The House of Yes.

Review #2020: The House of Yes.

Cast: 

Parker Posey ("Jackie-O" Pascal), Josh Hamilton (Marty Pascal), Tori Spelling (Lesly), Freddie Prinze Jr (Anthony Pascal), Geneviève Bujold (Mrs. Pascal) Directed by Mark Waters (#151 - Mean Girls, #204 - Freaky Friday (2003), #236 - Mr. Popper's Penguins)

Review: 

"Basically, what we wanted to achieve was a heightened reality. The situations and characters are out there, but the actors are always coming from a real place. They're not wacky cartoon characters."

Oh hell, sometimes you have to go outside the box when it comes to picking movies involving directorial debuts and, uh, movies with one standout cast member in a limited ensemble. The film is based on the play of the same name by Wendy MacLeod, which originally was brought to the stage in San Francisco for 1990; various productions have been done over the years, which included one run on off-Broadway. Mark Waters adapted the play to the screen to direct, which came after years of waiting. He had seen the play and apparently saw immediate things that he would do to make it cinematic. When he was a student at the University of Pennsylvania, he got the attention of MacLeod and got a manuscript copy from her while saying he was a film producer. It took five years and graduation from the AFI Conservatory with a master's degree in filmmaking, but he eventually found his way to making the film, which was his feature debut. Aaron Spelling and his company Spelling Entertainment helped to finance the film for who else but his daughter Tori to serve as one of the key actors (Waters had planned to fund the film from foreign pre-sales, but hey, why not Spelling and his considerable television presence?). The film was shot over the course of 24 days for a budget under $2 million. Miramax apparently liked what they saw when it premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in 1997 and bought the rights to distribute it, which did not turn out to be a success in limited numbers. Perhaps an attempt at making a Gothic tale with macabre taste about an assassination was doomed from the start to do anything other than mild attention, but this was the year of other "family" films such as The Ice Storm and The Myth of Fingerprints (the latter had also premiered at Sundance that year). Of course, maybe I could do a teensy, tiny, little primer of what the film involves. It is set on Thanksgiving in 1983 and involves a main character that dresses up like Jacqueline Kennedy (Onassis) that has their own neat little secret to go with trips to the funny farm (footage from her tour of the White House is utilized with a young version of "Jackie-O", as played by Rachael Leigh Cook). Oh, and she and her brother have a certain connection that involves details of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Waters would return to the director's chair in 2001 with Head over Heels.

You know, I had a feeling that this film was going to be an interesting experience, even with its stagey execution with odd dealings. It grew on me for its 85-minute runtime beyond my expectations of just being a mild experience with only a taboo to stick out or just hints. Of course, emotional obsession can make for quite a fun time for those who take investment into that sort of thing for their dark comedies, and it works out just fine for this feature, which goes into the jaws of psychosis and finds that one really cannot stop at the bottom, regardless if one belongs to the class of the rich, who might as well be called "the house of yes". So it isn't a movie about the Kennedys but merely the myth that centers around them. Of course, the film is carried most by Posey, who was once called "Queen of the Indies" for her work within various independent films, such as Party Girl (1995). She is the best part of the film because of how confident she is with such an unpredictable role, one that is extravagantly dangerous without being pegged down as a simple loon. She is captivating in how she grips your concerns for how much obsessive and irrational love can inflict their claws on someone that could pervade everything around them until that is all there is. As such, the scenes spent with Hamilton in the throes of mental anguish provide a quality tete-a-tete between the attempts at trying to be "normal" on one side and trying to, well, see how much things having in common really matters. Bujold is the ever-watching eye that can only help but pay attention to the charade of affluent breeding. Spelling was known for her role on Beverly Hills 90210. I suppose it makes sense that she ends up playing the most "normal" of the limited cast, and she actually holds her own pretty well in being the perfect plain contrast that has the biggest crime of being "normal". Prinze Jr was actually in his second film role here, having gotten into show business because his grandfather told him to in order to "fix what your father fucked up". He may not be close to the best thing about the film, but his odd duck youthfulness gels just fine when it comes to uncomfortable amusement, spent mostly with Spelling in a different kind of charade built on warped desire. As a whole, the film doesn't become too warped in sincerity or camp value to lose sight of what matters in a film about people who are never told no that go with snappy dialogue and useful pacing to make a darkly enjoyable surprise for those who buy into that sort of thing, especially with its final fateful decision. I dug it and where it went in its stagey foundations with a good dark chuckle.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Blade: Trinity.

