Cutthroat Island.

Review #2240: Cutthroat Island.

Cast: 

Geena Davis (Morgan Adams), Matthew Modine (William Shaw), Frank Langella (Douglas "Dawg" Brown), Maury Chaykin (John Reed), Patrick Malahide (Ainslee), Stan Shaw (Glasspoole), Rex Linn (Mr. Blair), Paul Dillon (Snelgrave), Chris Masterson (Bowen), Jimmie F. Skaggs (Tom Scully), Harris Yulin ("Black" Harry Adams) and Angus Wright (Trotter) Directed by Renny Harlin (#016 - Die Hard 2, #670 - Cliffhanger, #745 - A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master and #2163 - The Adventures of Ford Fairlane)

Review: 

Not all failures are created equal, but I'm sure you already know that. It isn't so much that the film was hated by audiences (barely anybody saw it), it was the fact that you don't get that many films labeled as "studio killers". The original idea for the film was sprung by James Gorman and Michael Frost Beckner, who had wanted to make a modernized pirate genre film involving hunting down folks for pieces of a map for adventure. That idea was presented and bought by Carolco Pictures. You might remember that Carolco (as originally founded by Mario Kassar and Andrew G. Vajna) was the production company involved in films such as First Blood (1982) and Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991) but they had bet badly on their spending to the point of teetering debt. Cutthroat Island would be their last big-budget gasp (after selling the rights to other films in production such as Showgirls (1995), strangely enough), and it came out in the winter of 1995, one month after the studio filed for bankruptcy protection. It should be noted that six writers were credited by the time the film was finished (Bruce A. Evans & Raynold Gideon for the story alongside Gorman & Beckner to go with Robert King & Marc Norman for the screenplay). Any chance for a well-adjusted budget feature of swashbuckling with stars went right down with hiring Renny Harlin, who actually was running on the heels of films such as Cliffhanger (1993). It was he who casted his wife (Academy Award winner Geena Davis) into ideas of being an action-adventure star that managed to turn the idea of pairing her with Michael Douglas (who did not want to play second fiddle) into one where she was instead paired with Matthew Modine (he can fence!). This, alongside massive delays in shooting (Oliver Reed was supposed to do a cameo, take one guess what happened) and re-writes and you have the recipe for a movie that maybe, maybe not, deserves to be looked at under the hood beyond just saying it is a flop.  

Take this with a grain of salt: it is about exactly what you think would be in a pirate film for the kid at heart. It is right in the sweet spot of having craftsmanship show in each scene when it comes to crafting sequences with the look (sword fight or otherwise) ...but I'll be damned if I can really defend the movie beyond shrugging my shoulders and saying, "it worked for me". Pirate films just aren't the thing I really do much of (one has the choice of "Treasure Island" adaptations, or something based on theme parks), but I can say that the swashbuckler level is on the level I was hoping for. It may be hokey, it may be silly, but it doesn't bullshit itself in acts of contortion (i.e. the film has folks that at least look like they don't want to crawl into a hole and stay there). I will give the credit to Davis (and others who had to do stunts, when possible, clearly) when it comes to rolling along with the punches of serviceable pulp that is right at "looks like they can kick someone's ass" type of home. The nicest thing to say about Modine is that at least some of the quips are tolerable, but if you imagine that the role was supposed to be a riff on flipping the usual "rescue time in adventure" thing, it kind of works better. Undeniably, Langella shines above the rest because he is clearly having a ball with such an over-the-top villainous role (sure, he may have killed a few relatives, but at least he wasn't the one cutting someone's scalp...for a map piece). Who else could play a scene involving cutting down mouths to feed on a ship by just casually blasting a guy away than Langella (and his pleasant timing)? His coarse nature is at least the setup to a useful conflict with Davis when it comes to "PIRATE-fight" for the climax, and I think you get exactly what you pay for with the ending, which has a magnificent exploding ship. The other castmates are fair and fine for what is needed, although it amuses me that most of the folks that face peril or death are either in cameo form or in the case of certain folks are just flayed. John Debney's music score (particularly in the opening) might actually be the best thing of the whole film, which really does get the ball rolling in a positive direction. I can't say the movie does anything completely new for its genre, but I found myself chuckling with it in those familiar setups and payoffs because it clearly has a zest to just run. I never found it trying my patience or packed with any big detracting marks on it, and I would say that makes for a relatively comfortable experience. It's a neatly flawed movie that could mark the spot for worthwhile entertainment if one is hooked by the end result of timbers shivered, which I think is the case here. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars. 

