Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

Review #2376: Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

Cast: 

Kevin Costner (Robin Hood), Morgan Freeman (Azeem Edin Bashir Al Bakir), Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (Lady Marian), Christian Slater (Will Scarlett), Alan Rickman (the Sheriff of Nottingham), Geraldine McEwan (Mortianna), Michael McShane (Friar Tuck), Brian Blessed (Lord Locksley), Michael Wincott (Guy of Gisborne), Nick Brimble (Little John), Harold Innocent (the Bishop of Hereford), Walter Sparrow (Duncan), Daniel Newman (Wulf), Daniel Peacock (Bull), and Jack Wild (Much) Directed by Kevin Reynolds (#1081 - Waterworld)

Review: 

Okay, so Kevin Reynolds did other movies besides Waterworld (1995). Actually, the San Antonio native got his start in film with co-writing the script with John Milius for Red Dawn (1984). His first film as a director came with Fandango (1985), which actually sprung from a film he had made when at USC Film School that was inspired by his experiences at Baylor University. The production, featuring a young Kevin Costner as the star, wasn't a hit, but Reynolds found further work with The Beast (1988). Reynolds later served as a second unit director with Dances with Wolves (1990)*, significantly with the buffalo hunt scene. Naturally, the two united for a movie that sprung from British people. Well, okay, British writer-producer Pen Densham wanted to do a Robin Hood movie that went on with the idea of not just being a rerun of the famed 1938 film of the tale in adventure, instead billing it as "Robin Hood a la Raiders”. He wrote an outline with John Watson that attracted attention and getting Reynolds basically meant getting Costner involved. Reynolds apparently wanted to avoid making "Indiana Jones" with the tone. With a rushed production schedule to try and make sure they were not beaten out by a rival Robin Hood movie and not be stuck in England winter, the result was, well, funny. Apparently, preview screenings had people say that Rickman's sheriff was their favorite character rather than Costner. They then replaced editors with a team that trimmed and beefed-up certain scenes that saw Reynolds leave the production prior to the final editing/scoring. Interestingly, a 2003 DVD of the movie has an extended version of the movie that runs at 155 minutes (i.e. 12 minutes of restored footage, most notably showing the parentage of a certain character).

Sure, the tales of Robin Hood is a folktale of British origin. Sure, there is no straight-to-the-point version of what the myth is beyond a man who can use arrows and/or swords. There is no one person that inspired folks to talk about a bandit that dealt with the rich beyond people who were outlaws in some way. The movies did their own thing, suffice to say. Hell, people even made ballads about Robin Hood. The only ballad people will make of this movie is how ridiculously all over the place it all is. Sure, I got a kick out of the movie more often than not, but its flaws are evident to even those who don't care about a certain degree of violence or the tone of the whole thing. The fact that Kevin Reynolds elected to work with Kevin Costner again with Waterworld (1995) after this means that people really do have plenty of patience to share with each other. I have no time to really quibble about Costner *the American* playing Robin Hood, because freaking Errol Flynn was an Australian (incidentally, did you know James Cagney was supposed to play the role before Flynn?). I will, however, quibble about the fact that someone thought it was a problem that Rickman overshadows him in the movie. What the hell was his performance before they did the edits, a stronger block of wood?** To be clear, I don't really care that much about if Costner varies in trying to do an accent, because, well, meh, but I will quibble with the fact that he barely has any charisma in the first place. I think he just coasts better with alleged classics like Bull Durham (1988) when he has some sort of actual breath of fun with actually doing something besides looking into the distance and doing a hobby shop Clint Eastwood impression. And yet...the movie does what it does in spite of his okay qualities. I at least see the interest that comes with a lead that sees the Crusades and all that comes from it and decides, no, life isn't about chasing glory. Freeman accompanies this with a zest to play with the idea of enjoying this quest and sticking out like a sore thumb (as one does when being referred to as a "Moor") in staid charm. And then of course there is Rickman, who saw the script and proceeded to come up with (read: enlist the help of writer friends such as Ruby Wax and Peter Barnes) better lines for himself (the "cancel Christmas" line, for example). His menace in chewing the scenery and zeal for doing exactly what he feels is both damn funny and also absorbing in a way that saves the movie in showing energy beyond just doing the same adversarial bit. What can I say, I like ham (for reference, the Sheriff in the 1938 version was played by Melville Cooper, but it's easy to forget when Claude Rains and Basil Rathbone play the real threats of that film), particularly when sharing time with the amusing hack mysticism of McEwan. Mastrantonio has exactly one interesting scene: her introduction, when she fights under a mask for a bit. She then coasts along as just an adequate observer to the growing absurdity (except for the climax, which has her wail while Rickman aims for extra-cooked ham and Costner sifts into "sword" mode). Slater basically pops in and out to play a brat with the most evident twist necessarily, but McShane and Brimble at least make the merry band of men (okay, not all men) have energy to make these people seem like you would actually want to be there in the British countryside (insert your own British joke here, guv'nor). The movie does strain in the credibility of an okay (read: generous) lead backed with a far more capable cast (read: one really good actor and a few names to like here and there) and some action that I'm actually okay with. Some will find it joyless, some will find it a pleasure they can roll with in the sheer bombast that comes through for some useful adventure that I can appreciate. It's the ultimate "love it or hate it" kind of movie that you might find worth stumbling onto or stagger away from.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*That would be the *overrated* Dances with Wolves, released in 1990. Sure, fine movie, but I will never understand how Costner's efforts with a movie outdone by, well, pick a random Eastwood Western, was the best movie by a certain Academy.