Review #1667: Blade: Trinity.

Cast:

Wesley Snipes (Eric Brooks / Blade), Jessica Biel (Abigail Whistler), Ryan Reynolds (Hannibal King), Dominic Purcell (Dracula / Drake), Kris Kristofferson (Abraham Whistler), Parker Posey (Danica Talos), Callum Keith Rennie (Asher Talos), Paul "Triple H" Levesque (Jarko Grimwood), Natasha Lyonne (Sommerfield), Haili Page (Zoe), Mark Berry (Chief Martin Vreede), John Michael Higgins (Dr. Edgar Vance), Patton Oswalt (Hedges), and James Remar (FBI Agent Ray Cumberland) Written and Directed by David S. Goyer.

Review:

“That was the most personally and professionally difficult and painful thing I've ever been through,. Having said that, I have incredibly fond memories of working with Ryan and Jessica and a lot of people on the movie. Ryan and I remain really good friends today. It was a challenged shoot, as has been reported. What can I say?”

You don't need any fancy sentences to tell you that this is the worst of the Blade trilogy. However, I will make one easy crack at it: Blade: Trinity is probably the dumbest third action installment of a film series since RoboCop 3 (1993), and it is appropriate given the link between main performances that might as well be played by robots. Each film effectively turned their title hero character into a joke while killing their franchise - it should only make sense that there are talks for a remake of Blade, considering that RoboCop got a remake as well (albeit a very mediocre one). Of course, there are a few differences that make this argument amusing: RoboCop 3 is actually quite amusing to watch, one that is a cheap thrill of hammy lines and effects from folks that did what they had to do with a PG-13 script. Blade: Trinity is a movie to laugh at, mindboggling in its attempts at finishing a trilogy that can't even be definitive in its actual conclusions while being plagued by an indifferent actor and a director/writer that also were producers. Oh, but one could be fair to David S. Goyer, because he actually had been a director one previous time before this film - Zig Zag was released two years prior. However, Snipes did not find favor with Goyer being selected to direct the third movie (after a previous director was selected), and production only rolled down the hill from there in terms of interference and breakdowns - if you listen to the grapevine of reports, Snipes at one point would only respond to the name of his character and communicate by post-it notes, although he has refuted these reports (made by cast members alongside a report from someone who spent time on set that claimed of extensive use of stand-ins for Snipes for anything that wasn't a close-up shot), since he was a producer on this film (among the other two). How about we just sum up the troubles like this: it is a movie so miserable that its main star sued the production for its choice in director, writer, and cast (a settlement was apparently reached, although it certainly left no one with a good taste of memory).

