Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.

Review #2251: Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.

Cast: 

Michael Keaton (Betelgeuse), Winona Ryder (Lydia Deetz), Catherine O'Hara (Delia Deetz), Jenna Ortega (Astrid Deetz), Justin Theroux (Rory), Monica Bellucci (Delores LaVerge), Willem Dafoe (Wolf Jackson), Arthur Conti (Jeremy Frazier), Burn Gorman (Father Damien), Amy Nuttall (Jane Butterfield Jr.), Santiago Cabrera (Richard), Danny DeVito (Janitor), and Nick Kellington (Bob) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman [1989], #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride, #316 - Batman Returns, #969 - Planet of the Apes [2001], #1257 - Pee-wee's Big Adventure, #1295 - Sleepy Hollow, #1615 - Edward Scissorhands, #2160 - Mars Attacks!)

Review: 

"It was only until fairly recently, with all this talk, that I just put all the noise away and I just go, 'Okay, I love the Lydia character.' That was the character that I connected with, like, as a teenager. So I go, 'What happened to this person 35 years later? What weird thing?' You go from cool teenager to some fucked-up adult. What relationships do you have? Do you have kids? What's your relationship with that? It's not something I could have done back then; it's only something you could do once you experience those things yourself. So for me, this became a very personal movie, like a kind of weird family movie about a weird family."

You know, I actually had to go back and look up the most recent Tim Burton film I expressed interest in seeing right then and there. I actually forgot it has been five years since his last feature film, in which I'm sure went completely well in non-soulless remaking in Dumbo [2019] (in fairness, younger me was okay with Alice in Wonderland [2010]). I didn't really think about the chance of Beetlejuice having a sequel, even though I remember having a neat time with it in the couple times I remember seeing it, one originally devised by Michael McDowell and Larry Wilson with helpful re-writing from Warren Skaaren that had plenty of amusement within the bureaucracy of the dead and a free-spirited (read: pervert) bio-exorcist. In some ways, it really is a manic syrupy tribute to the B-movies that Burton grew up with, made in an era where one could just do stop motion and blue screen effects to go with slapstick in a neat 92-minute package. The idea of a sequel has been kicked around long enough that one concept was to have the title character go to Hawaii, but it only gained actual steam in the last couple of years (so just a bit after someone adapted the film into a musical). The screenplay this time around was done by Alfred Gough and Miles Millar (best known for developing Smallville and incidentally, Wednesday) while the story was done by Gough, Millar, and Seth Grahame-Smith (probably best known as the writer of the mashup Pride and Prejudice and Zombies). 

Sure, the sequel isn't quite at the same level of "good" than the original, but it is evident that Burton and company at least had a good time making it. I didn't really pick it because "hey, sequel to something I liked", I picked it more because I figured it would be the type of film to experience with a crowd at least once (as opposed to the usual "who cares" or half-empty amusement, because even mothers deserve a visit to the theater for the first time since *Cats*). It complements the original while fulfilling two obvious things: thank goodness this was not a lazy "continuation TV series" (or god forbid, a streaming original) and thank goodness it was a film that wasn't merely a lazy vessel for passing the torch. One moves on from the stylings of Harry Belafonte to stuff such as "Tragedy" and "MacArthur Park" without a bump in the road that will surely mean a Beetlejuice double-header in the coming years would be a delightful idea for the spooky season (104 minutes is resourceful enough when you consider the earlier film was also under two hours). Of course, it helps that Keaton, Ryder and O'Hara are committed to not mailing in their returns to go with a few neat moments from the fresh faces to go alongside a few interesting moments involving effects (read: a movie that generally doesn't look like it got shot on one stage), which is probably most amusing in its handling of killing off a character (ironic that a film about a perverted title character featured an actor later found to be a pervert) or in not over-riding the "Beetlejuice baby" into the ground. Keaton might be in his seventies, but he obviously hasn't lost his enjoyment in terms of mischief that he handles in such carefully crafted time on screen (Keaton didn't want to have that much screentime in the film, which actually reflects the original, when you think about it). One can savor those moments of mischief without thinking back to the original and thinking things have gone soft (sure, he might not turn into a snake, but one late bit is pretty hell-raising). Of course, the dynamic of Ortega and Ryder is playing on a few familiar beats (we have graduated from "strange and unusual" to estrange daughter of "strange and unusual"), but Ortega is snappy and charming enough to go with the material for us to follow along with. Theroux is amusingly wormy to stick out, while Bellucci is basically relying on screen presence and little to really do for a movie that isn't exactly keen on having a "big bad" but instead just relies of, shall we say, casual macabre vibes (this is a movie where someone gets their limbs back while playing an oldie tape). Dafoe playing a stock cop type somehow seems on point for worthwhile commitment. In general, the movie inspired a few neat chuckles in its eventual road to getting a climax that borrows a bit from before while feeling the need to try and do something a bit wilder than already mentioned, which is, well, fine. I was conflicted about rating the film for a few days because sometimes it really does take a while to wonder just how "good" something is. The original was pretty neat, and the sequel is fine, but I'm not sure if giving it the whole "good" rating makes sense when there is a totally serviceable option in calling it "fine" (this is when I debate if putting a ".5" rating would be ideal in the future). It is a solid film in the aspects of slipping it on one night and just admiring that a well-made sequel to a film from decades ago will come and go in spooking the gut without churning one's soul, if you know what I mean.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Batman Returns.