Next up: No joke, Radioland Murders.

The Dark Knight Rises.

Review #1562: The Dark Knight Rises.

Cast: 
Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Michael Caine (Alfred Pennyworth), Gary Oldman (Commissioner James Gordon), Anne Hathaway (Selina Kyle / Catwoman), Tom Hardy (Bane), Marion Cotillard (Miranda Tate / Talia al Ghul), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (John Blake), Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox), Matthew Modine (Foley), Ben Mendelsohn (John Daggett), Burn Gorman (Philip Stryver), Alon Aboutboul (Dr. Leonid Pavel), Juno Temple (Jen), Daniel Sunjata (Captain Jones), Chris Ellis (Father Reilly), Brett Cullen (Byron Gilley), Cillian Murphy (Dr. Jonathan Crane / Scarecrow), and Liam Neeson (Henri Ducard / Ra's al Ghul) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, and #980 - Dunkirk)

Review:
"For me, The Dark Knight Rises is specifically and definitely the end of the Batman story as I wanted to tell it, and the open-ended nature of the film is simply a very important thematic idea that we wanted to get into the movie, which is that Batman is a symbol. He can be anybody, and that was very important to us."

Auteur filmmakers can do any genre, as long as they manage to cultivate films that are of their own design with distinct style and interesting consistency to make it a worthwhile experience to look for time and time again. Christopher Nolan rose to that occasion, doing so under the inspiration of wanting to be a filmmaker since he was a child with influences like Ridley Scott and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). A graduate of University College London, he started making his own short films by the time he was 19 and made his first feature with the independently made Following (1998) that was followed up with breakthroughs with Memento (2000) and Insomnia (2002) before being brought in to bring back Batman to the big screen. There must have been quite the high hype for a film like this, one that would prove the end of a trilogy of films that Nolan co-produced and co-wrote (with his brother Jonathan for the screenplay and David S. Goyer for the story) alongside direction (he has done writing for most of his features alongside directing, with this being his eighth feature film). Nolan was hesitant for a third film, only wanting to do one if it served satisfactory in its story (as opposed to being just a follow-up film). If the first film involved fear and the sequel involved chaos, Nolan wanted a film that would involve pain, and the main villain of each film seems to reflect that vision, which also seems to include making the films longer as well (if the first felt long at 140 minutes, try 165 with this one). Nolan was the second director to have directed an entire trilogy involving one superhero after Sam Raimi and his Spider-Man trilogy, and it is clear to mention the success that has been done in capturing an epic of sweeping realism that drew upon certain Batman stories (such as Year One or The Long Halloween) that proved distinct in what they did for superhero films when compared to the various ones that came around since 2005 (or even more so by 2012). There are various comic books from the Batman series that this takes inspiration from, such as "Knightfall" (which had Bane pushing Batman to his limits), The Dark Knight Returns (an aged Batman returning to Gotham after several years), and "No Man's Land" (where Gotham is cut off from the rest of the country due to violence), although one major influence on the story was actually Charles Dickens' 1859 novel A Tale of Two Cities (detailing revolution that also happens to borrow lines from it in one of the last scenes).