**And who wanted to see his bare ass? 

Red (2010).

Review #1824: Red.

Cast: 

Bruce Willis (Frank Moses), Morgan Freeman (Joe Matheson), John Malkovich (Marvin Boggs), Helen Mirren (Victoria Winslow), Karl Urban (William Cooper), Mary-Louise Parker (Sarah Ross), Rebecca Pidgeon (Cynthia Wilkes), Brian Cox (Ivan Simanov), Richard Dreyfuss (Alexander Dunning), Julian McMahon (Vice President Robert Stanton), Ernest Borgnine (Henry, the records keeper), and James Remar (Gabriel Singer) Directed by Robert Schwentke. 

Review: 

Red (standing for Retired: Extremely Dangerous), if you didn't know, was originally a comic miniseries (or as the film credits put it, a graphic novel), done by writer Warren Ellis and artist Cully Hamner that was published from 2003-04 by Homage Comics (a subdivision of comic imprint Wildstorm, which in term was a publishing imprint of DC Comics until its shutdown in 2010). So technically speaking, one is dealing with a comic book movie, although it apparently is lighter in tone (as scripted by Jon Hoeber and Erich Hoeber) than the actual comic, judging by the cursory glance at the plot (Ellis once stated that while the script wasn't exactly the book, he felt it wasn't a bad script, noting the tight casting). This happened to be released in the same year of The Expendables, which also recruited a bunch of familiar names for an action film with a few select quips (which incidentally had Willis in a cameo). This was the fifth feature film for its director in Schwentke, a West German graduate of Columbia College Hollywood.

You get what you pay for when it comes to recognizable names maneuvering their way through an ensemble designed to draw smiles without too many story beats to count on (in other words, smiling at Borgnine is more interesting than the climax reveal). By this point in his career, Willis was 45. In the decade of the 2010s, he would do a variety of action appearances...alongside plenty of direct-to-video work ("on demand", specifically). It probably isn't a surprise that Willis was the prime actor in mind when it came to casting, since his sly charm is suitable for what is needed here in the small parts before the action pastiche moments come around, which turn out fine (modern movies have certain aims and limits, remember). Freeman doesn't exactly have much to really do here, seemingly overshadowed by the eccentrics like Malkovich with calmness that only works to a certain extent, likely because the film pulls a fake-out involving the character being "dead" for a time. Malkovich makes for a paranoid ham for some splendid amusing moments, which work out for the best without turning into a drudge. Urban lumbers through as the foil for most of the film which works out for engaging action moments. Parker seems bemused just to be there, contributing a few chuckles while having a quirky chemistry with Willis that at the very least doesn't become consumed in all the cliches needed. Mirren seems pleased to be there with graceful engagement that works when finally presented as the last piece of the ensemble for useful effect. One could only hope for further time with Dreyfuss, who has exactly two scenes with a bit that seems honed right in with cliches from the 1980s that is lost in the shuffle. Granted, the movie is going for a light touch when it comes to story, but still. One knows Cox is putting on an accent, but he seems firmly game to make the bit count, which works pretty well for those small moments with Mirren. 

The 111-minute run-time is fairly serviceable, in that the film manages to have enough action set-pieces to go along with occasional chuckles without slowing to a halt too many times, although the climax does nearly slug itself out with abrupt set-ups to nearly derail it. Honestly, the movie is fine. Granted, it might not exactly win many favors as an action spectacle, but it is at the least something that proves suitable for enjoyment with fair style and sly charm. Technically speaking, this is a cast that might have been really, really captivating a couple of years ago, if only to note the names that come together to (put it lightly) "kick ass". It moves through the cheesy aspects with an awareness that it is meant to be that way, not trying to take itself too seriously, which results in a decent movie with only a few surprises but a suitable ensemble film. It could have been better with the number of names involved, but the fact that it slugs through the finish line without many stilted bumps in terms of action sequencing and light touches means that it will prove worthy of your time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Dark Knight Rises.

