Anaconda .

Review #2123: Anaconda.

Cast: 

Jennifer Lopez (Terri Flores), Ice Cube (Danny Rich), Jon Voight (Paul Serone), Eric Stoltz (Dr. Steven Cale), Jonathan Hyde (Warren Westridge), Owen Wilson (Gary Dixon), Kari Wuhrer (Denise Kalberg), Vincent Castellanos (Mateo), with Frank Welker (Anaconda snake) and Danny Trejo (Poacherck) Directed by Luis Llosa.

Review:

Look, you know what you are getting into with a film like this, especially one released in the late 1990s. The film utilizes a mix of computer-generated imagery and animatronics for its title creature (apparently, one can see an animatronic from the film at the California Academy of Sciences). Hans Bauer, Jim Cash and Jack Epps Jr wrote the screenplay, although it has been stated that Mark Haskell Smith provided a "production draft". The film was directed by Luis Llosa, a Peruvian film critic-turned-director (of course, being a cousin of noted novelist Mario Vargas Llosa is something to note). He got his start as director with Peruvian television shows such as Gamboa and Carmin before becoming a feature director with (where else?) Roger Corman productions such as Hour of the Assassin (1987) and Crime Zone (1989). Perhaps to the surprise of no one, there were follow ups; only Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid (2004) was released theatrically, although it retained no original cast members from the first film. Plans to make a reboot film are apparently in motion, which I'm sure is interesting news to those who are familiar with recent creature features such as The Meg (I still can't get over that title). 

Honestly, the film almost overrode my low expectations. You have Ice Cube making a reference to his own songs for a line. You have Jon Voight putting on a Paraguayan accent because, well, okay, sure. You have a snake that reminds me of a gummy worm when it comes to the CG moments to go with an amusingly long snake (with sound effects by Frank Welker). Top it all off, you have a character swallowed up and regurgitated that shows a shot of them blinking right before they are shown dead. Imagine all of this coming in a film about a National Geographic crew looking for an obscure tribe in the Amazon. It sure isn't Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954), but it is the kind of goofy film that would fit just right from one of Corman's old features such as Attack of the Crab Monsters (1957). It probably goes without saying that a handful of sea creature features all seem to owe something to Jaws (1975), whether that involves POV shots or making creatures out to seem more dangerous than they are in the actual wild. Granted, the idea of going out in the jungle is a bit spooky, so having to deal with the idea of a snake that may eat or bite you is at least an idea I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. But this is about as scary as, well, looking at a snake in a picture book. It is cheesy in every way you would expect that I can only cite as a light negative assessment. Lopez doesn't exactly have much to really do when overshadowed by obvious presences in Cube or Voight, because even being a screamer would be part of a personality. The cardboard "PG-13" folks are there just to come and go, which seems hollow when compared to other cheesy movies. Stoltz is probably given the most thankless role of the whole film, since he is basically put out of commission for half of it, which makes him pale in comparison to the ones that at least get to act in fear of the gummi snake. Undeniably, Voight seems to be the only one giving it his all when it comes to ridiculous mannerisms, a preening cliche if there ever was one to the very end that I'm sure Vincent Price would've blushed at. Hyde probably is the only one of the body-count to make an impression, even if it is a mild laugh. I do appreciate the time taken to build up a killer snake only to have one victim of the film fall at the hands of a guy who chokes a person out with their legs while tied to a board. One can do better or worse with creature features, and this is not exactly a winner, but with its evident qualities of being exactly what you expect from a 90s product that stands more of its time than older-aged films of its ilk (for better or worse), well, you get what you think you get. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next: you might be wondering why Thursdays this month featured Dracula and Frankenstein films. Hell, why not? For the fourth and final time, let's get a doubleheader, starting with Blacula.

Fantastic Mr. Fox.

Review #1553: Fantastic Mr. Fox.

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

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Cars 2.

Review #730: Cars 2.

Cast
Larry the Cable Guy (Mater), Owen Wilson (Lightning McQueen), Michael Caine (Finn McMissile), Emily Mortimer (Holley Shiftwell), John Turturro (Francesco Bernoulli), Eddie Izzard (Sir Miles Axlerod), Thomas Kretschmann (Professor Zündapp), Joe Mantegna (Grem), Peter Jacobson (Acer), Tony Shalhoub (Luigi), Jason Isaacs (Siddeley/Leland Turbo), and Stanley Townsend (Vladimir Trunkov/Ivan/Victor Hugo), Directed by John Lasseter (#440 - Toy Story, #441 - Toy Story 2, #539 - A Bug's Life, and #729 - Cars)