Redux #316: Batman Returns.

Cast: 

Michael Keaton (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Danny DeVito (Oswald Cobblepot / The Penguin), Michelle Pfeiffer (Selina Kyle / Catwoman), Christopher Walken (Max Shreck), Michael Gough (Alfred Pennyworth), Pat Hingle (Commissioner James Gordon), Michael Murphy (The Mayor), Vincent Schiavelli (The Organ Grinder), Andrew Bryniarski (Charles "Chip" Shreck), Cristi Conaway (The Ice Princess), Rick Zumwalt (The Tattooed Strongman), Anna Katarina (The Poodle Lady), Paul Reubens (Tucker Cobblepot), and Diane Salinger (Esther Cobblepot) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride)

Review: 

"I like Batman Returns better than the first one. There was this big backlash that it was too dark, but I found this movie much less dark."

Tim Burton did not originally intend to return for the sequel, if you can believe it. But he elected to return when Warner Bros. granted him more creative control along with the shuffling of Jon Peters and Peter Guber to executive producers (the same fate as the people they basically screwed over in Benjamin Melniker and Michael E. Uslan) while Burton became a co-producer. Beforehand, Sam Hamm was tasked to write the script once again, with his apparent first script having the villains of The Penguin and Catwoman looking for buried treasure involving a secret group of wealthy Gotham citizens, which apparently featured a climax reveal where the society was really behind the death of Batman's parents (one part does ring familiar in the Penguin trying to frame Batman). At the request of Burton, he was later replaced by Daniel Waters (writer of the dubious cult favorite Heathers in 1989). It should be noted that Waters helped create the character played by Walken, as opposed to possible ideas by Hamm to include the character of Two-Face. Perhaps it is strange irony that the idea of the Penguin running for Mayor actually had been seen before in the Adam West interpretation of Batman ("Hizzoner the Penguin"/"Dizzoner the Penguin", for those at home).Wesley Strick was tasked to flesh out the script during principal photography, specifically with devising a "master plan" for the climax (Warner Bros. apparently tried to go with either freezing or warming Gotham), which doesn't seem too far removed from the prodigal son angle seen through the film; I should note however that the character of Max Shreck was actually meant to be the younger brother of the Penguin before Strick excised it from the script (which also saw the character of Robin go by the wayside). However, the practices of the Writers Guild of America in dealing with scripts and principal photography meant that Strick didn't get credit as a writer. The design might have been under a different designer (Bo Welch) this time around, but it does continue to remind one of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920), which does manage to make one enchanted by what one could do in a time of sound stages and miniatures (the movie does used CG effects with a Batmobile shield and remote Batarang, of course). This is also true for the army commanded by the Penguin, which sees real penguins alongside actors in suits, puppets, and animation. Casting is sometimes a stroke of chance. Apparently, the first choice for the character played by Walken was David Bowie. He rejected it to do a part in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (1992) while Burton had to be convinced to cast Walken because he was apparently scared of him. Pfeiffer got her role because Annette Bening became pregnant, and DeVito was one of dozens of people considered for his role when Dustin Hoffman turned it down.

You know, it is a funny thing to consider the legacy of the movie after 30 years since its release on June 19, 1992. It wasn't as big of a success as the original 1989 film, with one major thing about it being the fact that it was apparently too dark. To me, I think this is a ridiculous assessment, as if one couldn't accept the idea of a Tim Burton movie that sees him not shackled by producers or studios who are starting to think about making products that could be riper for toys. I for one welcome movies that feature folks with dark saliva or brief shots of someone putting a bird in their mouth. Besides, it wasn't like Batman didn't lead anybody to their downfall in the 1989 movie, so trying to go with that argument is even worse. In fact, I will state with no doubt in my mind that this movie is superior to the 1989 movie, because it elevates the eerie atmosphere of cynicism and style with even further burrowing into the psyche of people struck with forms of duality that make a capable dark fairy tale. Granted, the overall story is probably not as cohesive as it could be, but it most definitely has better sticking points than what was seen in the 1989 movie when it comes to duality that isn't just a show for one villain and not much else. Keaton continues his timing from the first portrayal that seems him deal with more threats of people who look to match him in looney double sides that will either see him try to not show his scars to one while the other just thinks he is jealous that he's a genuine freak that doesn't have to wear a mask. He doesn't say too much here, since he felt that that the suit would do most of the talking (requesting as such in trimming lines from the script). Burgess Meredith did do a fine job in the 1960s interpretation of the Penguin that I can still hear in my mind when it comes to dubious gentlemen of eloquence. Burton, seemingly inspired by Lon Chaney and his performances such as The Phantom of the Opera, has decided to go with a portrayal of the Penguin with trauma and deformed lunatic for DeVito to play. Some might not care much for the creeping oddball in a movie that starts a bleak streak with showing a child being left to die. But I actually appreciate his antisocial interpretation of someone with the mindset of a sewer that makes a properly decadent villain. Several people played the Catwoman in the 1960s, most notably with Julie Newmar. Pfeiffer makes a quality portrayal in her own double-edged sword that grows in confidence with wicked fierceness that does make a quality pairing with Keaton in captivating torment. The scene where she arises from death to smash her place while spray painting things black is probably the best highlight, although seeing her descent of revenge meet its logical conclusion works as well. Undeniably, Walken is the ideal choice to stand well amongst costumed freaks because of his useful timing when it comes to essentially playing a robber baron, having a decadence of craven ooze that seems reminiscent of Vincent Price in all the right ways. Gough and Hingle do what they need to do while Schiavelli makes an interesting side face of terror. The movie does have some of the offbeat plot motivations from before that make it another example of style and substance clashing together. I'm fine with the general story, all things considered.

