Fantastic Mr. Fox.

Review #1553: Fantastic Mr. Fox.

Cast: 
George Clooney (Mr. Fox), Meryl Streep (Felicity Fox), Jason Schwartzman (Ash Fox), Bill Murray (Clive Badger), Willem Dafoe (Rat), Michael Gambon (Franklin Bean), Owen Wilson (Coach Skip), Wallace Wolodarsky (Kylie), Eric Anderson (Kristofferson Silverfox), Jarvis Cocker (Petey), Wes Anderson (Stan Weasel), Robin Hurlstone (Walter Boggis), and Hugo Guinness (Nathan Bunce) Directed by Wes Anderson.

Review: 
"I like to do things that are a little surrealistic but with characters who are real. So that, even if things are a little unusual, the emotions will come through anyway.”

The auteur filmmaker is one that knows and controls his style to create a distinct film of his own merit. Wes Anderson certainly has proven himself worthy of the label alongside a variety of others with his level of filmmaking. The native Texan made films from a young age - making his first films with a Super-8 camera. He liked films such as Star Wars and directors like Alfred Hitchcock, even working as a projectionist when studying philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. In 1992, he directed a short film with friend Owen Wilson called Bottle Rocket (which he wrote with Wilson that was inspired by films like Mean Streets). A submission to the Sundance Film Festival (which James L. Brooks, upon viewing it was "dazzled" by) resulted in an opportunity to direct a feature film based on the short (with time spent re-working the script and filming) - released in 1996, it received notice but was not an audience hit. His next film in Rushmore (1998) proved more successful; after these two films, he already had one significant fan in Martin Scorsese (who called both films "very funny, but also very moving"). His subsequent films have received a good deal of notice that have made for nine released features in nearly 25 films of filmmaking. Anderson is noted for his distinct style of films, which he described as "very personal movies in a way", built with quirks in his characters and with the choices of music and look of each film, while also featuring a variety of recurring actors (such as Schwartzman, Murray, Dafoe, Wolodarsky, and Wilson). For this film (which he co-wrote with Noah Baumbach along with serving as co-producer), it would be done in stop-motion animation with figurines that were made out of fur (with tailored clothing of fabric that he designed himself).

Sometimes a film can be just a bit more than just a fine adaptation of another work. This was based off the 1970 children's novel of the same name by Roald Dahl (who many will recognize as writer of works such as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda, and The BFG, each of which I read as a child) - it was apparently the first book Anderson remembers owning. The film is mostly faithful to the novel, aside from having a focus on the relation of Mr. Fox to his family (which cut the four children to one) that expands upon the narrative (in other words, more than just a fox stealing chickens from a bunch of weirdos), in addition to a tweaking of the ending and a few added scenes. Sure, one could have the voices done in the booth, or they could have them done at a farmhouse as is the case here with such a marvelous film like this proves to be. It never wavers from delivering an interesting story with plenty of whimsy and skill with performances to go along with entertaining voices and design that make a wonderful classic worth 88 minutes. It all falls first to Clooney, who does quite well in brimming confidence that weaves interest and curiosity that generate subtle amusement fitting for that particular timing and character. Streep goes along with reserved grace that makes a well-tuned chemistry with Clooney in their scenes shared together. Schwartzman does well in generating interesting angst and smart remarks for when it is necessary that drives the film in those careful moments handled with his counterpart in E. Anderson (illustrator and author, who had made cameo appearances in his brother's films). Murray makes a few funny moments count without needing to hear too much of him badger on, while Dafoe equally makes his dandy moments count well in amusement. The film hits its stride early and never lets go in examining the nature of longing, alienation, and ultimately togetherness within a worthwhile adventure. I am dazzled by the animation of the film, as it looks quite intricate and rightly executed in creating a world of dazzling charm and palate (with a distinct lack of blues or greens) that never looks excessively gaudy or too much for enjoyment. I like the entertainment it brought to a charming work that honors the original book with its own flourish of humor and narrative for a resplendent achievement for animation alongside its era and director.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Adaptation.

Review #1533: Adaptation.

