Atlas Shrugged: Part II.

Review #2480: Atlas Shrugged: Part II.

Cast: 

Samantha Mathis (Dagny Taggart), Jason Beghe (Henry Rearden), Esai Morales (Francisco d'Anconia), Patrick Fabian (James Taggart), Kim Rhodes (Lillian Rearden), Richard T. Jones (Eddie Willers), D. B. Sweeney (John Galt), Paul McCrane (Wesley Mouch), John Rubinstein (Dr. Floyd Ferris), Robert Picardo (Dr. Robert Stadler), Ray Wise (Head of State Thompson), Diedrich Bader (Quentin Daniels), Bug Hall (Leonard Small), Arye Gross (Ken Danagger), Michael Gross (Ted 'Buzz' Killman), Rex Linn (Kip Chalmers), Larisa Oleynik (Cherryl Brooks), with Thomas F. Wilson (Robert Collins), and Teller (Laughlin) Directed by John Putch.

Review: 

Okay, maybe it seems silly to cover another Ayn Rand movie for Turkey Week. But if you had the displeasure of watching Atlas Shrugged: Part I. The 2011 movie barely made it to any theaters to begin with, so guess how they raised money for the sequel. Apparently, $16 million was raised by a company based in New Jersey in a private debt sale. Filming apparently was then announced to start in April 2012 to be released in October 2012 that totally would be in line with the U.S. presidential election. One of the writers of the film was Duncan Scott, who apparently did a re-edit of We the Living (1942) with English subtitles. He is credited with the screenplay alongside Duke Sandefur and Brian Patrick O'Toole. Everything is different, right down to the director. John Putch has mostly directed for television and a few projects for video. Even the cast is different, as apparently it wasn't easy to negotiate options with actors in such a short time. Producer John Aglialoro went on the interview circuit a bit in stating his hopes for the film to hit with certain audiences, once stating that leftists dismiss Rand as a "cartoon....that she was for selfishness". Perhaps not surprisingly, the movie was not screened for critics, accusing them as having their integrity going off a cliff while also deciding, yes, these think-tanks called The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute are going to be fair and balanced towards this movie*. Atlas Shrugged Part II did get to screen on over a thousand screens on opening day....and a month later, the producers decided to not release numbers for it by the time it made a whole $3 million. The market rejected the films in theaters, but Aglialoro decided to finish the job with a third film in 2014 (you know damn well we'll be back to see that film in 2026).

The movie is termed as "sci-fi drama, and I hesitate to nof chuckle. If this was meant to be a challenge of the meme that rolls with the word "libertarian" in "we demand to be taken seriously!", it would be a bonafide swing-and-a-miss. It somehow is technically better than the previous film but is just as insanely boring, with its attempts at celebrating the defiant businessman and its incessant asking of who is John Galt (I'm Spartacus!) making me giggle again and again. The most fun you may get from the film is in the name game of spotting people you might recognize from better things: hey hey, its Ray Wise (and accompanying evil sneer) from RoboCop/Twin Peaks! A collection of TV guys in Teller (who speaks!), Picardo, Gross, Bader and Linn. A lead from Pump up the Volume*. Could you imagine if this film actually did influence someone in how they voted in an election? What, vote for conservatives or they'll keep trying to make movies to break into the mainstream? If you go up to a mirror three times and say "taxation is theft", will a Libertarian appear out of thin air to scold me for believing in a driver's license? It probably goes without saying that the dialogue is as stilted as ever for a movie that would probably serve as the real test for if something designed to preach to a specific choir is actually slop. Then again, how many movies actually show TV pundits play themselves? It is funny that this is the middle film of a series that certainly was just itching to get to John Galt and his big speech for the conclusion (70 pages for a book, probably less for a film) that basically dances like a soap opera with further people leaving society because, hey, who is John Galt? Mathis and Beghe can only do so much under the strain of it all, which means they sometimes sound vulnerable like actual human beings, even if two movies have managed to do little in making the audience realize why they matter as characters. The unending desire to nail oneself on the cross of Rand means an inevitable speech is looming around the corner or the soap opera-tier characters pop in and out, which is sad because good god you need a really over-the-top villain (Wise could've easily swallowed the film, so naturally they give him a few lines) to up the tension.. It basically resembles a religious movie but with the morals of holding the one true power together: capitalism rules guys, we just have to trust these elite and not the evil government red tape to do their job! The fact that the apparent depression that is supposed to be in the film basically shows just a few people at random times does put the proper trim of amusement to it all. They manage to make plane maneuvering and a train-crash the equivalent of one guy trying to start a "wave" and getting crickets. As a whole, Atlas Shrugged: Part II continues to get stuck in the mud of wooden dialogue with actors that cannot possibly hold it together when its foundation is a self-serving mash of meandering goofiness. 

