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.

Wolf (1994).

Review #1157: Wolf.

Cast: 
Jack Nicholson (Will Randall), Michelle Pfeiffer (Laura Alden), James Spader (Stewart Swinton), Kate Nelligan (Charlotte Skylar Randall), Richard Jenkins (Detective Sgt. Carl Bridger), Christopher Plummer (Raymond Alden), Eileen Atkins (Mary), David Hyde Pierce (Roy MacAllister), Om Puri (Dr. Vijav Alezais), and Ron Rifkin (Doctor Ralph) Directed by Mike Nichols (#175 - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, #550 - The Graduate, and #637 - The Birdcage)

Review: 
I suppose there must have been a desire to make a new kind of werewolf film for the 1990s, particularly since this film doesn't even use the word "werewolf", as if that was somehow taboo or something. It's also clear that they really wanted to be taken seriously, since this is a romantic horror film. On the whole, the film is decent, but it doesn't really live up to the potential it could've reached, although I certainly do find some enjoyment from it, whether when trying to be a metaphor or for unintentional amusement. Perhaps this is a movie that needed more beastly nature, since the real horror that jumps out involves office politics at a publishing house. The screenplay was done by author Jim Harrison and Wesley Strick, although there were un-credited re-writes done by Elaine May. Harrison was not a particular fan of the final result of the film made by Nichols, explaining "I wanted Dionysian, but he wanted Apollonian. He took my wolf and made it into a Chihuahua. I cracked up for 10 minutes and then went out into the country and stood in front of a wolf den and apologized while my dog hid under the truck." This is a strange film to spend 125 minutes with, and it does sometimes feel a bit too long.

The acting does help carry the movie well enough. Nicholson is entertaining, being watchable as ever without overdoing anything, whether when prancing around with mutton-chops or when having more energy to him after being bit. After all, this is a movie that gives him a bunch of abilities to show off as a wolf, such as being able to read without his glasses, being able to be more active in romance with his wife, jumping in the air, or having animals hate him. Pfeiffer, in a role that occasionally delves into cliches, manages to come out as someone interesting to follow along with, having a few moments with Nicholson that makes this romance seem semi-workable. Spader is excellent at playing such a smarmy character like this one, making the art of flattery and treachery that works oozy wonders each time he's on screen. Nelligan is okay, but the real highlight in the supporting cast is Plummer, who plays his domineering rich guy role with an understated touch. The special makeup effects are done by Rick Baker, who you may recognize from his work on other films, most notably An American Werewolf in London (1981) and Coming to America (1988). His effects here are pretty good, although they certainly feel restrained in contrast to the bits involving the romance or the office scenes, although at least they are given time to shine in the climax. Honestly, the movie is more fun when it doesn't feel so restrained between either being a metaphor or being actual horror/romance. One of my favorite bits of amusement comes when Nicholson's character decides to "mark his territory" at the bathroom when he's firing Spader's character, as if this was supposed to be taken seriously. Other other fun bit comes when Nicholson's character finds out that he has been cheated on by his wife through his super-scent, so he goes up to the house where his wife and the other guy are located, and he bites the other dude on the hand before going up the stairs, taking one look at his wife, and then leaves. The climax is a bit of a ridiculous one, and it isn't as effective as it probably should've been. Maybe it's the fact that there really isn't that much buildup for its showdown between its two wolves (complete with the use of slow motion), or maybe it's the fact that the film keeps shuffling between what it really wants. This is especially apparent in the scene after involving a shot of eyes mixed in with a shot of a wolf - and that's it. If you think the film will resemble something like The Wolf Man (1941), you will likely be disappointed, but I did manage to find some strange enjoyment out of how weird and energetic it is, even if it manages to muddled in ridiculousness at times. It isn't a highlight in the horror or romance genres, but it works just enough for me to win out as entertainment.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Birdcage.

Review #637: The Birdcage.