Review #1562: The Dark Knight Rises.

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

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Se7en.

Review #1510: Seven.

Cast:
Brad Pitt (Detective David Mills), Morgan Freeman (Detective Lieutenant William Somerset), Gwyneth Paltrow (Tracy Mills), Kevin Spacey (John Doe), R. Lee Ermey (Police Captain), Richard Roundtree (District Attorney Martin Talbot), and Richard Schiff (Mark Swarr) Directed by David Fincher (#586 - Alien 3, #705 - The Social Network, and #1284 - Fight Club)

Review: 
"As a director, film is about how you dole out the information so that the audience stays with you when they're supposed to stay with you, behind you when they're supposed to stay behind you, and ahead of you when they're supposed to stay ahead of you."

From a young age, David Fincher knew he wanted to make films. He expressed an interest in photography and drawing as a child, and it was his viewing of a behind-the-scenes show about Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969) that proved the biggest inspiration to directing, noting that it was when he realized films didn't happen in real time, seeing it as a "cool job". He started making 16mm films in the third grade, with film classes during those times proved helpful to his pursuits (such as for example doing an assignment about making a film to a particular song). Fincher would do a variety of jobs and projects growing up in Oregon, such as directing and designing sets for his high school plays along with work with a news station and as a busboy. After turning 20, he moved into doing work in the film industry with people such as John Korty and Industrial Light and Magic (ILM) which started with work such as Twice Upon a Time (1983) with special photographic effects. He moved from doing assistant work to directing for television commercials and soon music videos (both involving prominent companies and groups like Levi's and Rick Springfield, respectively). He was given his first chance to direct a feature with Alien 3 (1990). To put it mildly, he hated the experience, one undone by script troubles and re-editing.

Fincher went back to making music videos, but he managed to come across an intriguing script done by Andrew Kevin Walker (who had based his experiences living in New York City for five years as his inspiration), which was looked into by New Line Cinema after a few revisions. Fincher asked to read the script, but it was accidentally the one with the original ending that was sent to him by the studio to garner his interest; Fincher liked what he saw, and consulting with studio head Mike De Luca led to the understanding that while studio pressure wanted to go forward with the more conventional manner of ending, provided that Fincher was ready to go in six weeks. This did not stop pressure from other hands at the studio from trying to guide the ending to something different, but several people, including Fincher, Pitt, Freeman, and Spacey, protested against changing the film, which succeeded as Fincher's first key hit in a career that has persisted for over three decades. The movies that linger in our memories are the ones where you can really distill it down to one key moment or quote in crystal clearness, one that you can say "The film with that ending." Sure, you could use The Usual Suspects for 1995's example of an iconic trickster for its ending, but Seven is the superior effort. It manages to achieve such a well-done construction of a compelling crime narrative that has a solid and recognizable cast to go alongside an unnerving tone and pace that makes its ending all the more wrenching in effectiveness, earning its twists and turns with no sort of cheating or contrivances, made particularly clear with the third act in its method of madness with Pitt, Freeman, and Spacey. Drenched in darkness, who can resist its realism? Precise and uncompromising scares of what makes a hunt for a murderer all the more successful. It is no wonder that Fincher was attracted to this, seeing it as a "meditation on evil and how evil gets on you and you can't get it off", rather than just a police procedural. With the way it goes with its gruesome moments (whether shown on camera or not), you almost could put it under horror as well.

When it comes to finely-tuned pairings of procedure, Pitt and Freeman make a good team. They bounce off each other in contrast with their sensibility towards virtue and reality that work out quite well. Pitt has an interesting natural ability to sink into this role with both feet facing forward and a capability of determination in a fledged interest with flaws for us to see through what seems to just be energy. Freeman accomplishes a weary and effective turn of the other side of the procedural screw, one with a steady pace towards his past and future when it comes to the grind of age and the regrets that can come from it. Paltrow lends some brightness to the atmosphere with grace as the only one that isn't directly related to the case yet see in her struggle to maintain oneself in the grind of a brooding life within a city looking dark enough to engulf all. Spacey is concise and effective with the moments he is given (which is best not to highlight in keeping the curiosity to oneself or in just waiting to see when he comes in), making a useful adversary that never adheres to all of the clichés you could see in a lesser killer film. Ermey and Roundtree have small moments, but they are each worthwhile actors with what is required when interacting with our leads regardless. With a slick way of maneuvering through its methods in 127 minutes with most of its moments hitting in keeping the pulse firmly in keeping the audience on their toes without needing to bash them over the head for the sins of lesser procedurals before it. This is a fairly effective film for its era that dares to take its audience through murky touchings with a capable cast and execution that will stay in the boxes of your mind for quite some time after it is finished.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Shawshank Redemption.