It is interesting to see the differing paths that came out in the next couple of years. Warner Bros. decided to make another Batman movie without Burton as director, with him being utilized as a producer for what became Batman Forever (1995) because they clearly desired making more money rather than see what Burton might have had in mind or keep a darker sensibility. The portrayal of Catwoman attracted attention enough to make plans for a spinoff with Pfeiffer that had a script from Waters (which apparently involved her turning up in a resort run by superheroes that poked fun at the mythos) and ideas in mind to have Burton to direct; a script was turned in to Warner Bros the same day that Forever came out, but the movie would languish in development hell until one finally saw Catwoman on screen again in 2004, albeit with Halle Berry. In 2021, a comic book series called Batman '89 was released by DC Comics that served as a continuation of the two movies with Sam Hamm as the main writer. I appreciate the guiding vision laid out by Burton in dark sensibility with shades of the grotesque that is in my mind the best Batman movie of the series released by Warner Bros in the 20th century. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Batman (1989).

Redux #040: Batman (1989)

Cast: 

Jack Nicholson (Jack Napier / The Joker), Michael Keaton (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Kim Basinger (Vicki Vale), Robert Wuhl (Alexander Knox), Pat Hingle (Commissioner Gordon), Billy Dee Williams (Harvey Dent), Michael Gough (Alfred Pennyworth), Jack Palance (Carl Grissom), Jerry Hall (Alicia Hunt), Tracey Walter (Bob the Goon), Lee Wallace (Mayor Borg), and William Hootkins (Lt. Max Eckhardt) Directed by Tim Burton.

Review: 

"I liked parts of it, but the whole movie is mainly boring to me. It's OK, but it was more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie." - Tim Burton

If you remember correctly, 1989's Batman took the world by storm when it was released in June of 1989 in ways that have not been forgotten when it comes to blockbusters and comic book movies. Michael E. Uslan, inspired by reading Batman comics as a kid, had a desire to make the definitive version of Batman that had been envisioned by artist Bob Kane and writer Bill Finger when they created the character in 1939. Uslan was a fan of the main character alongside the family of villains, and he even taught a class about comic books at Indiana University. Of course, when Uslan first approached DC Comics about making a movie, they thought it was a crazy idea, because the character's popularity had diminished in the years that followed the cancellation of the 1966 television series, which certainly was still in the public consciousness for the character (which makes sense, as the Adam West interpretation certainly matched the era to a T). Uslan cultivated his movie credentials by working at United Artists (after graduating law school), and he credit DC head Sol Harrison as a mentor in getting the process to a good start - the rights to Batman were bought by Uslan and Benjamin Melniker in 1979, aligning with producers Jon Peters and Peter Guber (it should be noted that Guber and Peters, hairdresser-turned producer and possible scumbag,  manipulated their way to be main producers in getting a deal with Warner Brothers that sent Uslan and Melniker to executive producers with only "net profits"). Uslan even wrote a script with a friend to try and give people an idea of what he wanted to make to counteract the preconceived idea from doubtful skeptics along with a "creative blueprint" memo, complete with having Jack Nicholson in mind for the Joker. Warner Bros. decided to serve as the studio to produce Batman in 1980, but their attempts to have a script by Tom Mankiewicz (contributor on the Superman movie in 1978) did not go well. At any rate, pre-production stalled until 1986. Warner executive Bonni Lee got Burton to join in on the project, helped by the success seen in his work on Pee-wee's Big Adventure (1985) for the studio, although the success with Beetlejuice (1988) gave the formal greenlight in 1988. Burton, at the suggestion of Peters, picked Keaton to play Batman because of their work together on the latter film, one that he felt would have the audience suspend its belief and take the actor seriously. He also stated that the locale of Gotham City had to be just as important a character for the movie to work. Steve Englehart and Julie Hickson each wrote film treatments before a screenwriter was hired. Sam Hamm wrote the story (alongside side work done by Burton, without credit), but the screenplay was done by Hamm and Warren Skaaren. Rewrites were done by Skaaren with others, excluding Hamm due to a strike by the Writers Guild of America. Influences included stories such as Alan Moore & Brian Bolland's The Killing Joke (a story that Burton personally loved in understanding the mythology) and Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. Bob Kane worked as a consultant on the film (coincidentally, he credited Finger, who died in 1974, as a "contributing force", although Finger was not given proper credit until 2015). Peters tried to mold Burton in his image when it came to making a Batman that he didn't want to be thought of (in his words) "Wussman", complete with making suggestions for the climax, which originally involved a different character meeting their end, and he actually commissioned a 38-foot model of a cathedral for the characters to be for said climax. At any rate, Peters and Guber did not return to produce the sequel, but they reaped the benefits of being behind one of the biggest blockbusters of its time; as his third feature film, Burton described the filming process as "torture", but he returned for the sequel in 1992.