Cast: 
Nicolas Cage (Charlie Kaufman / Donald Kaufman), Meryl Streep (Susan Orlean), Chris Cooper (John Laroche), Cara Seymour (Amelia Kavan), Brian Cox (Robert McKee), Tilda Swinton (Valerie Thomas), Ron Livingston (Marty Bowen), Maggie Gyllenhaal (Caroline Cunningham), Judy Greer (Alice), Bob Yerkes (Charles Darwin), Jim Beaver (Ranger Tony), and Litefoot (Russell) Directed by Spike Jonze (#1308 - Being John Malkovich)

Review: 
It begins with a customary quote from someone involved with the film, since Robert had felt was a fun way to differentiate reviews from 2019 to now, with this one being from Charlie Kaufman.

"I really thought I was ending my career by turning that in!"

INT. NEIGHBORHOOD - ROBERT'S HOUSE - NIGHT
Robert sits on his couch, appalled at what he tries to write on his laptop, working at 7am like usual on yet another display of adapting words of thought of someone else's work of brilliance. He looks at his screen and some basic data about what he saw, his eyes begging to be shut for some sleep rather than yet another nap built to cheat himself until the next time. He wonders about how to start a review about a film about writer's block and originality while acknowledging the sheer talent of its cast without seeming repetitive after over 200 reviews in a year, wanting to also acknowledge the accomplishment of a writer that solved his problem by simply putting themselves into what they wrote. Perhaps he should take up making pizzas. He takes a left and then a right with his fingers as he starts typing.

It never hurts to talk about actors, particularly one involving a talented award-winning trio of actors for a film packed with such originality and talent within a main trio of actors. One can make whole paragraphs about Cage and his self-described "Nouveau Shamanic" style of acting that has made him an object of curiosity since Valley Girl (1983) with his style of mega acting. That might be enough for a film, but Meryl Streep elevates it further, since she has made a career of versatility and range since her start in theater in 1975 that evolved to television and film with productions such as The Deer Hunter (1978), Kramer vs. Kramer (1979), and Sophie's Choice (1982). The third and final key to the puzzle is in Cooper, who actually took up acting after initially doing theater for set design as a way to overcome shyness and subsequently worked for years in theater an construction before shuffling the ranks to supporting roles with Matewan (1987). The Orchid Thief began originally as an article that Susan Orlean wrote for The New Yorker (published on January 16, 1995) that detailed John Laroche's efforts to poach orchids (looking for the rare ghost orchid) in a Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve with a group of Seminoles, having believed to have found a loophole in studying Indian law with the case of Chief James E. Billie, which the film mentions as having avoided conviction for hunting an endangered species of panther. Writer Charlie Kaufman was tasked to write a screenplay adaptation of the subsequent 1998 book The Orchid Thief. However, he suffered through a lack of ideas in making a film out of it (since it wasn't particularly suited for a basic film, which is why executives had approached Jonze to direct an "unfilmable" book), so Kaufman decided to use his frustrations into making an exaggerated script with a fictional twin brother, and Columbia Pictures found it fairly suitable enough to make a film of (with filming starting in 2001). Orlean, when approached about the screenplay, was not exactly supportive of what she read, but she did not get in the way of allowing the film to move forward; Orlean found that it turned out to be "very true to the book's themes of life and obsession."

INT. NEIGHBORHOOD - ROBERT'S HOUSE - NIGHT, HOURS LATER
Now the writer is pleased and can go on with his night, confused over the fact that his cluttered table seems rearranged and his computer tabs seem smaller for 6am. He motions to acknowledge the real meat of what is meant to be writing and not words on a screen before he decides to take a nap instead. He struggles to wonder what the true difference between a 10-star film and a 9-star film in terms of "really good" and "great" without automatically tracing back to what was thought of either category. 