Review #1506: The Shawshank Redemption.

Cast: 
Tim Robbins (Andy Dufresne), Morgan Freeman (Ellis Boyd "Red" Redding), Bob Gunton (Samuel Norton), William Sadler (Heywood), Clancy Brown (Byron Hadley), Gil Bellows (Tommy Williams), James Whitmore (Brooks Hatlen), and Mark Rolston (Bogs Diamond) Written and Directed by Frank Darabont.

Review: 
"I really don't think you can get tired of the kind of loving reaction that people have for this movie. It seems to have become its own ambassador to the world. It does mean something to people, and that's so fantastic to me. How many people have even one thing like that in their lives?"

Sometimes a film can have all the right pieces fall into all of the right places. Cast, writing, direction, and several other aspects are important to making something that one would hope will find an audience in some way, and The Shawshank Redemption is no different. The man responsible for doing the film in the way it is in script adaptation and direction is Frank Darabont, making his theatrical feature debut. He was inspired to venture into film through his youth after seeing THX 1138 (1971). He went from jobs at the Grauman's Egyptian Theatre to production assistant on small production films. He made his first attempt at filmmaking with the short film The Woman in the Room in 1983 (based on the short story of the same name written by Stephen King, who granted permission for him to make the film), which was later described by King "clearly the best of the short films made from my stuff." He dabbled in writing scripts alongside production work before getting a break with being asked to become a writing partner with Chuck Russell to try and develop a script remake of The Blob. After doing a script worthy enough to try and pitch to shop around, they were approached to quickly re-write a script together with Russell serving as director. That film, A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors, proved a hit with audiences and helped them get further opportunities in films (such as the subsequent 1988 remake of The Blob). It was King's appreciation of what Darabont had done with his short story that helped in King giving him rights to do a film of one of his novellas (Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption, written originally in 1982 as part of Different Seasons), although it would take a few years before Darabont would get around to developing the project (the script however took just a few weeks), with Castle Rock Entertainment serving to help in making the film. The founder of that company, Rob Reiner was deeply interested in doing the project for himself (with Tom Cruise in mind for one of the lead roles), but Darabont held firm to directing the film for himself.

I think most of us have a grasp on how well-regarded this film has become over the past 25 years. It wasn't the hugest hit with audiences at the time of release (this was the year of Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction), but video release and numerous television showings have helped spread the film into a phenomenon that certainly seems suited for any curious audience viewer. It has an appeal that can seemingly reach any person that sees it because of how much of it can resonate with a viewer. We all have our moments when we need to seek out some sort of hope or redemption, whether through some sort of tough situation or for ourselves. Fear can keep us in line in many ways, but it is what we do with that challenge that makes life worth living to pull through. It has a great sense of sensitivity and movement that we can cling to almost immediately with the way it moves along with pace and sensibility to go along with some entertaining performances through its cast. Robbins moves with a shuffled pace that certainly stands different from the others in our main setting in how we observe him in his routine of endurance and capability to stroll through routine without fail. Freeman is our observer and eyes for the film (along with narrator) that we appreciate almost immediately in his terrific honesty and weary reflection that never wavers in conviction or in method. Gunton proves exquisite in his time handled on screen in perfectly controlled form of hypocrisy and manner of authority that sells his moments with Robbins or with others with no trouble at all. Sadler and Whitmore lend a supporting hand to the scope of the surroundings with charm and sobering stature, respectively (the latter's scene out of his prison at long last is likely one of the best poignant moments of the film). Brown rounds out the group with tremendous intimidating stature that is effective in driving the oppressive elements of the main setting down with ease. Beyond its great cast and well-done direction is a great look captured by Roger Deakins in cinematography to go with the sound stage sets (to go alongside exteriors of the real Ohio State Reformatory in Mansfield) that makes its message all the more useful and strong. With a 142 minute run-time that goes along like prose in building its atmosphere to all the points it desires with relentless honesty that makes its climax all the more rewarding. For some, it may very well be one of the greatest films ever, but it most definitely can be agreed by most to be one for the ages in hope and usefulness to view for themselves.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Unforgiven.