 

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Later: War of the Worlds (2025)

*Hey, I try to have a balance. I try to not share visible irritation for the following: annoying pretentious filmmakers, hippies, annoying conservatives, annoying liberals, and people who believe that movies/video games influence people to do violence. If you ever want to say what grinds your gears: leave a note.

*Perhaps ironically, Samantha Mathis was elected to serve in a trade union position with Vice President, Actors/Performers of SAG-AFTRA from 2015 to 2019. Ayn Rand wasn't big on "altruism" and unions (as selected here: Ayn Rand's Defense of an Anti-Union Massacre — History News Network) but sure loved the government-run Social Security and Medicare in later years.

Good Night, and Good Luck.

Review #1539: Good Night, and Good Luck.

Cast: 
David Strathairn (Edward R. Murrow), George Clooney (Fred W. Friendly), Robert Downey, Jr (Joseph Wershba), Patricia Clarkson (Shirley Wershba), Frank Langella (William Paley), Jeff Daniels (Sig Mickelson), Tate Donovan (Jesse Zousmer), Ray Wise (Don Hollenbeck), Alex Borstein (Natalie), Thomas McCarthy (Palmer Williams), Rose Abdoo (Mili Lerner), Reed Diamond (John Aaron), Matt Ross (Eddie Scott), Grant Heslov (Don Hewitt), featuring archive footage of Joseph McCarthy, Liberace, Roy Cohn, and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Directed by George Clooney (#851 - The Monuments Men, #1187 - Leatherheads)

Review: 
"I'm not a snob, I like entertaining films as well. But when you do a film like this, or like Three Kings - films that get you in a bit of trouble - it's fun to open up a debate." - George Clooney

It helps to make a message movie if you have enough talent or know-how to get it done right, so it figures that George Clooney wanted to add directing to his foray in addition to acting. The Kentucky-born Clooney attended Northern Kentucky University and the University of Cincinnati (studying broadcast journalism with the former) before dropping out and doing odd jobs like selling shoes before being inspired to take up acting, which resulted in him getting a variety of small roles on TV and film beginning in 1984 that included stints on shows like The Facts of Life (1985-87) and Roseanne (1988-91) before hitting a breakthrough with ER (1994-99) and subsequent film work with From Dusk till Dawn (1996). This is the second film that Clooney was director for, with his debut having been Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002). Clooney also served as a co-writer with Grant Heslov (who also served as producer of the film) while being paid $1 each for acting, producing, and writing in order to help with the budget.

In theory, this could make for a pretty good civics lesson in terms of film quality. It yearns to cover a subject probably not too familiar to younger audiences in the Edward Murrow/Joseph McCarthy conflict in regard to journalism and fear in a different time for belief when it comes to the Red Scare. Granted, I am familiar with it in part because of a recent television episode I saw this year depicting McCarthy on American Experience (the one and only show on PBS currently running that I would keep with me on an island), but here we are. What we ultimately have here is an effort that looks the part and surely could teach the part...but just isn't quite as great as it really could be. I applaud the use of black-and-white (filmed in a greyscale set while done through desaturation after production for release on B&W print stock), in that it does make a modest attempt at period piece drama without looking like a desperate attempt at emulating 1950s/60s films like 12 Angry Men (1957), this much is for sure. But if I really desired a throwback to an older era in terms of style or substance, by goodness I would just watch those films in how they constructed their story instead. It yearns so desperately to be thought of as a film to ponder discussion about fear and ethics within the workplace and beyond, but it just seems lacking in fulfilling all of its desires beyond platitudes that seem too hagiographic to actually say something about Murrow beyond the obvious (which will surely rank differently with either admirers or detractors of him).