What we have here is a fairly playful film, one that writes the book on what it means to adapt and persist within a sense of longing and disappointment that come from trying to reach a certain passion without getting lost in its process. After all, this is a film about a writer trying to adapt a writer's tale about orchids while also getting caught up in a tale stranger than fiction. In this sense, Cage is exactly the type of actor for an dauntingly ideal situation - two performances for the price of one, complete with a fat suit and split-screen photography. In this sense, Cage does great because of how he holds true to making each Kaufman a distinct presence that isn't merely just one talking to themselves, capturing equally the weariness and foolish abandon that comes from belief (or perhaps fear) in one's ability to tell a good story that can be splattered on screen. While it does have comedic elements in it, Cage never takes the meta aspects too far into stretching credibility or making it a self-centered work. In between scenes with Cage and Cage are conversations spent between Streep and Cooper that border the lines of fact and fiction, and it takes a dedicated person like Streep to not have the other author get lost in the process of adaptation. She captures an essence of longing in passion that results in an excellent performance, engaging and right at home in conviction. Cooper has the task of playing someone once described by Orlean as "pale-eyed, slouch-shouldered, and sharply handsome, in spite of the fact that he is missing all his front teeth." - to which I say he does a tremendous job in conveying someone filled with charm that captures the essence of a man with nuance for doing things his way with no sort of false pretense or cheap tricks needed to push his passion to something we can understand. Others in the cast do fine with gradual moments, such as Cox and his portrayal of the only other real figure in lecturer/story consultant McKee, which he does quite well in measured

The writer looks upon his work. He notices that yet again he has to make that lasting decision over how much he really enjoyed this movie. It isn't like flipping a coin, because at least the coin doesn't really seem to somehow look right and wrong. You win this round, writing voice in my head.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence.

Review #1528: A.I. Artificial Intelligence.

Cast: 
Haley Joel Osment (David), Jude Law (Gigolo Joe), Frances O'Connor (Monica Swinton), Sam Robards (Henry Swinton), Jake Thomas (Martin Swinton), William Hurt (Professor Allen Hobby), Brendan Gleeson (Lord Johnson-Johnson), with Jack Angel (Teddy), Robin Williams (Dr. Know), Ben Kingsley (Specialist), Meryl Streep (Blue Fairy), and Chris Rock (Comedian Robot) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, #1478 - The Color Purple, and #1520 - Saving Private Ryan)

Review: 
"While there was divisiveness when A.I. came out, I felt that I had achieved Stanley’s wishes, or goals."

This was most definitely a film I anticipated and feared ever watching. On the one hand, it has sensibilities of two great directors mixed into one prolonged experience both in length and the time it took to actually develop it to the screen. For starters, the film is an adaptation of the short story "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss, written originally in 1969. The original work included just four characters (David, his parents, and Teddy), which talked about the doubts of a boy's existence and what is real while his "parents" wait for the chance to have their own child. Stanley Kubrick had acquired the rights to the story by the 1970s. An array of writers would come and go in writing/consulting a script for Kubrick, which included Aldiss, Bob Shaw, Ian Watson and Sara Maitland, with Kubrick treating the soon-enormous script as resembling The Adventures of Pinocchio. One key thing that stopped progression of getting pre-production going was a perception by Kubrick that effects-work had to evolve enough to suit what he wanted (the release of Jurassic Park helped spur the idea of potentially doing the film again, but Kubrick ultimately retained focus on what ended up being his last project, Eyes Wide Shut in 1999). In the middle of all that searching for the right tone, Steven Spielberg had been approached by Kubrick to direct it, and it was after Kubrick's death in 1999 that led Christiane Kubrick to approach Spielberg to take on the project; Spielberg would develop a screenplay based on the story done by Watson, with the most notable aspect being the "Flesh Fair" sequence.

The ambition shown here in bringing such a project like this to life is admirable, regardless of how the final result turns out. It is a decent film, for better or worse. It has some of the edge needed when it comes to a visual level that makes an interesting curiosity that may perhaps inspire some thought about its deeper implications involving machines, that much is for sure. And yet there is just something about it that seems hollow when it comes to being consistently interesting in actually springing a story that really makes care all the way forward, which combines with a quiet ending that really seems to try to cover too many bases without truly deserving it. In other words, it is a fine movie, but I can't say I really, really liked it enough to justify 146 minutes of runtime, where it seems more clinical verging on silly than properly bleak and innovative, which basically means you get the decent but not perfect writings of two visionaries. Osment does just fine when it comes to a really tough task: a robot boy built to love, complete with an enduring spirit and robotic actions that carry this film as much as he can in unblinking fashion that will either lead to great heights or meandering. Law does fine, amusing in the manner of trickery to go along with the other side of what makes Mecha made to love. O'Connor and Robards don't really do as well, strangely enough, since they really don't help the first half seem that involving. Evidently the 22nd century has led to parents and children made out of wooden acting, where a voice of a teddy bear has more charm in comparison. Hurt does do a fine job, but he is gravelly underused, having basically just two scenes in the whole (meaningful in terms of hammering in the whole aspects of a robot child yes, but still). Williams is funny in his one scene to shine in exposition.