Review #1501: Unforgiven.

Cast: 
Clint Eastwood (William "Will" Munny), Gene Hackman ("Little" Bill Daggett), Morgan Freeman (Ned Logan), Richard Harris (English Bob), Jaimz Woolvett (The Schofield Kid), Saul Rubinek (W. W. Beauchamp), Frances Fisher (Strawberry Alice), Anna Thomson (Delilah Fitzgerald), David Mucci (Quick Mike), Rob Campbell (Davey Bunting), and Anthony James (Skinny Dubois) Produced and Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, and #1476 - Pale Rider)

Review: 
"Gene Hackman was interesting because I gave the Unforgiven script to his agent and he said no, he didn't want to do anything violent. But I went back to him and said, "I know where you're coming from. You get to a certain age and I'm there too, where you don't want to tell a lot of violent stories, but this is a chance to make a great statement"

It's easy to make a lasting great Western when it is going to be the last one you make after a long career defined by them. Eastwood had at least one defining Western that he was featured in, whether that involved television with Rawhide or with films such as A Fistful of Dollars, Two Mules for Sister Sara, or Pale Rider. This was his 17th directorial effort (and fourth involving the Western), and it surely proved a fitting last hurrah for Eastwood to declare as his last Western so as to not repeat himself or others (which has proven correct in for over two decades). The script for this film was written by David Peoples (who prior to writing had been a editor for TV and news programs) in 1976, with one development title being "The William Munny Killings", and one inspiration for him when it came to the depiction of violence was Taxi Driver. The script languished for years while Peoples wrote for other films such as The Day After Trinity (1980) and Blade Runner (1982), with Eastwood having waited around for years to do other projects first. Eastwood thought of making changes to the script, but he changed his mind because of how he saw the script was better without it (minus one thing, which involved having the opening having a text crawl rather than a voiceover). The result was two Academy Awards for Eastwood (for direction and Best Picture) and one for Hackman alongside one for editing.

At last, a Western great enough for the 1990s to deserve. It proves to be a riveting and somber ilm with its subversion of the Western and the myths that could make outlaws famous with whatever exploit could be covered fast enough. Sure, there have been quite a few films that have played with the clichés and traditions of what we saw in the Western in the classic era (with one slight resemblance being The Shootist, for example), but this one handles itself with a great elegiac quality in its direction, characters, and pace that make it one for the ages. It lives and moves with a great patience for making its surroundings resonate with its audience, with a false note never happening as more characters come and leave the picture as reflections of the time and place, whether that means a once-removed killer/farmer, or a savage outlaw, an outlaw with publicity, or even a sight-challenged kid with reputation. The easiest strength of the film lies within its main trio of actors, starting with Eastwood. No one ever fit the mythic mold of the Western hero ever so much in the last few decades of the 20th century film era like Eastwood did, who resonates in pained grit that reflects past and present with no contrived frills as a man with shades of gray. Hackman proves just as worthy in matching up to Hackman on the other side of the hill, tenacious and dedicated in intimidation and order (one of the people Hackman drew from was a police chief, for example) that lend excellence to small moments, such as a conversation with Harris and Rubinek involving the nature of fact and fiction with outlaws turning into a quiet showdown of chicken. Freeman (in the midst of a deserved rise in prominence with supporting and lead roles in the late 1980s) fills in the main details with resonating nerve and conviction that we come to depend on in a careful balancing act between him and Eastwood that make for useful time spent. Harris, despite being in the film considerably less than the others (and only having time with just Hackman and Rubinek) does a resoundingly good job in playing the part of the myth of a refined killer come out splendidly when faced with Hackman and his own interpretation of killers and those who write about them. Woolvett is the key supporting piece to encapsulate the film, brash but quite convincing as the lasting piece of the dealings of myth and reality when it comes to bits of amusement and action between him and Eastwood, never grating on one's patience. Rubinek and the others prove well in filling the town with interest and the dealings that come with conflicting view of justice and morality. What we have here is a film to stamp out the myths that came from films about a time as myth-inducing as the Old West with a wise one at the hand behind and in front of the camera in Eastwood to do wonders with for 131 minutes. This is a well-done piece of subversion and execution on a variety of levels that range from its cast to its look (done entirely in Alberta, Canada) that make the grand myth of outlaw one to look closer into and care about with flourish and satisfaction. It isn't the first Western one might view for themselves, but it sure is the one deserving of being up there to see time and time again among the classics.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Million Dollar Baby.