It is the idea that it could bring about holding one to honesty and being careful about what is told to us in media that is more attractive than what really gets shown, and the style + acting is the thing that braces things from collapse. Strathairn practically blends himself perfectly into the role, deftly doing well with what is given to him in capturing succinct dignity that carry the re-creation of words from the past without trouble, albeit with one significant quibble. Technically speaking, everyone else is fine, but they all fall into the same trap with Strathairn: in following along with its singular focus on its subject matter without much else room for context, the lives of the folks we are following seem practically empty in comparison, as if these people didn't have lives beyond the news. For example, Downey Jr and Clarkson's little chemistry involving them having to hide their marriage from work is an interesting one with a few little "cute" moments, but they as a whole don't contribute much else besides that to the film in terms of charm or substance. Clooney follows along the action with Strathairn fine, but there's always that sinking feeling that he will just blend into the background and you wouldn't even notice/care, as the nuance slowly morphs into something else. Langella is interesting to view, but he seems more deserving of further substance beyond carefully cut moments. Others provide jumble words about come and go fine, but one is begging for a longer focus or at least something to draw upon that doesn't feel like a point-by-point film of events.

The historical quality can prove interesting (for better or worse) to view in the classroom, particularly with its usage of vintage footage of McCarthy (which is better in some way than having an actor try to replicate him). Of course, the whole part about See It Now being reduced from its regular weekly slot happened in 1955, not immediately after the McCarthy episode (which was attributed to its low ratings in prime-time, including a loss in a primary sponsor in Alcoa, as compared to his "lite fare" Person to Person, which lasted longer). The film even starts with an inaccuracy involving listing Murrow's accomplishments before he starts his speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Association in 1958 by listing "Harvest of Shame" - which wouldn't air for two more years (dramatic effect staging is one thing, but it really is a bit dubious when trying to stage Murrow's speech about "wires in a box" with date misremembering). The See It Now show (broadcast March 9) probably hastened McCarthy's demise, but one bigger key would be something more indirect - ABC's decision to air the hearings of McCarthy vs the U.S. Army live gavel-to-gavel beginning in April (with that key moment of asking about "having no sense of decency" being in June - if one goes by records of polling of McCarthy however, he reached his peak of opinion approval in January of 50% before dropping negative by April). 

Again though, it all depends on how much one can really cover of the perspectives of that time and place. In this sense, what we have here is a film that runs way too short at 93 minutes, as if the footage involving depth and awareness ran off a cliff. This isn't so much a period classic as it is one that desperately requires citations and books to run parallel with it. This is an example of a film that will either stick in one's minds as something to ponder on with worthwhile discussion on the merits that land or one that will fester in the frustration of what didn't land. Call me an iconoclast or stubborn, but this film just didn't work enough for me in freeing my quibbles with its deluge of style over substance and scope that make it any better than if one simply picked a different way to experience history and the discussion that comes with it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Swamp Thing.

Review #939: Swamp Thing.

Cast:
Ray Wise (Alec Holland), Adrienne Barbeau (Alice Cable), Louis Jourdan (Anton Arcane), Dick Durock (Swamp Thing), David Hess (Ferret), Nicholas Worth (Bruno), Don Knight (Harry Ritter), Al Ruban (Charlie), Ben Bates (Arcane Monster), Nannette Brown (Dr. Linda Holland), Reggie Batts (Jude), and Mimi Craven (Arcane's Secretary) Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street, #558 - Scream, and #633 - Red Eye)