I will admit that Nolan has done a well-placed achievement in his career, a definitive end to a series in its own vision of what Batman is as the last leg of an epic series that achieves most of what it sets out to do with scope and gravitas that ties as many ends as it does invite further discussion over the nature of such an extraordinary figure in an ordinary world that have villains that aren't necessarily just big foils to defeat but instead are ones that get under one's skin with coherence. I don't think of it as the best of the three films (The Dark Knight is inevitably an indelible achievement to surpass), but it definitely serves as one of the most interesting films of its year (or if one is more bold, its decade, which had a considerable amount of films based on comic books, but not many better than this). Bale certainly has come a long way in seven years in this role, one that requires an actor who can show numerous layers beyond just playing a millionaire playboy / dressing up as a bat and fighting crime in a deep voice. While it might have seemed a bit silly-sounding at first, I have warmed up to it because Bale does so well in pulling off this dual person that actually seems like three acts when faced with who he is to his close friends, the public at large, and perhaps his real self as Batman. He captures the struggle that comes with continuing to be defined by pain and loss to its logical conclusion with the time that he balances well on screen, where one doesn't really need too much of Batman to still be captivated by what it means to find one self again and become a knight of a city that needs it as opposed to a false ideal or kowtowing to fear or apathy. Caine lends the dutiful hand with sharp elegance and usefulness as one should expect from an anchor of sensibility like him. Oldman carries a mix of honesty with guilt and weariness that still reflects the sense of right and wrong and the choices that come in trying to fitting those goals for better or worse. Hathaway does fine with her role, reflecting differently from the others that had portrayed the role before her in past films with playful care that she modelled after the initial inspiration for the character in Hedy Lamarr. Hardy based his accent on a Romani gypsy (named Bartley Gorman), and it seems well-suited for one meant to be a sort of liberator of pain, one that ultimately does just well enough with serving the film in generating interest as a test of strength and mind, which I think works itself out really well despite maybe one small misgiving about the way the climax handles him; this plays into the other adversary lurking in plain sight that connects itself right back to the first film - Cotillard is a decent actress here and it is a decent twist, but it all somehow feels a bit too convenient to really close everything out neatly. Gordon-Levitt does fine here with generating idealism with instinct that never sparks a false note or seems too off for what is needed to set the film on course when with paired with Bale or Oldman. Freeman and the rest round out a useful cast that do what is needed in filling the depth of characters needed to fill the depth of the city or plot detailing. The film packs quite a wallop in action, executing itself with balance and consistency for capable action in such a distinct atmosphere that keeps itself on the edge with numerous situations and weaving of plot that keeps itself on track despite a length that could've proven bloated with a lesser director of style and substance. While it doesn't reach all the heights imposed by the first sequel to Batman Begins, it seals its legend of Batman as a symbol with conviction as a testament for practicality within the margins of comic book adaptation that honors its source material while closing the book with its own exclamation points as a useful story for the ages.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Any Given Sunday.

Review #1523: Any Given Sunday.

Cast: 
Al Pacino (Tony D'Amato), Cameron Diaz (Christina Pagniacci), Dennis Quaid (Jack 'Cap' Rooney), James Woods (Dr. Harvey Mandrake), Jamie Foxx (Willie Beamen), LL Cool J (Julian Washington), Matthew Modine (Dr. Ollie Powers), Jim Brown (Montezuma Monroe), Lawrence Taylor (Luther 'Shark' Lavay), Bill Bellamy (Jimmy Sanderson), Andrew Bryniarski (Patrick 'Madman' Kelly), Lela Rochon (Vanessa Struthers), Lauren Holly (Cindy Rooney), Ann-Margret (Margaret Pagniacci), Aaron Eckhart (Nick Crozier) Directed by Oliver Stone (#095 - Wall Street, #1090 - Platoon, and #1265 - Natural Born Killers)

Review: 
"I love intelligent films that come at you fast. I don't have attention deficit disorder, my mind moves fast. There's a lot to deal with in my films. We had so many facts to go through, so the governing style was flash, cut, flash, repeat."