Of course, you have to remember what the Blade series was about in the first place: an adaptation of the comic book character of the same name (as created by Marv Wolfman and Gene Colan) that first got his start in the comic series The Tomb of Dracula - Snipes really seemed in his element with a coolly collected hunter of vampires that had plenty of action to go with some dazzling over-the-top action with plots that hold up just enough to work out well as the first triumphant example of turning Marvel characters into movies. Blade: Trinity is none of that. Vampires have now progressed to running themselves in a big skyscraper with an interest in art that makes them want to bring Dracula into the fold (or more specifically, Dracula leading the vampires around). They have also decided to bring Pomeranians into the fold, which is probably worse than having those dogs as pets. Is this a movie that is supposed to be taken seriously? Perhaps the best argument against that is a scene involving Blade meeting the villain (Dracula, who for some reason is also referred to as Drake) after a long foot chase that ends with a confrontation with a baby being thrown; one gets to see the perspective of Dracula towards humans and vampires...and then he throws a baby at Blade that ends up with him going "coochie coo" after the catch. Actually, you could start as early as the first action sequence with Blade, since (are you ready for this?) he is fooled into taking down humans that were disguised as vampires. Blade has become so efficient at killing vampires that he can't even tell the difference between human and vampire anymore. Questions start to arise quickly? How about Whistler getting shortchanged and dying (again) 20 minutes into the movie? How about a character that engages in action with earbuds that blares music into her ear - who just happens to be the secret daughter of Whistler (a character who saw his two kids and wife get taken down by vampires)? How about a scene where Dracula goes into a goth store that is selling merchandise of Dracula from lunch boxes to cereal (before drinking a worker's blood)? The answer to everything is simple: There is none.

One could almost forget that actors are present in this film, really. Snipes probably didn't say that many lines in the first two films to begin with but consider one thing: him and Kristofferson are the only ones to star in each movie, let along star in two of them. Each movie is a different group to experience that just happens to have him paired with Kristofferson in diminishing ways, and the only way Snipes reacts to it is to persist on with trying to seem cool. This time around, it is a good thing I found out about the "stand-in" rumors after I saw the movie, because one could really be distracted by what counts as acting by Snipes and what isn't acting and never come out with a straight answer. Simply put, there is a balance of times where the lines will land as amusing that are either meant to be that way or are not intended to be but come off as unintentionally hilarious, as if the sunglasses are only there to hide displeasure at what is going on in the script. Before we get to the other main focuses, I have to note Kristofferson, because it seems almost any movie with him being featured should get a modest description of him - man, do I wish he wasn't short-changed in this feature. Perhaps it was always the intent to have his time with Snipes come to a natural conclusion...of course, he also was "shot" in the first film, and that last exchange was actually more meaningful than anything that came afterwards. Simply put, Kristofferson deserved better than to be cut down to a few sentences. Oh but Purcell deserves mention too when it comes to deserving better, because he has to play a role that has been done to death for over a century in Dracula, who this time around gets to walk in the sun and shape-shift on occasion before turning into a beast. That aforementioned scene in the goth shop is the easiest scene to highlight in embarrassment, not so much because it is meant to show Dracula's disdain for the modern world (uh huh), but because of the fact that you could trim it down to five seconds and probably miss nothing of importance. By the time he is fighting Blade with a blade, one isn't so much wondering how the fight will end but rather how silly it can get with beast-man Dracula in this duel of honor. Biel and Reynolds each were best known for roles on television series (7th Heaven and Two Guys and a Girl, respectively), although film roles were sprinkled between that. One can see where the idea for a spin-off could happen here, not so much because they are good, but because they might actually have more stage presence than the main star itself with their attempts at action hero dress-up. Reynolds is better in that the ad-libs are the easiest thing to remember in terms of lines (whether to groan at or not), even if they can't help be anything other than generic. Posey, who most might know for work within independent cinema, is certainly an interesting pick for a secondary villainous role - she seems fine with the role, treating it as something fun to do as one could see in a big dumb action movie without falling into the trap of scene-chewing (at least not too much, considering the film). Triple H, however, seems aptly appropriate for a movie this ridiculous, towering over all the folks with a goon presence that only a (WWE) wrestler could do with flourish. Everyone else is pretty much disposable, which seems appropriate given the propensity of the series to keep introducing people to Blade for help/hinderance only to see them not be seen again.