I really just wish I enjoyed this more, because there certainly are bits and pieces that seem suited for greatness that get slogged out of enjoyment. At least the original author Aldiss thought it was "inventive, intriguing, involving film", so to have a film that at least doesn't make the author mad is okay by me. For a story originally just about the plight of parents who struggle with loving a robot child, it sure is strange to have a film go from that to a "Flesh Fair" involving beating down old robots and a quest to become a real boy as Pinocchio with mommy issues. In a future that has cultivated the flooding of New York and had to rebuild itself with exploiting robots, why should it be surprising that at some point in time someone wanted to make a robot that loves you - basically this is the story of an advanced robotic pet looking for a way for their master to come back. The "Flesh Fair" sequence is in some way the make-it-or-break-it sequence - either it will help the film gather depth in the underbelly of robot use, or it will seem a bit too much for its own good. I'm fine with it, but it just seems so jarring when compared to the first half. I appreciate the look of the film, which does fine with featuring the future with some decent robotic effects, although its last trick for the end is a bit unwieldy. And then of course there is that ending, one that tries to resolve the pursuit for the "Blue Fairy" with a half-measure for a fable, as his plight for chasing down this delusion is thought of as like a human's ability to chase down their dreams (I...suppose). Keep in mind, this was the ending devised by Kubrick (not Spielberg), so it only goes to show that sometimes you just can't please everyone when it comes to resolutions. The setup to its little ending was ridiculous enough (because the odds of making a robot into a boy are pretty much nil, so either I expected him to wither away or give up), and the payoff is just an eye-roller more than a tear-jerker when it comes to meaningful science fiction. It is quite possible a re-viewing would help in seeing the layers beneath a vaguely provocative film, but honestly that really seems like a tall order - why not just spend time watching a better movie again instead? If one wants to compare and match, if I want a better Kubrick sci-fi time, I'll pick 2001: A Space Odyssey, and if I want a better Spielberg sci-fi time, I'll pick E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. What we have here is a film that is too cloying and too much for its own good to really become something other than a parable gone awry. I am glad that I saw the film in curiosity for measurement as a film of the 21st century, even if it is ultimately just a decent experience in the long run.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Deer Hunter.

Review #1458: The Deer Hunter.

Cast: 
Robert De Niro (SSG Michael "Mike" Vronsky), Christopher Walken (Cpl. Nikanor "Nick" Chevotarevich), John Savage (Cpl. Steven Pushkov), John Cazale (Stan), Meryl Streep (Linda), George Dzundza (John Welsh), Pierre Segui (Julien Grinda), Shirley Stoler (Steven's mother), Chuck Aspegren (Peter "Axel" Axelrod), and Rutanya Alda (Angela Ludhjduravic-Pushkov) Directed by Michael Cimino.

Review: 
"I don't make movies intellectually, I don't make movies to make a point, I make movies to tell stories about people."

War can lead to plenty of actions, and films revolving around (or about) the war is one of them. Vietnam was no different, although it certainly reflected differently than other film revolving about war, whether involving the war or coming home from it, and there certainly are differences from films such as The Green Berets (1968) when compared to this, Go Tell the Spartans, or Coming Home (all 1978) or later ones like Apocalypse Now (1979) and Platoon (1986). It should only figure that a film like this would come from an unknown in Michael Cimino, who was certainly an eccentric when it came to a rise to stardom that was as quick as his fall in a varied career of seven films. He was a graduate of Michigan State University in graphic arts in 1959 along with subsequent study at Yale for art that was followed by work in advertising and commercials during the 1960s (with a stint in the Army reserves for six months). He decided to take on screenwriting in 1971, with his first script being Silent Running (1972) with Deric Washburn and Steven Bochco. He helped write Magnum Force (1973) with John Milius before writing Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (1974), which was liked enough by Clint Eastwood to have Cimino make his feature directorial debut. He would ultimately win two Academy Awards for his involvement with this film, which he also co-produced and co-wrote (winning for direction and for Best Picture), but his next film Heaven's Gate (1980) turned out to be such a tremendous failure (with far more budgetary overruns than this and numerous edits that has a complicated legacy) that led to a curtailed career.