When I saw this film originally in 2011, I was a fourteen-year-old trying to write quickly and write what I liked on the spot with a movie. Long story short, those reviews aren't great, so a redux movement is slowly building up steam by me to get as many redux-es possible for reviews I feel deserve better. This one, even with 200 words for what was somehow called a 10/10 movie, seemed very ripe for a second look. Actually, it is a third look, because I did watch this movie a couple of years later to try and refresh my memory, which didn't exactly help this movie too much. The third time around has basically confirmed that the best memories about a movie are sometimes left to younger eyes. Burton thought that the best way to approach the movie is to see Batman and Joker as essentially two of a kind in odd freaks that are intertwined in origin. Anton Furst and Peter Young designed the sets for the film, which shows an Art Deco style that makes Gotham seem reminiscent of something like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) or noir. You have to understand that people actually thought that casting Keaton was going to make it seem like a comedy because of his work on stuff like Mr. Mom (1983). It is interesting to consider that because of the fact that Keaton approaches the material with righteous timing and balance required, even if one seems to think that he is overshadowed by you-know-who - him going "you wanna get nuts?!" is an interesting highlight when thinking of the fair blend of seeing the deeper-voiced Batman and the unassuming Bruce Wayne. Of course, the high-priced and high-billed Nicholson steals the show, because playing an agent of chaos that grins his way through the proceedings is a role to dream for that he stretches right to form. This isn't to say that it is a hammy performance as it is just one that controls the mood of the movie that might as well make it his movie more than Keaton's movie. Basinger does fine with the balance between the battle of freaks, bewildered but not washed out; the scene where she waltzes into the Batcave doesn't exactly help. Apparently, Wuhl's character was meant to die in the climax, but the filmmakers liked him so much they let him live. That is probably the best compliment I can find when talking about him in this film, because the less said about him, the better. Hingle and Gough don't have too much to particularly do, but at least one takes them seriously for what is needed. Williams in theory should be really interesting, but since there would be no more Williams as the character of Dent, it comes off as ridiculous to have him cast but not actually do anything (besides, Walter is the amusing quiet man in the group). 

Maybe there is an argument that the movie might be a bit too dark for younger folks. This is ridiculous, since I doubt that one will really have this much trouble with a PG-13 rated movie like this in just letting the visuals play out on screen; one could also just stick with the West version of Batman, since it also holds up well, incidentally. Danny Elfman, best known for his work with the band Oingo Boingo alongside Burton's previous two features, did the music, albeit with Prince composing and writing songs as well. The music score ends up sticking better than the songs, because one clearly won't forget the main theme. As a whole, the 126 minutes does go by with loose construction, one that tries hard to ride on style rather than substance, which only can go so far before falling all the way off the offbeat wayside. Seeing the origin for the Joker is far more interesting than the eventual reveal of the Wayne murder, because it makes things too convenient to have two characters create the origin for each other (i.e., having a random guy being the killer is far more tragic than just finding out it is the guy you happen to be going off to face and probably take down). I think the fact that the success of the movie inspired the development of an animated series for television probably is more of a point in the favor of the legacy of the film in what it impacted rather than the overall content of the film itself (the series, premiering in 1992, is arguably the best portrayal of Batman outside of the comics). It is a roaring adventure that builds a mystery with fair success for haunted spectacle with Burton's sensibilities clashing with other visions to make a strange concoction that lives and dies in the time it was made. It is the movie that tried to top the heights raised by Superman (1978), pure and simple. Of course, whether the movie works or not in its execution is up to you. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Other Guys.

Review #1707: The Other Guys.