Folks who remember the first film well enough will note that the third film has decided to use the "blood farm" idea that had been deleted from the first film's intended climax, in which the vampires had a solution to that whole problem of turning everyone into a vampire - just store some humans in a fridge and feast on the leftovers. Honestly, it still seems pretty silly to think about, but what is amusing is the fact that each side ends up having the exact same plan: wanting to wipe out the other side like the plague. It is bad enough to have resorted to Dracula as your final villain, but sure, let's just throw a plague out there in the open...and the movie can't even be definitive about anything, since the movie ends with Blade still going around trying to take down more vampires in a never-ending war. The action shots don't seem that much more interesting, as if to add insult to injury. Somehow, there are three different endings to this mess: the original ending involves Dracula being nice in honor of his death by making it look like Blade is dead for the authorities while Blade goes on to fight his never-ending war against vampires; the unrated ending ends with Blade attacking the authorities that makes one wonder if the thirst has returned, while a different ending involves a new enemy for everyone but Blade: werewolves (yes, you heard that right). There were ideas of doing a spin-off film with the Nightstalkers, because if you couldn't do anything else with Blade (aside from a subsequent television series that lasted one season), why not spin further away from things? In the end, 113 minutes cannot end fast enough for a movie that is an absolute headstone for a series that ran its course with failures in action and characterization that make for a laughable affair for all involved, going from Snipes all the way down to its director. But hey, at least a new Blade feature might come into your future to make things seem better.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Superman Returns.

Review #1077: Superman Returns.

Cast: 
Brandon Routh (Clark Kent / Superman), Kate Bosworth (Lois Lane), Kevin Spacey (Lex Luthor), James Marsden (Richard White), Parker Posey (Kitty Kowalski), Frank Langella (Perry White), Sam Huntington (Jimmy Olsen), Eva Marie Saint (Martha Kent), Marlon Brando (Jor-El), Kal Penn (Stanford), and Tristan Lake Leabu (Jason White) Directed by Bryan Singer (#008 - X-Men, #010 - X2, and #584 - X-Men: Days of Future Past)

Review: 
In honor of the 80th anniversary of Superman's debut in Action Comics #1, I figured that this would be the best time to finally cover this movie. I hope you enjoy this review, which I didn't try to stretch too long.

In 1978, Superman (#547) graced the big screen with an epic scale that had a collection of fine actors and a look that still manages to shine through after four decades, with this serving as a pioneer for comic book films. The sequel (#785) continued the good fortune of scope and a bit of amusement, having enough charm and magic to work, even if it was not as good as the first one. The two films that followed (#786 & #787) were terrible in their own right, having ridiculous plots along with bad execution and substance, and it would be nineteen years until Superman returned to the big screen. The film was a mild success at the box office, but it would be seven years before a new Superman film was released, which resorted to being an origin story. This film ignores the latter two films in an attempt to channel the energy of the first two films and make for great entertainment. Does it succeed?

I will first state that on the surface it is certainly an interesting idea to try and emulate the first two Reeve films, as some sort of attempt to pass the torch from the first two films onto this. After all, footage of Marlon Brando from the first film (with some help from some CGI) is utilized in the film, with John Ottman's music being a homage to the music from John Williams from the first one. For all the attempts of the film to follow the same beats, the best thing that can be said for Superman Returns is that it plays itself safe enough to at least feel like it wants to be a winner. The problem is that it doesn't really do much to prove that it is a winner beyond all doubt. It has a fine look to it at points with the cinematography by Newton Thomas Sigel, and the effects are at least satisfactory for the expectations one would expect for the film, but other times it might seem more like it is going through the motions.

Perhaps it is the length of 154 minutes that undercuts the film and makes it feel a bit of chore, but I never hated the experience for being so long. The film rests upon Routh and his shoulders, and at times he does seem like he can live up to the task with some of the sequences. However, he never really clicks into full gear to where we really want to connect with him, particularly when paired with Bosworth. You might say that the gap that the film establishes between the last time the two characters had met (roughly five years) means that the awkward exchanges between the two makes sense, but the real problem is that they don't seem particularly interesting to watch in said exchanges. You could say that they seem a bit too young for the roles (after all, both actors were under 30 when cast), but it really seems more a problem of execution that does them in. After all, it's not like Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder were old when they portrayed their roles, but they had a certain charm and care to them that sold itself in each scene they were in, as opposed to this film. The fact that the film wants to channel the first two films makes the comparisons between those and this film hurt the latter upon examination.