Review:
With all of the superhero/comic book movies that have come out in the past decade (and the ones that will come in the next few years), it is a bit refreshing if not interesting to see one from a different time and what better than an 80s flick? Based off the DC Comics character of the same name, Swamp Thing is a more grounded kind of hero movie, feeling like a mix of monster and horror movies that make for a serviceable kind of film. Wise does well in the time he has on screen, making his character fairly relatable prior to his transformation. Barbeau is the one we see more of throughout the film (the eponymous hero takes a while to show up, naturally), and she pulls off a fine performance; her scenes with Swamp Thing are also enjoyable (one of the best parts is him answering her question if he is hurt: "Only when I laugh", with him soon laughing). Jourdan is a fair villain, being a bit overblown in his genius without being an over-the-top foe. His henchmen aren't too noteworthy, though Worth has an amusing scene with the two main leads after they all escape. Batts (in his only film role to date) does a capable job in a comic relief role. The film does have its moments of amusement, but it never veers towards outright slapstick, managing to keep a good balance while not being overtly campy. Craven does a fine job directing, handling the horror and sci-fi pretty well. The action scenes are enjoyable, and the suit for Swamp Thing looks pretty decent. The film also has a nice look to it as well (filmed in South Carolina); the swamp is fairly good to look at, mainly because the movie doesn't have a blurred effect to it (in other words, the special effects and the sets don't blur into each other). Though the movie lasts just 91 minutes, it certainly runs at an efficient pace, keeping itself going quite well. It isn't a great superhero flick, but it is a capable kind of movie worth considering.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: RoboCop (1987).

Redux #002: RoboCop.

Cast
Peter Weller (Alex Murphy / RoboCop), Nancy Allen (Anne Lewis), Ronny Cox (Dick Jones), Kurtwood Smith (Clarence Boddicker), Miguel Ferrer (Bob Morton), Dan O'Herlihy ("The Old Man"), Paul McCrane (Emil Antonowsky), Ray Wise (Leon Nash), Jesse D. Goins (Joe Cox), Calvin Jung (Steve Minh), Michael Gregory (Lt. Hedgecock), Robert DoQui (Sergeant Reed), and Felton Perry (OCP Executive Johnson) Directed by Paul Verhoeven.

Review
Welcome to a Redux Review of the original RoboCop film, which is a revised review meant to say more about the movie as a whole. The upcoming Redux Reviews are necessary to help better the evolution of Movie Night in all that has changed from its inception in 2010 to the present age - enjoy.

The initial thing that can be said about RoboCop, released on July 17, 1987, is that it showcased more than the sum of its parts from what you would have expected in its era, with layers of satire and emotional depth to make for a compelling movie. The action and violence is certainly entertaining in that goes over-the-top with great results. I remember seeing the scene where Murphy gets gunned down when I was barely a teenager, and even all these years later it still manages to leave an imprint on my mind because of how striking it is. One effect that certainly still ranks high on the memorability scale is the toxic waste infested Emil, right down to the collision with a car. The effects also are pretty well done, and the fight between ED-209 and RoboCop is impressive, right down to the end result (sure, the stairs part is cute, but the moment where one sees the eye of RoboCop exposed is just as striking). The music by Basil Poledouris is brilliant, being both triumphant and emotionally reaching at the right times, using synthesizer and orchestral music very well, with the music at the climax of the move working just right. Of course, there is plenty to say about the movie besides what one can say was enjoyable in imagery, because it is a movie that strikes at the heart of the age it was made in that still strikes a chord today because of how Paul Verhoeven and company succeeded in what they aspired to do despite the hard conditions of filming. The film was written by Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner, with the former being a junior story executive at Universal Pictures before aspiring to write screenplays, as inspired by him seeing the production of Blade Runner (1982); Miner came on Neumeier's radar because of a student video he did, which led to his idea of a robot-themed rock music video converging rightly with Neumeier's idea. Verhoeven, a Dutch director who had just moved to the States best known for films such as Soldier of Orange (1977) and Flesh+Blood (1985), was approached about directing the film after a handful of names dropped out of doing it, and he actually rejected it before his wife encouraged him to give the script a chance - the scene at the abandoned house hooked him onto doing it. The film was made for under $14 million and made roughly $53 million on original release, with its legacy growing in stature in the wake of analysis over its themes involving humanity and corporate policies.

You have to understand that the era of the 1980s had corporate people who were not above reading Japanese texts about killing more effectively. So, a movie involving a corporation taking the task of running a police department and trying to deploy products to rid crime like it was a cancer isn't exactly too off the deep end (one of the writers termed the movie as "fascism for liberals", so take that for what it is worth). The occasional newsbreak/commercials also help to serve the satire in its excesses and absurdity as well, considering that coverage of an ambush of cops with one gravely injured in the attack closes with a broadcaster going "Good luck" to them. The segments lighten up the movie when compared to the violence, which actually was toned down because of the MPAA deeming it an X rather than the R rating targeted...eight times; one can see the un-rated cut on home video now, fortunately.  Eventually, the movie also looks upon the humanity that starts to shine through the title character despite the attempts to strip it away and present it as product, one that results in a soulful and sobering film that could also be construed in religious tones, and Verhoeven has referred to the execution of Weller's character as like a crucifixion.