It isn't too surprising that the film went through plenty of turmoil in production. The budget rose from eight to fourteen million dollars in budget, and Cimino's perfectionism seems to really come out during its wedding sequence (which makes one really feel like they are stuck in a wedding), with cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond once describing him as being "difficult to deal with...very stubborn...He wanted it the way he wanted it." There are four different writers credited for the film: Deric Washburn wrote the screenplay while co-writing the story with Cimino (also co-producer), Louis Garfinkle, and Quinn K. Redeker (the original idea was done by the latter two about Russian roulette in Las Vegas) There is certainly an allegorical feel to this film, albeit not without its own controversy about where it tries to go with its depiction of war (the Russian roulette sequences with POWs is most prominent in that discussion). The basic nature of this film is a portrait of three steelworkers having their lives changed after fighting in the Vietnam War, and it is De Niro and Walken who help to steady a film wracked with plenty of show and say about itself and the nature of change that goes in a man when seeing war, which makes for a curiously decent (if not tremendously flawed) experience for 184 minutes, a mixing of commonplace and agony. De Niro (who had apparently prepped for the role by hanging around with steelworkers in bars and visited their homes as one of them) proves quite compelling with strength that we see come out during the film even as it gets darker and darker. Walken proves just as devastating, rolling along with the agony of war and chance that makes for a soulfully fascinating watch whenever he is present, whether involving roulette or writhing in bed, and the sequence between him and De Niro at the end with roulette (the second time, with the first being just as tense) being the best part of the film in seeing the degree of madness one can do in the company of others. Savage makes the last piece of the veteran trio count just fine, an involving performance that goes along with the others that accompany some interesting moments with Cazale (in his final role before his death) and Aspegren (an actual foreman at a steelworks) that share clear contrast of bonding from the first to the last half of the film. Streep rounds out the cast with grace for a role that could've faded in the background with a less talented actress but here is done with care.

On the whole, the one feeling I had with this film was a sense that I should have liked it more than I did. I acknowledge that the film works fairly well as a tragic look on the nature of friends changed by their experience in war, but its attempts at building a detailed story that borders on excess for a ultimate three hour length nearly overwhelms the whole experience into chaos. The Vietnam sequences are the best part of the film, in part because I really seem to remember them better (because one needs authenticity, it was actually filmed with rats and mosquitoes) than the events that transpired before them, although the parts after coming back from the war do work in cultivating heartbreaking curiosity. Whether there is enough or too much setup to make this story truly work, the film does turn out to be worth a watch in the achievements that it does do in its acting and some of its riveting somber moments, which make up for its tests of patience that have made it a masterpiece in some eyes and tedious in others, and I find myself firmly in the middle. I didn't love what I saw, but I sure didn't hate it either.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Silkwood.

Review #1299: Silkwood.

Cast: 
Meryl Streep (Karen Silkwood), Kurt Russell (Drew Stephens), Cher (Dolly Pelliker), Craig T. Nelson (Winston), Fred Ward (Morgan), Diana Scarwid (Angela), Ron Silver (Paul Stone), Josef Sommer (Max Richter), Charles Hallahan (Earl Lapin), Tess Harper (Linda Dawson), Sudie Bond (Thelma Rice), Henderson Forsythe (Quincy Bissell), and Bruce McGill (Mace Hurley) Directed by Mike Nichols (#175 - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, #550 - The Graduate, and #637 - The Birdcage, and #1157 - Wolf)

