American Psycho.

Review #1984: American Psycho.

Cast: 

Christian Bale (Patrick Bateman), Justin Theroux (Timothy Bryce), Josh Lucas (Craig McDermott), Bill Sage (David Van Patten), Chloë Sevigny (Jean), Reese Witherspoon (Evelyn Williams), Samantha Mathis (Courtney Rawlinson), Matt Ross (Luis Carruthers), Jared Leto (Paul Allen), Willem Dafoe (Donald Kimball), Cara Seymour (Christie), and Guinevere Turner (Elizabeth) Directed by Mary Harron.

Review: 

"What occurred to me is that just enough time had passed to make a period film about the ’80s, and say things about the ’80s, and bring out the satire. And that was interesting to me."

As a director, Mary Harron has aimed to make above all else movies with meaningful things to say beyond just the label of feminism. Born in Bracebridge, Ontario in Canada to an actor/comedian in Don Harron, although the divorce and re-marriage in her family led to her living between Toronto and Los Angeles and later England. Her parents liked to take her to films they wanted to see that were generally art films (i.e. not exactly suitable for children), with her early large influences being Alfred Hitchcock. Later studies at places such as the National Film Theatre and she studied English at St. Anne's College, Oxford University before moving to the States in New York to become a journalist. She wrote and created a magazine for what became the punk scene in the city before later becoming a drama critic in later years. In the 1990s, her interest in the life of Valerie Solanas spurred her into wanting to do a documentary (since she was working as a producer on a program dedicated to American pop culture at the time). In turn, this idea was suggested to become a film, which resulted in the 1996 film I Shot Andy Warhol. In total, Harron has directed seven films in over two decades, with the most recent being Dalíland (2022). The movie is based on the 1991 novel of the same name by Bret Easton Ellis. The original book generated controversy because of its portrayal of violence toward women (as a whole the book is far more visceral in its descriptions by its unreliable narrator in Patrick Bateman of murder along with emotional psychotic breakdowns). Ellis has described the main character of Bateman as being "crazy the same way I was", although he has only admitted this in recent years (he initially stated during the release of the novel that his father was the inspiration while also later calling the book "a criticism of male values that were around me", one that he found easy to observe as a gay man). Ellis had called the book "unfilmable", but Edward R. Pressman bought the rights to film the book in 1992 and persisted for eight years. Numerous names were considered to direct such as Stuart Gordon and David Cronenberg (with Ellis even writing a draft), but Harron accepted an offer to do the film in 1996 under the condition that she could write her own draft. She brought Guinevere Turner on to help write the script while also trying to find the right Bateman (for her part, Turner found the book horrifying alongside really funny while also believing the right spin could make for a "really subversive, feminist movie"). By 1998, Harron thought she found her ideal actor with Christian Bale (at the time mostly known for Empire of the Sun (1987), when he was 13), because she felt he was the only who understood the role as being (in their words) "an alien who landed in the unabashedly capitalist New York of the '80s" when he found the script quite amusing. However, Lions Gate Films tried for a time to recruit Leonardo DiCaprio to star in the film (which Harron vehemently disagreed with), complete with Oliver Stone taking over as director. Thankfully, disagreements between the two led to the return of Harron and Bale, albeit with a small budget of roughly $7 million.

The movie was indeed a modest success at the time of its release in 2000, albeit with a polarized response by some due to the level of violence. Actually, looking back, it is almost as amusing to consider the perception of the film back then as it is to actually look at the film now and share a laugh as the effective satire it ultimately is. It is the work of somebody who may or may not be guilty of murder slipping by in a world focused entirely on lifestyle above all that examines misogyny and masculinity with an awareness and timing that is brilliant to sift through for 100 minutes. Undeniably, the movie is all on Bale and his performance. His method of performance involves plenty of rhythm to go with clarity and control that brings out plenty in isolation and alienation beyond the winning smile shown in a man that in his words is "simply not there". He has the outward charm of someone like Tom Cruise (intentionally done) that is both unsettling and captivating, one who seems to sell every scene he is in (present in all but one) as one of numerous people that we see within the mask they seem to wear (why else does the axe sequence seem to linger on half of his face covered in blood) It is evident that his method preparation paid off for an effective performance that is the perfect act of a warped man in a warped time that shows the vanity of man through people who are never seen working in any scene. The others can only help but drift in the ideal manner when wrapped in the gloss of the 1980s, such as the restaurant trio of Theroux, Lucas, and Sage, or with Witherspoon and her confidence that goes like oil on water when paired against Bale. Sevigny is probably the most sane person in the general web of things, at least because she is in it slightly more than Dafoe and his blend of investigative query/baiting. There are a handful of interesting moments to note (at least ones that have not become Internet memes), ones that show Bale gliding through his environment in the most entertaining of alienated ways, such as him casually admitting his crimes in conversation or him doing a strut right before the axe death with "Hip to be Square" playing.