Review #1310: Million Dollar Baby.

Cast: 
Clint Eastwood (Frankie Dunn), Hilary Swank (Margaret "Maggie" Fitzgerald), Morgan Freeman (Eddie "Scrap-Iron" Dupris), Jay Baruchel (Danger), Mike Colter ("Big" Willie Little), Lucia Rijker (Billie "The Blue Bear" Osterman), Brían F. O'Byrne (Father Horvak), Anthony Mackie (Shawrelle Berry), Margo Martindale (Earline Fitzgerald), Riki Lindhome (Mardell Fitzgerald), and Michael Peña (Omar) Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys)

Review: 
We all love underdogs. Or at least we love the idea of someone trying to claw their way out of their past and find a new life for themselves (a second act, if you will). Of course one may have already seen a Cinderella story through the eyes of boxing before with Rocky (1976), but the film finds its own place to deliver a wrenching drama that works wonderfully for its 132 minute run-time with a solid trio to make its foundation stick. The film is based on a short story collection named Rope Burns: Stories from the Corner by F.X. Toole (pen name of boxing trainer Jerry Boyd), with Paul Haggis writing the screenplay. The film plays itself out in realism piece by piece that draws its ensemble with quiet precision. The film plays itself out in realism piece by piece that draws its ensemble with quiet precision. Eastwood does the task of acting/directing with ease, seeping into a grizzled yet well-meaning teacher with confidence. Freeman (who also serves as narrator) does a wonderful sobering job, carrying the soul of the film to where it needs to go whenever he is on screen or narrating about these characters and who they are when down and out in boxing. Swank clearly trained hard to sell such a tough role, where looking the part is only the half of it all - one is invested in Swank because of the drive and raw charisma she brings here. It's no surprise each won an Academy Award (Best Director, Supporting Actor, Actress) for their work - they all play well with each other, no matter whose partnered with who is a scene. The supporting cast (filled with actors who would become known in their own right) give credence to this grizzled atmosphere seen in the film, where one has to find something to stick with to belong and face hard truths - whether it means how one can be as a fighter or as a father or with one's own relatives or with the reality of sudden changes. The boxing looks the part when it comes to giving the right balance of brutality and entertainment, where one is involved with the punches without bellowing for more or being squeamish for less.  It grips the audience like a book you'd find in the store and find reading piece by piece without hesitation, never hedging itself too long on somehing without a clear reason.

The film hits most of the right punches when it comes to mining hard hitting drama in and out of the ring, being more than a typical boxing film through its distinct first and second halves. It forges with its choices without hamhanded compromise or cruelty for its characters, which may work differently for a viewer with their own mindsets about certain uncomfortable decisions. For me, the film hits the landing with a quiet but resounding focus, where a tear may very well come out of a stone composure. After 15 years, it's no wonder why this proves to be a modern classic worth checking out at least once.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Lucy (2014).

Review #1057: Lucy.

Cast: 
Scarlett Johansson (Lucy), Morgan Freeman (Professor Norman), Choi Min-sik (Mr. Jang), Amr Waked (Pierre Del Rio), Julian Rhind-Tutt (The Limey), Pilou Asbæk (Richard), Analeigh Tipton (Caroline), and Nicolas Phongpheth (Jii) Directed by Luc Besson (#027 - The Fifth Element)

Review: 
It isn't hard to refute the film's use of the urban legend that we only use 10 percent of our brains, but I imagine you've already heard about the myth or figured that giving the movie heat for using this as a metaphor isn't worth much in the grand scheme of things. In any case, I will say that this isn't an insulting movie to watch, but I also can't say I enjoyed the film positively. It isn't an idiotic movie, but it also isn't a movie for ones looking for something too logical. It definitely doesn't ring too well as a science fiction film, but it is capable in some way as an action thriller, for better or for worse, with at least some sort of fine style to it. Johansson does okay in showing a bit of vulnerability with her character, but the other parts of the movie that involve some sort of philosophy don't click too well, although I can't imagine anyone making this feel any less wooden. Freeman serves as exposition (particularly in the beginning), with the film taking its time for him to intersect with Johansson. Although the cast is fairly decent, none of the characters are particularly worthy of investing in, since we are dealing with a person in the film that literally cannot be stopped, which means that there are no real stakes to the film. I wonder what would've happened if there had been another person who managed to obtain the same kind of abilities that Lucy had with the drug (after all, there were three others used as mules to transport it), maybe as some sort of contrast to her. It probably would've resulted in a murky and heavy-handed climax, but it might've made for something that would've made the movie seem more useful. It only makes sense that the film resembles (in small part) to 2001: A Space Odyssey, since Besson is quoted as stating that the his movie's last part resembles 2001, after having shifted from resembling Léon: The Professional (1994, which Besson directed and wrote) to Inception (2010) to 2001. I would add that his movie reminds me of what would happen if a student decided to try and learn more philosophy and science by rolling down a hill on a giant tire.