Review: 
On November 13, 1974, a chemical technician was killed in a car collision in Crescent, Oklahoma is what is believed to be an accident. Karen Silkwood, of course was more than just a blurb on the newspages, since she was an activist who was investigating wrongdoing into the plutonium plant that she worked in, for which she had been contaminated. Her death inspired a lawsuit against the plant she worked for, which had two trials before a final settlement in 1986, with the closure of the nuclear fuels plant having occurred the year after Silkwood's death. In any case, it does seem interesting to make a biopic drama based on her short life that attempts to stick to a group of the basic facts alongside movie-magic that conjure some ambiguity that goes off mostly without a hitch. Perhaps it proves a bit too long at 131 minutes, but one that can't really be denied is that the movie has a well-picked cast to ready its ship along when it is required to. The cast really does seem to seep right into these ordinary folks without trouble, really, where even knowing the fate of its focus doesn't make for much predictability, one who has a bit of tunnel vision for what she believes is the imperative thing to do. This is key with Streep, who pulls in a tremendous performance, filled with spark of persistence and warmth that make her story flow for its audience that makes her interesting enough to follow with. Russell, in a departure from the usual action genre roles, pulls off a rugged turn that seems just as down-to-earth as the lady he acts opposite with, and they do share some casual chemistry together whenever he is on screen. It shouldn't prove too surprising that Cher was suited for an understated yet fine performance here. In her second film since venturing back into acting (after starring in Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean on stage and screen the previous year), she seeps right into an unassuming role and does just fine with making the right impression with just being oneself. The rest of the cast does alright with filling out this world with no big troubles, where one doesn't need a clear villain or hero to really drive the facts along (McGill does play his role pretty adversarily, but not at the expense of realism). Is our focus a martyr or someone who got caught up in their own moral imperative? However one feels about the muddled circumstances of her ultimate fate, one cannot say that the film isn't still compelling through and through its real-life surroundings that will provoke at least some discussion when it comes to whistle-blowing and what proves to be the right thing to do, no matter what the risks could prove. In that sense, this proves to be a decent piece of entertainment headlined by Streep and her cast to go along with a well-run story from the headlines.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Manchurian Candidate (2004).

Review #1254: The Manchurian Candidate.

Cast: 
Denzel Washington (Major Bennett Marco), Meryl Streep (Senator Eleanor Prentiss Shaw), Liev Schreiber (Congressman Raymond Prentiss Shaw), Jon Voight (Senator Thomas Jordan), Kimberly Elise (Eugenie Rose), Vera Farmiga (Jocelyn Jordan), Jeffrey Wright (CPL Al Melvin), Simon McBurney (Dr. Atticus Noyle), Bruno Ganz (Delp), Ann Dowd (Congresswoman Beckett), Ted Levine (Colonel Howard), Miguel Ferrer (Colonel Garret), and Dean Stockwell (Mark Whiting) Directed by Jonathan Demme.

Review: 
One could say plenty about the idea of remaking classic films, particularly when it comes to one as classic as the 1962 film The Manchurian Candidate. As much as one could want to deride yet another remake for the sake of remakes, the idea to try and update the Richard Condon novel for the current age does show enough promise to make things seem palpable. The original film was a neo-noir/suspense thriller that had plenty of power within its cast and other elements that inspired plenty of shock and biting satire that one would assume continues as much the second time around. The key differences between the original and this version involves updating the enemy from nefarious communists to an equally nefarious private equity firm alongside making both Shaw and his mother politicians along with one crucial twist involving the climatic assassination. In general, this film also seems more paranoid and aware of its surroundings of when it was made, which stands fairly firm even after fifteen years since its release. Those who are familiar with the work (novel or film) will see where it is going to end up, but it doesn't mean the surprises aren't still there waiting to pounce, most of which land just fine. It surely must've proved a challenge for director Jonathan Demme and writers Daniel Pyne & Dean Georgaris to try and make a follow-up worth the impact that John Frankenheimer and George Axelrod did with direction and writing the first time around. I do think that the final result is a fairly welcome one, deserving of existing alongside its predecessor as a capable if imperfect political thriller.

