animation is wonderful to watch, managing to help make the world the movie builds to life perfectly, such as when the movie utilizes origami paper (a miniature warrior created by the paper is with the group for most of the film) to great advantage. Fiennes isn't in the movie until the last half of the film (with Mara being seen more often, playing the two sisters wickedly well), but he makes for a fine enough villain, with a climax that is pretty spectacular to watch as well. At 102 minutes, this is a fine film to watch, with exceptional marks in almost every subject. It's clear that there was a lot of labor and love put into this film, and I applaud them for making a movie as fun as this. Despite the limited amount of people at the theater for the film, this was still a good time.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.