It is interesting to note that it took me over a thousand reviews to actually review another film done by Luc Besson, particularly one that is also a French film (with a primary use of English language along with some use of Korean and French), so make of that what you will. There is a certain mania that consumes the movie that can work to the film's advantage if one is the right mindset for it. The animal imagery (obviously intended as some sort of symbolism) utilized at times in the film is ridiculous, particularly when used for the opening sequences (interspliced with exposition from Freeman talking) that I suppose makes the philosophy of the film look less surprisingly ridiculous. The movie (which has a pace of 90 minutes) doesn't advocate for anything ridiculous or insulting (although I suppose one could take umbrage with some of the sequences and lines). While the climax has a decent fight sequence, it is the end that takes the cake in terms of being the capstone for such a ridiculous film, with my favorite line being "I AM EVERYWHERE", which you'd think would be something that a villain would say. At the end of the day, this is an off the wall kind of movie that I will give credit for trying to be ambitious, even if I find it to be just a bit off its mark of intent, although your mileage may vary. This is a film made to entertain, and on that it may very well succeed, but I can't say that I liked Lucy enough to really put a positive spin for.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Bucket List.

Review #640: The Bucket List.

Cast
Jack Nicholson (Edward Cole), Morgan Freeman (Carter Chambers), Sean Hayes (Thomas/Matthew), Beverly Todd (Virginia Chambers), and Rob Morrow (Dr. Hollins) Directed by Rob Reiner (#108 - This Is Spinal Tap, #232 - The Princess Bride, and #363 - North)

Review
I do wonder how it is in real life for patients with lung cancer after they are diagnosed. Evidently after about a few days, you can be fine enough to go travel around the world to cross off stuff to do. Yes, it truly is a good idea to go cross stuff off a list before you die with somebody you barely met (the setup to them meeting could be compared to how couples meet in terrible romance films) instead of going home and settling things with your family. Granted, it seems he probably did that beforehand while in the hospital, but let's not forget that after he gets home, he gets to spend a grand total of one day before he get sicker. Is it selfish? You decide. These are characters that are at best just okay, it's the performances that make the movie look interesting because without these performances by Nicholson and Freeman, the movie would lose a lot of its strength. The supporting cast is small and barely focused on, but I guess Sean Hayes is okay, he's really just playing a cliche snippy assistant, which you can see done better in other movies, such as Arthur (1981). Is the movie funny? I guess so, but the movie hinges on if you like the premise. If you like the premise, you'll probably watch the movie. If you feel that people don't just spend of their time away from their families to go globetrotting with their friend before dying like me...you'll have to forget the movie immediately. Is it a well made movie? Yes, but it is not well made in its script, the key element. Or in this case, bucket.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Lego Movie.

Review #540: The Lego Movie.

Cast
Chris Pratt (Emmet Brickowski), Will Ferrell (Lord Business and "The Man Upstairs"), Elizabeth Banks (Wyldstyle), Will Arnett (Batman), Nick Offerman (Metal Beard), Alison Brie (Uni-Kitty), Charlie Day (Benny), Liam Neeson (Bad Cop/Good Cop and Pa Cop), Morgan Freeman (Vitruvius), Channing Tatum (Superman), Jonah Hill (Green Lantern), Cobie Smulders (Wonder Woman), Craig Berry (Blake), David Burrows (Octan Robot), and Jadon Sand (Finn) Directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller.