At least one can say the main foundation of cast members is sturdy to try and hold things together, whether they have time on screen to make a lasting impression or not. In this sense, Washington does a fine job with what is given, taking a different road from what was tasked before, showing plenty of conviction in trying to hold things together enough to grasp at the truth behind what he experienced and what hides behind with what isn't know. Streep shows plenty of fierce vigor whenever she enters the screen, whether when dealing with her on-screen son or with other forces at work, with her ruthless presence being felt handily. Schrieber handles his task without too much difficulty, where you can see the manufactured side of who he has been made to be alongside the vulnerability of what comes out at the surface that can't be meshed out. Voight and Farmiga don't have as much to do here as before, in part because of the fast-tracking that means the nomination goes without too much difficulty (with the rivalry between Voight and Streep not picking up as much steam as it probably could have). Elise's character also undergoes a bit of changes (mainly to add a bit of connective plausibility to how she just happens to be on the same train as Marco besides just being a supermarket clerk), and she does okay with being in the margins of the plot, I suppose. The other members of the cast (including a criminally underused Stockwell) do okay, with Wright making the most impression in his one scene in the beginning, a shadow of himself that serves to cast against the light of heroism shown in the initial scene. After all, the brainwashing sequences (involving an influx of science-fiction) are spread out in the film as opposed to being laid out from the get go, which does tend to work out in the film's favor without being too hokey. Maybe it isn't as subversive as it wants to really be, but at least it does reach some sort of thoughtful levels in its end. It isn't a film that will inspires many re-watches, but I would postulate that it is at least worth one look of consideration, having a cast that clings to a cynical update on what was done before with a little bit of polish and shock to go with it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events.

Review #1182: Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events.

Cast: 
Jim Carrey (Count Olaf), Liam Aiken (Klaus Baudelaire), Emily Browning (Violet Baudelaire), Kara and Shelby Hoffman (Sunny Baudelaire), Jude Law (Lemony Snicket), Timothy Spall (Mr. Poe), Billy Connolly (Dr. Montgomery), Meryl Streep (Josephine Anwhistle), Catherine O'Hara (Justice Strauss), and Cedric the Entertainer (the Constable) Directed by Brad Silberling (#267 - Casper)

Review: 
When it comes time to turn books into film, I suppose the best ones to use are the ones meant for children, particularly ones with entertaining qualities that will give plenty for the audience to go for - this book series certainly has some of that, along with a defining dark mysterious feel throughout the thirteen book series done by Daniel Handler (under the pen name Lemony Snicket). With so many books to adapt, it's pretty easy to see why one would combine the first three books (named The Bad Beginning, The Reptile Room, and The Wide Window) when making a feature film, although perhaps the best way to adapt these books would be through television (which occurred a decade later). The film obviously intends to replicate the dark style of the series with its look, using only a small range of colors (such as green or black) while being filmed on sound-stages, which certainly is an interesting way to give the film something to stick out. It certainly reminds me of a Tim Burton film with its look, and at one point he was considered to direct the feature (along with Barry Sonnenfeld) - in fact, Handler was hired to write a script for the film, but setbacks (such as concerns over the budget, which ultimately was over $140 million) and delays led to an eventual change from Handler (who had done numerous drafts) to Robert Gordon for the screenplay.

With all of that in mind, the film that comes from it is an okay product that reaches entertainment level more often than not, but it ultimately is a muddled movie that perhaps needed a bit more focus to really reach its full potential. It seems the film works best when it actually is trying to have a plot than with some of its offbeat characters. Honestly, the highlight of the movie is Carrey, who chews as much scenery as one could possibly do under makeup (done by Valli O'Reilly and Bill Corso, who ended up winning an Academy Award for it) without falling too much into self-parody, in part because he is pretty amusing with a good touch of sinister nature to him that keeps the film moving at times. Aiken and Browning are fairly decent, although I wonder if they would've been more interesting with further portrayals for more adaptations. Law is alright in the occasional moments that he chimes in with his voice. The adult characters (besides Carrey and Law) are each fairly silly, oblivious to the the plan of the villain (much like with how it worked with the books), but I feel that each don't really have the kind of presence to make them feel anything other than just okay, as if the episodic nature of the film makes the flow of the film a bit inconsistent, particularly with the end of the second story and the beginning of the third one (serving as the climax). At least the film seems to have a good touch of faithfulness to its source material, and it seems to work just fine at 108 minutes long, but it never really seems to be too comfortable with its tone, trying to do dark aspects with touches of humor that is okay at best. The style is nice and dandy, but the story perhaps needed something more. Perhaps if the film had inspired a desire to have further sequels (which did not come to pass despite being a moderate success), this one would've have came off a bit better, but as a whole this is just an okay if not too exceptional piece of entertainment, one that can be recommended for a fan curious for more from the series or perhaps someone wanting a bit of style within some mystery.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.