Spacey proves to be fairly sour in his role, and he seems to relish in his lunatic role that actually manages to pull the film toward some sort of gain for most of his scenes, especially when paired with Posey, a fairly good charmer. I think the film probably could've done a bit better with some more scenes between Spacey and Routh, since it takes them nearly two hours to meet. However, that would likely mean having to try and make the film shorter with cuts, since I don't think making it longer would help it at all. Marsden doesn't really make too much of an impression for me, not so much a dull performance as it is just a slightly thankless role. Langella is fine for his time on screen. The film tries to go through so many motions with its plot that it just feels like it is trying to not bloviate itself into oblivion. From its parts with the scheme (which is amusing to ponder about) to its part with Lois and her son to a fairly okay climax, the movie likely has too much going on to really make a good focus. I never hated the experience with the film, but I also never found myself believing in what the film was trying to sell me. I feel that the film probably should've tried to be a reboot (much like Batman Begins (#062), released the year before) instead of trying to play itself a bit too safe with its homage of what had worked better decades prior. Can I recommend the film? I can in the sense that it will likely work just fine for people who are willing to buy into its homage attempt and willing to let the entertainment roll through without skepticism.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

You've Got Mail.

Review #1020: You've Got Mail.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Joe "NY152" Fox), Meg Ryan (Kathleen "Shopgirl" Kelly), Parker Posey (Patricia Eden), Jean Stapleton (Birdie Conrad), Greg Kinnear (Frank Navasky), Steve Zahn (George Pappas), Heather Burns (Christina Plutzker), Dave Chappelle (Kevin Jackson), Dabney Coleman (Nelson Fox), and John Randolph (Schuyler Fox) Directed by Nora Ephron (#554 - Sleepless in Seattle)

Review: 
Remember Sleepless in Seattle (1993)? I watched and reviewed the film three years ago, and while I will admit that Hanks and Ryan had a fine enough chemistry with each other, I found it to be fairly okay but not something I'd probably watch again, with a love story that certainly seemed to take inspiration from older films, such as An Affair to Remember (1957). As for this film, the inspiration this time around is the 1937 play Parfumerie by Miklós László, which had already served as the basis for The Shop Around the Corner (1940). Fittingly, the bookstore featured in this film is named after the older film. In any case, this is a movie basked in its time, or more specifically romance on AOL, a thing that I vaguely remember my dad sometime in my childhood (and yes, that noise during the connection and disconnection sequence is still stuck in my head). Ultimately, this is a mediocre movie, although the performances in it are pretty tolerable. Hanks and Ryan are fairly likable, and it is interesting to see their dynamic evolve over the film's run-time, managing to never really drag the film to any sort of ridiculous level (in a movie about online romance, anyway). They help the movie feel charming without soaking itself in sentimentality. The film starts with the two characters involved with other people, and while you know that they are eventually going to not end up happy with those people, the movie doesn't make anyone out to be selfish or needlessly annoying. Posey and Kinnear provide some amusement, and while I'd say they don't have much to their characters, they aren't entirely caricatures. The film goes through the cliches you might expect, but at least there isn't some sort of adversary or big message that the film wants to push other than one of romance, so there's something for you. The rest of the cast is pretty acceptable, contributing to some light fun, with my favorites being Stapleton and Chappelle. For a movie that is light on substance, it is a movie that is inviting for anyone in the mood for a rom-com. Like with Sleepless in Seattle, I can't really see myself watching this film ever again, but I can at least appreciate this film and its romance aspect a bit better than the other film, for what it's worth. It may feel a bit gimmicky, but the basic plot structure still works enough to carve out some sort of winner. This is a predictable film, but it's also comforting for people in the right mood or mindset, and I suppose at the end of the day that means something.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.