Cast: 

Will Ferrell (Detective Allen "Gator" Gamble), Mark Wahlberg (Detective Terry Hoitz), Eva Mendes (Dr. Sheila Ramos Gamble), Michael Keaton (Captain Gene Mauch), Steve Coogan (Sir David Ershon), Ray Stevenson (Roger Wesley), Samuel L. Jackson (Detective P.K. Highsmith), Dwayne Johnson (Detective Christopher Danson), Lindsay Sloane (Francine), Natalie Zea (Christinith), Rob Riggle (Detective Evan Martin), Damon Wayans Jr. (Detective Fosse), and Viola Harris (Mama Ramos) Directed by Adam McKay (#526 - Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, #693 - Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues, #1574 - The Big Short, and #1706 - Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby)

Review: 

Well, if you can make a movie that has fun with the conventions of the sports movie in stock car racing and make it intriguing for the whole family (at least the teenager kind), why not do a buddy cop movie? The idea for the film sprung from a dinner that McKay had with Ferrell and Wahlberg, as McKay noticed the chemistry present between the two that seemed ripe for a project. Of course, with the handful of buddy cop movies present, having it involve white-collar crime probably seems to prove an interesting way to mark it away from other examples (like 48 Hours or even stuff I haven't seen like Hot Fuzz) or seem too much like a copy of something like Law & Order (I joke, but listen carefully to who narrates the film anyway). This is the fourth of fifth collaborations between Ferrell and McKay, and it is the only one with Ferrell not serving as a co-writer (in this case, McKay wrote it with Chris Henchy), although he did provide input on ideas.

As a whole, it certainly has its hits and misses when it comes to landing its gags and moments, but it manages to land enough times for 107 minutes to make a somewhat worthy story about the ordinary (at least, for the police); it rides the clichés out for enough humor to make worthy entertainment, one that doesn't suffer when compared to McKay or Ferrell's other works. McKay certainly has an eye for trying to make each of his films have their own distinct little features that don't keep him pegged as just an improvisational director, and this works to his advantage when it comes to keeping interest on the level for the story at hand without being derailed by distractions. The film rides hard on how one views the chemistry between Ferrell and Wahlberg. It takes a bit of time for that dynamic to really hit it off, but it eventually gets its footing down with how they click within their differences (namely in their neuroses of manners and temper). While I might be more curious as how it would have been if they had reversed the roles (Ferrell playing a tough guy probably isn't a bigger stretch than Wahlberg playing an accountant), at least it seems like a game collaboration that doesn't seem constrained or forced, and Ferrell rides it out for a quite a few chuckles. Wahlberg adjusts fine to what has to happen with a film that could make either the straight man (depending on the scenario), and it does mean that he draws some laughs that eventually give way to a few action beats that work more to his advantage. Coogan plays things well when it comes to offbeat brashness that serves him well with the climax with Wahlberg & Ferrell, while Stevenson proves just as engaging as the snappy heavy. Mendes does fine, placed with Ferrell for a few little moments that hit okay as the one couple to show that a bunch of cop movies usually dance around. One can't tire of seeing Keaton on the screen, because even him playing a beleaguered captain (with a baseball reference I can appreciate) doesn't mean he can't make it charming to see from bit to bit. I do appreciate the brief moments between Johnson and Jackson, who get to chew on action clichés for a bit that makes for a worthy zinger (namely in trying to jump off more than one can chew). On the action side, the movie certainly does well enough with spacing out its sequences that doesn't delude the senses, and the story generally holds enough water to keep it mostly as a dutiful procedural. The chemistry between Ferrell and Wahlberg combined with a few supporting presences as a whole make for an engaging experience, one firmly in the middle as a buddy film that doesn't have too many hitches while hitting its overall targets with useful enterprise from folks who certainly know best.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Birdman.

Review #1570: Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance).

Cast:

Michael Keaton (Riggan Thomson), Zach Galifianakis (Jake), Edward Norton (Mike Shiner), Andrea Riseborough (Laura Alburn), Amy Ryan (Sylvia), Emma Stone (Sam Thomson), Naomi Watts (Lesley Truman), Lindsay Duncan (Tabitha Dickinson), Merritt Wever (Annie), Jeremy Shamos (Ralph), and Benjamin Kanes (Young Riggan / Birdman) Directed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu.

Review:

"I have always said that innocence is much more powerful than experience. And, in some cases, people who suddenly fall into circumstances can unexpectedly bring some virtue to them—that’s kind of the case with this character."

"It’s rare that you get to be part of some amazing experiment like this. The movie gets dark and gets weird, and it gets funny. So you’re constantly on this surfboard, kind of feeling it out. I like that. I just like seeing if I can do it.”

Filmmakers have had a variety of experiences that shape who they are that can go beyond just being shaped by cinema. For one, they can be shaped by their life experiences, as is the case for Alejandro G. Iñárritu. Born in Mexico City as the youngest of seven siblings, he was shaped by his travels made on cargo boats as a teenager (having struggled with studies in high school), which took abroad across America and Europe. He returned back to his country to study communications at Universidad Iberoamericana. He got himself into working for radio at WFM as a rock music radio host, which led to making promos and eventually transitioning into work with his own production company in Z Films, which dealt with shorts and advertisements. Iñárritu made his feature debut with Amores perros (2000), which served as the first film of a trilogy involving death and multiple storylines that would have writing from him and Guillermo Arriaga. This was his fifth feature film. It started as making a comedy in a single shot in a theatre (that developed over the span of a couple of years), done not only because of a desire to do a comedy over another drama but also because of his belief in that one lives their life with no editing, where one could be taken in by "an inescapable reality" just like the protagonist (there had been quite a few movies that were meant to play out in real time, most notably with Rope in 1948). Iñárritu, in addition to direction also co-produced the film and co-wrote it with Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Jr, and Armando Bó, who wrote the film for a period of nearly two years while working together through Skype and e-mails. Each of them, along with cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, would win Academy Awards for their work with this film, which seems aptly appropriate.