Weller had spent time studying mime after he managed to be cast in the film, one that had struggled to find a right lead actor because they wanted someone who was both a suitable size that wouldn't look awkward when the suit would be designed around them and also have a good jawline (of course, acting without having the face shown for most of it didn't exactly attract much help either). The studying did not help him much when the actual suit (made of flexible foam latex, polyurethane, and fiberglass) came around, because its bulky nature and long makeup time led to discomfort, complete with dehydration. Eventually, he worked out a more deliberate moving style to help deal with the costume, and it is evident to see how he managed to turn all of this into an excellent performance. He handles the one extended human sequence with warm gusto that you would expect from a cop drama before segueing into the main course handily; the humanity that was thought lost starts to come in bits and pieces that he handles with calm effectiveness, whether that involves him traversing through an abandoned house or the scene where he sees his own face in a reflection before wishing to be left alone. Allen (cast after Stephanie Zimbalist dropped out in preproduction) proves a fitting partner for certain moments to show his lingering humanity in earthy grace. 

It is the adversarial side that makes it all come together of course. Cox may have been known for nice-guy roles, but he sure chomps on this material for all of what it is worth, striking the heart of a great villain in believing in their righteousness to the bitter end no matter who gets struck in their wake. Gang leaders may be tough, but one hasn't seen nothing until he spooks a cocky executive with a few calm words and a hair-pull. O'Herlihy doesn't have a lot of screen time, but he certainly makes his presence felt as the head of corporate sharks. One of my favorite quirks is that Jones regards to the death of an employee via the ED 209 as a "glitch", and the Old Man is more angry at the "temporary setback". Ferrer elevates a corporate wolf-in-sheep's clothing into something charming in its smarminess, one that might have been an adversarial stooge in a different movie but instead ends up something different for satisfaction. Last but not least, Kurtwood Smith does a wonderfully evil job of making Boddicker more than just a cop-killer, with a look that was actually inspired by Nazi leaders. Sure, the execution sequence is a clear highlight, but my particular favorite occurs within a standoff during a negotiation, which involves a line like this: "Oooh. Guns, guns, guns! C'mon, Sal! The Tigers are playing... *slaps table* …tonight. I never miss a game." He has a manner to him that makes him more than just a common street thug, one who controls any scene he is in with confidence (later on, the character spits blood on his booking in jail, as suggested by Smith). The showdown at the end of the movie is riveting, showing the lasting conclusion of Verhoeven's "American Jesus" to its logical endpoint that Smith and company handle well.

The 102 minutes pass by with great execution by Verhoeven and company, as Rob Bottin and his special effects team (which included folks such as Phil Tippet) lend a great hand in making over-the-top spectacle in effects go hand-in-hand with the locations (shot in Dallas, TX alongside Pennsylvania and Long Beach) in seamless style. Sure, some might have had a problem with the violence, but I think it is necessary to understand our own human nature, as if satire is just something you can present in a vacuum or that the darkness of the human spirit isn't lurking within us. I didn't wince at the violence when I saw it years ago, I sure as hell don't see how one can wince at it now. Over three decades later, the legacy of the film is that none of the follow-ups that have passed in its wake have managed to top it in all of the aspects that made the original so striking. The 1990 sequel, with no Verhoeven or the original writers present, proved quite absurd in its continuation of corporate avarice while failing to reach the soulful highlights presented by the original in favor of ultra-violence that lacked a real third act. The 1993 sequel, now without its main star, was an ill-advised attempt at sanitizing the material for younger audiences that made for one hell of a movie to pick apart as a franchise killer. At any rate, the original 1987 movie aimed not for the strings of franchise-making or ultra violent fun but instead for a parable about how far one's humanity reaches even with the confines of a metallic body flung into pursuit for justice. It is a great action film, but it is also a well-done satire that still reaches the mark in corporate insanity and violent absurdity that makes it a movie for all time.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.