Review
I grew up with LEGOs. I loved how even though it seemed to simple to build with, it was actually a complex but still excellent system, and I do still have them in my house somewhere. So naturally, I went to go see the movie based on them. Movies based off toys don't have the best track record here (#057-#058 Transformers 1-2, #201 - G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, #442 - The Garbage Pail Kids Movie, though #190 - The Transformers: The Movie wasn't half bad), but I went to the theater to see if the movie could break that trend. People who go to theaters have their traditions such as making noise, stealing discarded popcorn from people who've left the movie after it ends, commentating on the film, etc, etc. One of my traditions is to notice the amount of people waiting with me in line for a film...an hour before being allowed to go enter the theater, which either teaches the lesson to forever hate lines...or realize how big hype can be. And this film certainly does live up to the hype. The animation is beautifully done, meshing computer and the minifigure mannerisms that make Lego half of what is excellently. The cast is really excellent, Pratt does a fine job for such a normal but still special character. Ferrell is fun to hear, and the live action scenes he shares with Jadon Sand are touching and really effective. The movie has many moments of comedy, along with many moments of brilliance, and of course many moments of action, all three aspects make for a supreme combo of fun.The things that happen in this film really do bring me back to my younger days, hearing about the danger of gluing bricks together, having an average man be a hero, even the idea of a Lego Movie sounds like what I and probably others always wanted to do when we were younger. We probably didn't actually film these movies (Always hide your tracks in case it becomes an Old Shame years later), but yeah. The movie's greatest strength is the love and care the filmmakers have for the subject matter, and combined with the multitudes of people at my theater laughing and loving this movie, The Lego Movie is a great experience to watch, and is a delightful surprise for young and old. I may heap a high rating for this film, but in this case, I don't mind.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Glory.

Review #101: Glory.

Cast
Matthew Broderick (Colonel Robert Gould Shaw), Denzel Washington (Private Silas Trip), Morgan Freeman (Sergeant Major John Rawlins), Cary Elwes (Major Cabot Forbes), Cliff De Young (Colonel James Montgomery), Andre Braugher (Private Thomas Searles), Jihmi Kennedy (Private Jupiter Sharts), Alan North (Governor John Albion Andrew), and John Finn (Sergeant Major Mulcahy) Directed by Edward Zwick.

Review
This film is based on the 54th Infantry, led by Robert Gould Shaw, as it was the first all African American regiment in the Civil War. The film is told by Shaw's perspective, and it is a good film. The acting is good, especially from Washington (earning a Best Supporting Oscar for it) and Freeman (one of his many roles that he does great in). The film is grand with its locations, its battles, and especially its musical score, which is booming and perfect for a movie like this. The film has one flaw that some do point out. The flaw is that they focus on Shaw more, rather then the Regiment itself for about half the film. The purpose should be focusing on the Regiment, not just the man leading it, but I suppose the point was to have a unifying arc, and Shaw fits the bill. If you want a film dedicated to the Regiment, or interested in seeing a movie to honor the men and women who died in war for Memorial Day, or you just want to see a fragment of the Civil War, then this film is for you.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Batman Begins.

Review #062: Batman Begins.

Cast
Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Michael Caine (Alfred Pennyworth), Liam Neeson (Henri Ducard/Ra's al Ghul), Katie Holmes (Rachel Dawes), Gary Oldman (Jim Gordon), Cillian Murphy (Dr. Jonathan Crane), Tom Wilkinson (Carmine Falcone), Rutger Hauer (Earle), Ken Watanabe (decoy Ra's Al Ghul), Mark Boone Junior (Flass), Linus Roache (Thomas Wayne), and Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight and #055 - Inception)

Review
I find that this film is pretty good, for the most part. It successfully reboots the franchise (which died after the 1997 bomb Batman and Robin) with an origin story that reintroduces people to him, and sets the ball in motion for the sequel. I felt the acting was good, but there were some little gripes. For one, I found the coveted "throat voice" of Christian Bale very, very unconvincing (what's next, Superman having the voice to disguise himself? It would be better then his glasses trick...). I also felt the action was jumbled, so you couldn't really tell what was going on. Scarecrow actually doesn't get a lot of screen time, and he's taken down so easily. And my final little gripe is how the Tumbler looks so...ugly. Is this the Batmobile, or a tank? Look I know there's a scene that says its a tank, but how is this a "mobile"? But nonetheless, the film is good, for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Dark Knight.

Review #054: The Dark Knight.

Cast
Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne/Batman), Heath Ledger (The Joker), Gary Oldman (James Gordon), Aaron Eckhart (Harvey Dent), Maggie Gyllenhaal (Rachel Dawes), Michael Caine (Alfred Pennyworth), and Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox) Directed by Christopher Nolan.

Review
This film is the sequel to Batman Begins (which I will review later on this show), and it is better then the first one. But is it better then the 1989 version? I personally think the 1989 version wins on its plot, it's Batman (the 1989 Batman doesn't have sore throat), and just being slightly being better. This film introduces the Joker again to us, and he's...pretty creepy. Sadistic in mind, Ledger plays the role extremely well. I thought Dent was fine, but he was under shadowed by everything. He's the addition to the plot that doesn't really have much influence (as Two-Face anyway) The action is good, and the plot is fine. This film is great, as in my opinion it rivals the 1989 version for "best Batman film", which is saying quite a lot.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.