What, a gimmick utilized to tell an interesting story that garnered attention in 2014? Anything is possible when you start with a man levitating while in his underwear. Ultimately, the enjoyment of the film relies on how much one absorbs themselves into a film that might resemble in some ways Don Quixote in its disparity between expectation and reality when it comes to who we think we are as a person, particularly in ego. When it comes to acting, that is never more true, since they are having to be someone different from themselves in a desire to be approved and so on and so forth with insecurities to list. One will either be swept away by how entertaining it proves in its execution to go alongside its elements of black comedy and drama or they will find a curiously strange experiment that lives and dies on its level of satire and fateful ending. For me, I found it to be an intriguing two hour experience, one that is a clear achievement for Iñárritu and Lubezki that moves with seamless ambition and wry enjoyment that benefits from a worthwhile cast to serve as a worthwhile film to encapsulate capable filmmaking for the 2010s. Keaton, picked by Iñárritu after he had finished the script for his ability to bring "meta-dialogue between the film and the reality", is exquisite. He manages to do so well in capturing a man wrapped in crisis over what it means to live a life wrapped in either past glories or current pursuits to find meaning within ignorance - in other words, it is one of Keaton's best performances, crafted well in anxiety that grabs one early and never loses footing in competence because we never think it is just self-aggrandizing. The rest of the group do quite well in going along with the show in terms of well-placed charm or timing, as is the case with Galifianakis or Norton, who both are quite funny in what the film requires in either wry sensitivity or self-important confidence, respectively. Riseborough and Ryan also prove useful in lending layers to outside the theater, while Stone serves as a useful bridge between a testy act with Keaton alongside her own testy grasp of her struggles. Watts and Duncan round out the cast handily for a film that builds itself up on sharp little moments between each other without being fitted into any tight cliché square or all-the-way wrapped up narratives. On the whole, I found it to be an enjoyable and curious film, balancing its act of magic realism with efficiency that tells a worthwhile feature of ego and virtue with maturity that will lend itself well to more than one viewing (particularly with its ending) to appreciate the detail that goes into a worthwhile feature of excellence and curiosity.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Jackie Brown.

Review #1307: Jackie Brown.

Cast: 
Pam Grier (Jackie Brown), Samuel L. Jackson (Ordell Robbie), Robert Forster (Max Cherry), Bridget Fonda (Melanie Ralston), Michael Keaton (Ray Nicolette), Robert De Niro (Louis Gara), Michael Bowen (Det. Mark Dargus), Chris Tucker (Beaumont Livingston), LisaGay Hamilton (Sheronda), Tom "Tiny" Lister Jr (Winston), Hattie Winston (Simone), and Sid Haig (Judge) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, #1218 - Pulp Fiction, and #1251 - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood)

Review: 
For a crime film, a well-detailed story can go a long way to make an experience worth remembering. Quentin Tarantino certainly had plenty of films to showcase interesting people and the environments they inhabit, and Jackie Brown proves no different, showing plenty of wit and charm through a 154 minute leisure that has a solid cast and pretty good execution that leaves one fairly satisfied. This happens to be the only Tarantino film where he adapted a previous work, with the source material being Rum Punch by Elmore Leonard (which Tarantino did over adapting Freaky Deaky or Killshot after re-reading), for which there were a few changes made involving its title character alongside her race that Leonard approved of, reportedly saying that this was the best screenplay he had ever read. For his third directorial effort, Tarantino uses a little less violence and a bit more chronology when it comes to telling his story, which works pretty well within some casual confines, featuring six distinct players in something reminiscent of blaxploitation films (having Grier helps in that regard) without losing itself too much in clear style. The main group of actors do pretty well in that regard, starting with its main lead. Grier, already a trail blazer for female action heroes in the 1970s, proves just as capable in sinking her teeth into a towering presence, capable of holding her own with whoever is on screen without even having to use a gun all too much. Jackson exudes ruthless confidence to a tee here, capable of sticking any kind of line involving unseemly things (such as trying to get someone in a trunk as a favor) without too much reluctance. Forster seems completely in his element here, a world weary straight-laced player with complete professionalism and subtle chemistry with Grier that makes for a well-deserved comeback for the character actor that ended up with an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor - the film's only Oscar nomination. Fonda and De Niro also provide welcome players, casual and raw for the moments that need to happen, which all comes full circle with the parking lot sequence in terms of emotion and payoff (sometimes you just need to see it all play out to make it really count). Keaton doesn't have as much time, but it sure is nice to see him and the rest of the supporting cast in those little moments to surround the environment of the plot. It has its choices when it comes to music or homages, doing so with careful ambition that extends to a plot that plays by the book in gathering these characters to the moments that matter without shortchanging them with cheap gags or rushes. The film has its amusing moments, but it knows when to drive itself with sharp senses of focus with characters who all seem to have been around the block a few times and seem weary for it. It's a nice movie that drags itself with daring regard for plenty to see with its characters and its sudden turns that make it all feel worth it. Sure, it isn't his best film, but it does prove a worthy one to view once if not twice to see how the run plays out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Spider-Man: Homecoming.