Cast
Robin Williams (Armand Goldman), Nathan Lane (Albert), Gene Hackman (Kevin Keeley), Dianne Wiest (Louise Keeley), Dan Futterman (Val Goldman), Calista Flockhart (Barbara Keeley), Hank Azaria (Agador), and Christine Baranski (Katherine Archer) Directed by Mike Nichols (#175 - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and #550 - The Graduate)

Review
What we have is a wild, weird movie full of fun scenes that make a unique experience. The biggest reason this movie works is the cast, they all seem to just mesh together awkwardly, which makes sense given the premise. It really is Hackman's facial expressions that just sum up what kind of world he's in, and any time you can end a movie with him in disguise at a nightclub with he doing the most uncomfortable expressions ever is pure gold. Williams and Lane are just watchable in every scene they share together, I especially like the scene where Williams tries to demonstrate how to dance for a musical scene by channeling dances, such as Madonna. The way that Williams moves and his energy make a strange scene into a great one. Does the movie have its cliches? Yes, but it embraces them, this is a movie on its own terms, with some great music and some good jokes. What we have here is a movie that is flashy, silly fun with a touch of decor for flavor.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Graduate.

Review #550: The Graduate.

Cast
Anne Bancroft (Mrs. Robinson), Dustin Hoffman (Benjamin Braddock), Katharine Ross (Elaine Robinson), William Daniels (Mr. Braddock), Murray Hamilton (Mr. Robinson), and Elizabeth Wilson (Mrs. Braddock) Directed by Mike Nichols (#175 - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?)

Review
The Graduate is a cornerstone of the 1960's, a representation of the good and the bad of that era, a movie timelessly stuck in that era. But is the movie itself as great as some like to call it? Not quite. While it is a well made movie, the movie has one sad flaw that still would've happened with or without Hoffman: The flaw is Braddock himself. It is hard to care about this character, about what he does, or in this case, doesn't. Mrs. Robinson is both a timeless character and the best character to watch in the movie because her story is more interesting to watch, she's a character who basically represents someone who settled for someone she didn't love, and how it's too late for her, stuck in a loveless marriage, and that's where Ben enters the picture. He...is hard to care about due to his insecurities, the fact he stalks a girl all the way to college...and the fact his "I don't know what to do" is not exactly compelling as compared to Bancroft's character. Are the actors any good? Yea, they are. They are perfectly cast in their roles, and they work well together, even the supporting actors. The ending to the movie is both ironic yet poignant, with these two one-date characters together, not knowing of their future, and also stuck, much like Bancroft. Is this a classic? It could be argued that it is a classic, it certainly is entertaining at times (Especially with that soundtrack by Simon & Garfunkel), and the actors are good. It all depends on what you want, which I hope isn't plastics.

EDITORIAL: I'd like to note that this is the 550th review, which wasn't given the whole Countdown like other landmark reviews. You might be wondering why. I simply didn't care enough to want to do the whole Countdown stuff again, not after all I tried to do with the Metropolis (#500) stuff. I haven't had as much energy to care about doing countdowns, though my energy for this show is somewhat there, I feel like I'm doing this more for myself then for others, like I'm talking to an empty audience, and the lack of care for a Countdown was just my laziness. Am I taking a break from reviewing? No, though it wouldn't hurt to try and stop and think about why I do this show. It's not like I've been bogged down with little to review, I actually do have a backlog of films I want to watch and review, I just don't feel like these reviews have had much interest from anyone other then just me. Am I right, or am I just slightly delusional after watching a depressing film such as The Graduate? Is this just for my own enjoyment, or is do any of you readers enjoy these reviews? I'm not considering ending this show, I just feel that I wanted to ask this question, a little musing of mine. If you actually do read this and care, I'd like to see a comment or two, just so my musing proves incorrect.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Review #175: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Cast
Elizabeth Taylor (Martha), Richard Burton (George), George Segal (Nick), and Sandy Dennis (Honey) Directed by Mike Nichols.

Review
I must mention that this is the 175th Review. Now, this is a different film then usual, a small cast with big drama. The whole cast is perfect, with Taylor and Burton being the main standouts. This drama is devastating to the bone, with moments of uncomfortable moments that only keep the tension rise until it all explodes. Their are parts with humor that only add to its atmosphere. This film is like 12 Angry Men (#035), a bunch of people all cooped in one set with tension building until it ends in excellence. Truly recommended.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.