Review
The first Cars was okay. In the sense that when compared to other Pixar movies, it suffered under comparison, but the movie along was fine. This? Meh. Remember how passion made Cars into something to credit? With this, it should've been buried in a box and never opened. Ultimately the problems all come down to the focus changing from McQueen...to Mater. Look, I don't hate Larry the Cable Guy, but after a while, I started to just loathe Mater. He worked better in the first movie because of the small town atmosphere the first movie had, where Mater wasn't with spies and inferior cars trying to ruin a Prix. When did we go from small town memories to SPY FLICK? That would be like if Toy Story 2 was instead a cyberpunk opera. Actually, that would've been better than this. McQueen and Mater's bonding was actually more interesting than Mater being a spy, because I wasn't yelling at the screen, waiting for the movie to get to the point. It's something when you want to see cars racing each other more than spies. At least the rest of the cast is alright, even if there are dozens of characters (and cameos). Admittedly, it's a good looking movie in terms of animation, especially nighttime shots, with the glow of the lights. Mater drags on your nerves, especially if you have little patience. It could be argued that he is up to the level of annoyance that Jar Jar Binks was in The Phantom Menace, though at least Mater saves the day. I like the idea of McQueen going to race in a Prix around the world, to see other cultures and other racers, now that the town is well off. Instead, it's a look into how silly Mater can be in other cultures, right down to swallowing a bunch of wasabi. I wonder if it would've been funnier in live action, with real people. Of course, if I wanted to, I could watch it on the Internet.

The "be yourself" theme works in theory, unless of course you meet someone who doesn't like you, or is a bully. Yes, even when you are being beaten up, at least you can be comforted in that they were being themselves. The idea that cars can apparently kill other cars is a bit strange, though this works into my idea that the cars secretly took over the Earth and just became sentient, disguising their act by acting as friendly as possible. The movie is good for younger audiences, at least, but it should strive better. We could get into the "animation shouldn't be just for kids" argument, but there are better movies to watch. The depth of the movie is lacking with regards to other Pixar movies, but maybe that was a part of the disappointment with me. Pixar is a pinnacle of great quality animated movies, before (Toy Story, The Incredibles, Finding Nemo) and after (Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up, Inside Out) this movie. If you have younger relatives, they might like it. But only if there are no other options. None.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Cars.

Review #729: Cars.

Cast
Owen Wilson (Lightning McQueen), Paul Newman (Doc Hudson), Bonnie Hunt (Sally Carrera), Larry the Cable Guy (Mater), Tony Shalhoub (Luigi), Cheech Marin (Ramone), Michael Wallis (Sheriff), George Carlin (Fillmore), Paul Dooley (Sarge), Jenifer Lewis (Flo), Guido Quaroni (Guido), Richard Petty (Strip "The King" Weathers), Michael Keaton (Chick Hicks), Katherine Helmond (Lizzie), John Ratzenberger (Mack), and Joe Ranft (Red) Directed by John Lasseter (#440 - Toy Story, #441 - Toy Story 2 and #539 - A Bug's Life) and Joe Ranft.

Review
Yep, this one. I remember getting this a birthday gift when I was 10 or 11. This was back when I was just a kid, without much to worry about, as opposed to now. I remember that the movie was fine, and yeah, I probably liked it back then. Anyway...how is the movie for me after a few years passed me by? I suppose the movie's okay. But when held up to the standards that Pixar films had, it isn't as good, though I'd say the movie is at least passable enough. I am aware of the plot resemblance to the movie Doc Hollywood, but I was more focused on the anthropomorphic cars. Apparently, there are no humans, but the cars are fueled by other cars. Did the cars suddenly take over the Earth? And if so, did they...get rid of the humans? But regardless, the movie is well crafted in terms of animation and style. The cars are wonderful to look at, and it's obvious that the movie has a good deal of passion for Route 66, and it is at least entertaining enough. The plot has its cliches (the hotshot, the country bumpkin, the one with a secret, the hippie, etc.) and it is admittedly slightly predictable, but at least the movie doesn't drag on too much. It showcases what it wants and doesn't let itself linger too much. The voice cast is fine, and it seems the cars in Radiator Springs have a decent accord with each other, which helps make the movie feel more friendly. It's hard to say if the movie is more interesting with the racing or the town, but at least it never bored me too much. It's a movie that for all of its flaws manages to squeak out a passable experience, heightened for younger kids. And...then there was a sequel. I will deal with that shortly.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Starsky & Hutch.

Review #564: Starsky & Hutch.

Cast
Ben Stiller (David Starsky), Owen Wilson (Ken "Hutch" Hutchinson), Vince Vaughn (Reese Feldman), Snoop Dogg (Huggy Bear Brown), Jason Bateman (Kevin Jutsum), Fred Williamson (Captain Doby), Will Ferrell (Big Earl), Amy Smart (Holly Monk), Carmen Electra (Stacey Haack), and Juliette Lewis (Kitty) Directed by Todd Phillips.

Review
This is a hard movie to rate, the movie does have its moments of highlights, but other times, the movie just falls flat. Stiller and Wilson are at best an okay duo, the movie works best in the first half because by the time the movie ends, it's already worn out its welcome. Vaughn is an okay villain, he doesn't really make much of an impression, but it could've been much more forgettable. I'm actually surprised the original Starsky and Hutch (David Soul and Paul Michael Glaser) made cameos, it doesn't help or hurt the movie, but it is noteworthy. The best character in this movie is played by Snoop Dogg. Why? While his character doesn't have too much screen time, he generates laughs and is a pretty fun guy to watch. The movie isn't awful but it doesn't really rise above mediocrity. It's probably best to rent the movie and make your own conclusions, but it could be worse.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.