Review #966: Spider-Man: Homecoming.

Cast: 
Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Michael Keaton (Adrian Toomes / Vulture), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Robert Downey Jr (Tony Stark / Iron Man), Marisa Tomei (May Parker), Zendaya (Michelle), Donald Glover (Aaron Davis), Jacob Batalon (Ned), Laura Harrier (Liz), Tony Revolori (Flash Thompson), Bokeem Woodbine (Herman Schultz / Shocker #2), Kerry Condon (F.R.I.D.A.Y.), Garcelle Beauvais (Doris Toomes), and Jennifer Connelly (Karen), and Hemky Madera (Mr. Delmar) Directed by Jon Watts.

Review: 
It is astounding at the level that comic book movies have undergone in terms of scope and quality in the past decade, with this being the 16th film in Marvel's film universe (of which I've covered all but one), though Spider-Man has had numerous films within this century, with the first film (the only one I've watched - #611) being released in 2002, only 15 years ago. It also isn't Holland's first appearance in the role, seeing as he was in Captain America: Civil War (#796) just last year. Once again, it was time to go to the theater for a comic book film.

Baggage or not, I can say this movie is pretty good. There is a numerous amount of things that I liked from this movie, and it starts with Holland, who is instantly enjoyable to watch on screen; there is just something about him that clicks in each scene, whether as Parker or the titular hero, and I look forward to watch him in further films. Admittedly, I did wonder how the villain would be in this film, considering how they usually aren't as memorable in a good deal of these Marvel films. For me, Keaton does a fine job in trying to get around that problem, in part because his character is actually compelling to watch on screen, and I think it's because you actually get a sense of what he's doing and why he does it without it simply devolving into something one dimensional. Favreau and Downey are pretty good in their scenes, with the latter having a chemistry with Holland that works pretty well with the flow of the film. Tomei, despite not having too much screen-time, is fairly enjoyable and fits well with Holland. The rest of the cast is fairly watchable as well, contributing to the film for some laughs along with the story; as comic relief, Batalon admittedly could be hit or miss, but I found him to be relatively harmless (in terms of annoyance), and he felt useful enough to the film without seeming empty. There's just something relatable about the world that the movie builds that seems ripe for more adventures.

The film doesn't go too much into the origins of the character, but it doesn't feel necessary to have, mainly because the movie operates itself fairly coherently enough to get past that. The action scenes aren't particularly great (with the shaky cam definitely being hit or miss), but it doesn't look too muddy to hurt the experience; though the action isn't great for the climax, the build up and the acting for it is well enough to keep that from being a disappointment. There is a light but fitting atmosphere that goes for some laughs while not bogging itself down in being generic. What other film can have a scene where characters try to build the Lego Death Star? That's the fun thing about these Marvel films, they are diverse enough in their approaches and style that make these films irresistible to watch for me. It's easy for me to recommend it (if you already haven't seen it), but it's also easy to say that this is a fine installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that is a solid winner.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: RoboCop (2014).

Review #666: RoboCop (2014).

Cast
Joel Kinnaman (Alex Murphy/Robocop), Gary Oldman (Dr. Dennett Norton), Michael Keaton (Raymond Sellars), Samuel L. Jackson (Pat Novak), Abbie Cornish (Clara Murphy), Jackie Earle Haley (Rick Mattox), Michael K. Williams (Jack Lewis), Jennifer Ehle (Liz Kline), Jay Baruchel (Tom Pope), Aimee Garcia (Jae Kim), John Paul Ruttan (David Murphy), and Patrick Garrow (Antoine Vallon) Directed by José Padilha.

Review
It's not better than the original film. But I think we all knew that already. But at least it tries to be a decent movie. Whether or not it succeeds is up to the viewer. The movie's at least better than RoboCop 3 and up to the level of RoboCop 2, which I guess is a success. It's really hard to live up to the original film, especially for a remake/reboot, but at least it looks they tried to make a decent film. To be fair, I'd recommend renting the film. The acting is passable, the highlights being Michael Keaton and Samuel L. Jackson, they make the film seem less basic, and they are pretty entertaining also. Kinnaman is not bad, while at times he feels flat; the emotional aspect of the character is at least explored a little, though it's really hard to beat Peter Weller's portrayal. The movie is probably more enjoyable when not being compared to the original, but then again that's really hard to not compare. The action is fine, though the fact that it's toned down due to the PG-13 rating does hinder its effect. I guess it helps make the film have more chance at profit, but who didn't watch the original film when they were a teen? Heck, I watched the original for the first time when I was 13, though that's a product of my dad's love of buying movies. But enough about my recollections, back to the review.  At least the tone of the film feels different, and the suit looks...pretty good. While they first show the suit with grey/silver as the main color, it actually looks better in black. It looks more robotic and less human like. While it may seem like the human drama drags it down at times and sometimes it feels odd, but I guess in the end it works...sort of. Much like the last film reviewed here (Star Trek: Into Darkness), it's a toss-up. Pick your poison.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Herbie: Fully Loaded.