One needs to see a bit of distinct vision every now and then from a director, and Oliver Stone closed out his 20th century with another distinct focus in football. He had been a student at Yale University before doing service in Vietnam first through teaching students English in Saigon to wiping Merchant Marine ships to dropping out of Yale and enlisting in the United States Army. He went into New York University after that and graduated with a film degree in 1971. He made his first film as a director with the cheapie Seizure (1974) before getting the chance to write Midnight Express (1978), which resulted in an Academy Award for his script despite inaccuracies of the depiction of the real-life prison story. The Hand (1981) followed for Stone as a director, but the five years between this and his next was crucial, since he wrote Conan the Barbarian (1982) and Scarface (1983) in that time. He rocketed to further prominence with Platoon (1986) that kept him busy over the prevailing years, with this being his 15th as director/writer. He has touched subjects such as war with Salvador (1986), biopics with The Doors (1991), to crime with Natural Born Killers (1994), all seeming distinct in their provocative nature by Stone.

I wonder if Stone wanted to make the ultimate football film. What we have here is truly a hodgepodge of clichés and assumptions you can have in a sports film, right from an upstart rookie becoming a star and then needing to not become consumed in arrogance, a wearied wise coach (perhaps like Tom Landry?), action montages, and even having actual athletes as stars (of which there are several notable ones of the past like Lawrence Taylor or Johnny Unitas). Stone had first expressed an interest in a football project with an early 1980s script about an old linebacker he wrote in mind for Charles Bronson. Years later, he met journalist Richard Weiner. He had developed a script with former player Jamie Williams about a black quarterback. This would be combined with scripts done by John Logan and Daniel Pyne alongside inspiration from You're Okay, It's Just a Bruise by Robert Huzienga Jr (former team physician of the Los Angeles Raiders detailing player injuries); Stone and Logan would get screenplay credit while Pyne and Logan got story and Weiner and Williams were consultants. This frenzy also applies to editing, since there are four listed as part of the film. Stone clearly was under the mindset that football was somehow like war, particularly with how it marched on as a team together as opposed to individual only, while also seeing the other sides of football life (like the pain and egos). On a basic level, I would say that this is a decent movie, wrapped with making an involving film packing an ensemble worthy of carrying most of its weight that Stone wants to put on them on and off the field that can be fairly entertaining. Of course it also is considerably lengthy at 162 minutes (157 for the director's cut, in which twelve minutes were cut for pacing while adding six minutes of other scenes) with a self-importance like no other in its presentation of football players as the modern gladiator (complete with a brief flash of Ben-Hur to drive home the point) with all of the excesses that come from Stone's view on the matter. It is firmly a film of the 1990s in all the right and weird ways, one that I chuck a smile at when it stops doing flashes of editing and focuses on just the basics.

Pacino does quite well with the material required in garnering a leader one could rally around in all of the moods required, whether that involves weary loneliness or stubborn dominance that seems fairly convincing in rally curiosity. Diaz matches him in cleverness that never seems like a doorstep to forget about, a figure of new-school arrogance that does seem quite amusing. Quaid does fine with a man on his last leg of fame (and perhaps health) - respectable without being drowned in pity. Woods doesn't have too much to really do, but he is quite a conniving figure behind the lines that has one really good scene to munch on involving him being caught in a lie about the health of the players. Foxx (picked after Sean Combs lost the role apparently because he couldn't throw a football) captures the bravado of a rising star and all that comes with it in good detail, whether that involves brimming confidence or sparring words with anyone. Others such as Cool J and Taylor make the best of their time on screen in charm and coarse acting that resonate the siding of the football action in its business and excess. It can't quite keep every thread going without being a bit lost, but at least its numerous showing of games do look fairly convincing (hits and all) within a fictionalized football league (in the year 2001 no less). It still has a punch when it comes to the TV-infected sensationalism and other various topics, and it definitely seems willing enough to want to inspire a thought without bashing your head with it. On the whole, it lumbers to points about football gladiators and its exploitation a bit too much, but it does work itself enough to win out in the end.