Review #411: Herbie: Fully Loaded.

Cast
Lindsay Lohan (Maggie Peyton), Justin Long (Kevin), Matt Dillon (Trip Murphy), Michael Keaton (Ray Peyton, Sr), Breckin Meyer (Ray Peyton, Jr), Cheryl Hines (Sally), Jimmi Simpson (Crash), and Jill Ritchie (Charisma) Directed by Angela Robinson.

Review
I had put this film on the back burner for a while, trying to find some sort of reason to watch it, or an excuse not to watch it. And then I couldn't find a excuse not to watch it, so to get it out of my head and to also pass the time (or waste, which ever word you per fer), I decided to watch and review it. And...it's exactly what I thought it would be despite my childhood memories of it. I watched this occasionally years before I reviewed films, and the film had a quirky quality to it, but as I realize years later, this is a film that will probably connect with younger audiences, but it won't really connect with older (and sometimes but not always wiser) audiences. Lohan (who I last reviewed in #204 - Freaky Friday) isn't bad, though I do wonder how Justin Long keeps popping up here (Planet 51, Galaxy Quest, DodgeBall: A True Underdog Story, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Live Free or Die Hard), Dillon seems to ham it up playing the "villain", while Michael Keaton reminds me that even former Batmans need work. But in some ways, this film isn't helped or hurt by acting, it manages to be hurt by the level of absurdity, which I assume pleases the younger crowd. But my main questions throughout all of the film were this: Is Herbie...possessed? (And in that case would we need a car exorcist?) Is he alive? Does he eat? And why does it seem that he is a sentient being? Does he really need a driver at all? Why did he fall so far from fame? We do see a montage in the beginning, but it doesn't exactly explain why, it just shows us the earlier films were probably better than this. This is a mediocre film that tries hard to please some, and it that sense it works, but it'll baffle others.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Toy Story 3.

Review #382: Toy Story 3.

Cast
Tom Hanks (Woody), Tim Allen (Buzz Lightyear), Joan Cusack (Jessie), Ned Beatty (Lotso), John Morris (Andy), Don Rickles (Mr. Potato Head), Blake Clark (Slinky Dog), Wallace Shawn (Rex), John Ratzenberger (Hamm), Estelle Harris (Mrs. Potato Head), Michael Keaton (Ken), Jodi Benson (Barbie), Emily Hahn (Bonnie), Jeff Pidgeon (Little Green Men), Timothy Dalton (Mr. Pricklepants), Kristen Schaal (Trixie), Jeff Garlin (Buttercup), Bonnie Hunt (Dolly), Whoopi Goldberg (Stretch), and Bud Luckey (Chuckles) Directed by Lee Unkrich (#074 - Monsters, Inc and #155 - Finding Nemo)

Review
The first two Toy Stories by now are probably films that this generation has for nostalgia. The first was released in 1995, the 2nd in 1999, and this one was released in 2010. In that case, it's like a cycle, from the beginning to the...end? After watching this, I wonder if it is the end for these characters and their stories. Whatever the case, if it is meant to be, they went out with a proper bang. Hanks and Allen do a good job, pairing off each other well as does some of the others. The animation is good, having new settings that do look pretty good. But the thing that holds the film together is Ned Beatty as Lotso. For a character to turn in motivation from when you first see him to later in the film, it's a pretty stunning transformation. The film has some dark themes, but they aren't too dark for anyone not to enjoy, and it makes sense, given the progression of the series. The ending has some weirdness to it, but that does not overshadow a film that is pretty good, really good.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Beetlejuice.

Review #107: Beetlejuice.

Cast
Michael Keaton (Betelgeuse), Alec Baldwin (Adam Maitland), Geena Davis (Barbara Maitland), Winona Ryder (Lydia Deetz), Catherine O'Hara (Delia Deetz), Jeffrey Jones (Charles Deetz), Annie McEnroe (Jane Butterfield), Glenn Shadix (Otho), Sylvia Sidney (Juno), Robert Goulet (Maxie Dean), Maree Cheatham (Sarah Dean), Dick Cavett (Bernard), and Susan Kellermann (Grace) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman )

Review
The film razzles and dazzles with an interesting story that evolves into a fest of effects and comedy, yet still making the film enjoyable. It's fun to watch anytime, especially in the nighttime. Keaton and Ryder stand out with their acting, with Keaton playing Beetlejuice so crazy and so good. Ryder plays the strange and Gothic Lydia (better then other goth girls in other films) who is impressive in this role (doing more roles in later life). The film is likeable and it makes you watch, not being a bore once. This will always be a classic for years and years to come...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.