Next Time: We venture into the 21st century.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Sicario: Day of the Soldado.

Review #1105: Sicario: Day of the Soldado.

Cast: 
Benicio del Toro (Alejandro Gillick), Josh Brolin (Matt Graver), Isabela Moner (Isabela Reyes), Jeffrey Donovan (Steve Forsing), Manuel Garcia-Rulfo (Gallo), Catherine Keener (Cynthia Foards), Matthew Modine (Secretary of Defense James Riley), Shea Whigham (Andy Wheeldon), Elijah Rodriguez (Miguel Hernandez), Howard Ferguson Jr. (Troy), and David Castaneda (Hector) Directed by Stefano Sollima.

Review: 
Apologies for the delay, I had some things I needed to get done in the past few days, so this review was delayed from its intended day of Wednesday. Hope you enjoy regardless.

Sicario was a movie that I described as a "tense and brutally effective thriller", with the main three leads of Emily Blunt, del Toro and Brolin proving to be dynamic to watch in how striking each are in dealing with what transpires on screen, and it was a film that had a sense of purpose and intent to what it showed on screen. This time around, the filmmakers decided to not have Blunt back, stating that the "moral guidance for the audience" that she provided in the first movie did not fit with the tone of the sequel. Perhaps the fact that she is not featured alongside del Toro and Brolin that makes this feel a bit unnecessary for some, and your mileage may vary on how this film succeeds at churning up points to exist. However, one important that is retained from the first one is Taylor Sheridan as writer, and he does a fine job once again in giving these characters a fair bit of depth and interest to them. It is in the depiction of the action and in the main three of del Toro-Brolin-Moner that the film works best, with parts in the story being the biggest detriment. The two movies stand out in their levels of moral complexity, with the first one being the one with more of it. It doesn't click as well with showing the pursuit of some sort of greater good crashing into the nature of what it takes to make for said "greater good" that occurred with the earlier film, but its the sequences with del Toro and Moner that make it seem fairly worth it. Brolin also does a fine job with making his (fairly) amoral character work in not having his plotline come off as stale. The other members (including a returning Donovan, who I had forgotten about) do decent in the time they get on screen. The action this time around is pretty rough, with occasional moments of shock but manages to not come off as repetitive or dull. If you compare the two Sicario movies, it is evident which is better pretty quickly, but it shouldn't get in the way too much of how the sequel manages to succeed on its own terms just enough to make a winner. Although it is a bit eager to set itself up for a sequel moreso than the original, I am curious to see where the story will lead itself from here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Full Metal Jacket.

Review #044: Full Metal Jacket.

Cast
Matthew Modine (Private/Sergeant James T. "Joker" Davis), Vincent D'Onofrio (Private Leonard "Gomer Pyle" Lawrence), R. Lee Ermey (Gunnery Sergeant Hartman), Arliss Howard (Private/Sergeant Robert "Cowboy" Evans), Adam Baldwin (Sergeant "Animal Mother"), Dorian Harewood (Corporal "Eightball"), Kevyn Major Howard (Private First Class "Rafterman"), Ed O'Ross (Lieutenant Walter J. "Touchdown" Schinoski), and John Terry (Lieutenant Lockhart) Directed by Stanley Kubrick.

Review
This film is one of many by Stanley Kubrick, the director who made influential films in his lifetime. This is one of them. The film takes place in a military base, as we are introduced to Hartman delivering a big shout to the new recruits, which also includes Leonard. Ermey delivers a great performance, playing a role that he actually was in real life. He fits perfectly, and it shows. D'Onofrio's talents are shown as he plays the broken down Leonard. He's insanely awesome in this role. But is the film perfect? No. I think the film suffers from just losing momentum after the middle of the movie, where it had a pretty good sequence with D'Onofrio and Ermey, and it turns into a war film that doesn't grab much of your attention. But I feel the film is still a classic made by the (sadly) former director.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.