Ellis described the book as one that he didn't think needed to be turned into a film, since he felt that the ambiguity of the novel would be turned into something "infinitely less interesting" with a medium of film that seemingly demands answers (incidentally, the book later inspired a 2013 musical). The novel leaves it to one's interpretation about what was real and not real, while Turner and Harron's script was intended to show a real effort to have things be real for the main character but at some point "sort of perceiving things differently, but they're really happening." The ending is deliberately meant to confound one over just what really happened (personally, I assume a chunk really happened because watching a movie about murders being shown only to be told they aren't real is dumb as hell). Ellis has been quoted numerous times as to finding the film either as "fine" without being entirely necessary or as one that is "in some ways a complicated movie for me. But overall I like it." As a whole, American Psycho is a worthwhile use of your time for those who are interested in seeing a film that belongs to more than one genre and thus is not instantly easy to peg in one assumption. It is a lean and mean satire with elements of horror that will sift in your head and not escape any time soon after it is finished, which makes for a pretty good time. It is the kind of really good film that may even grow on you further, which probably says a good deal about how far the film's stature has grown in two decades.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Beau Travail.

Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde.

Review #1861: Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde.

Cast: 

Reese Witherspoon (Elle Woods), Sally Field (Victoria Rudd), Regina King (Grace Rossiter), Jennifer Coolidge (Paulette Bonafonté), Luke Wilson (Emmett Richmond), Bob Newhart (Sid Post), Bruce McGill (Stan Marks), Dana Ivey (Libby Hauser), Jessica Cauffiel (Margot Chapman), with Moonie the Dog (Bruiser), and Alanna Ubach (Serena McGuire) Directed by Charles Herman-Wurmfeld.

Review: 

I'm sure you remember Legally Blonde (2001), the movie that dealt with forging a path for oneself with confidence that was pitched at one point as "Clueless meets The Paper Chase", based on the material of the same name by Amanda Brown. It was a feel-good movie that Robert Luketic directed as the feel-good legal hit of its time. Or something like that, because I remember it surely could have reached further in the departments of humor and legal mumbo-jumbo besides what it did. Yea, subverting the expectations of a perpetually smiling lawyer that bounces off snide comments as it was just another sunny day in lawyer land. It was more interesting in the small attempts at awareness rather than its goofy hand at comedy. The less you predict, the better it went. Herman-Wurmfeld is probably best known for this film alone, despite the fact that this was his third feature film (Kissing Jessica Stein (2001) had attracted attention on the indie circuit). Kate Kondell served as the screenwriter.

It is evident that someone watched Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) and thought, hey I can do a movie kind of like that, complete with cribbing footage from it too. But this movie has an idealism about it that manages to come off as the equivalent of too much cotton candy at the fair that only leads to simple vomit. It is a movie that seems to have been nicked and tucked in re-writes to where one would hope it is taken out to pasture with the mix of sitcom lines and characters to go with. absolute zero meaningful drama. Taking something like the issue of animal testing and making one bored to tears is quite the achievement in dubiousness. It begs for a cynical hand at the wheel to deal with politics or some sort of inspiration beyond cribbing dynamics from the first film in being yet another fish out of water story. Beyond (million dog) marches and congressmen changing their mind on things because their dog is gay, one simply finds themselves wishing these scenarios were, well, funny. Witherspoon fares the best out of everyone in the same way that a shirt with a dirty spot looks cleaner when washed but doesn't really get rid of the spot. The cheery disposition presented here only works to the fishbowl level of sitcom times here, where one would rather see more scenes between her and Wilson because of the interesting dynamic between sunny charm and a dry Wilson. Sally Field (accompanied by a goofy wig) seems lost with material that has her say at one point "don't worry Bob, I'll get her ... and her little dog too." At least the secret adversary mentor in the first film was suitable for what was needed. Here, she seems there more for name recognition and a nice check rather than something useable. King plays the snooty foil that was already done before in the first film, and it is evident that nothing really changes for the better beyond what you already know what is going to happen in bla-bla land that King can't elevate too much. Newhart as a doorman with key knowledge to help Witherspoon in the ways of politicking sounds like the lead to a joke, but this is one is at the expense of the audience who find themselves rolling their eyes at whatever paycheck was used to waste his time here. McGill is nice and dandy in the easy cliche role, one that might have been a better fit for the second lead role rather than Field in terms of smarminess...instead he gets to play a guy swayed in protecting dogs from getting animal tested because damn it he loves his gay big dog. As a whole, the original movie has been dissected and had some of its aspects repeated here within a fish-out-of-water story where the lead gradually wins the respect of her peers with her can-do attitude to adapting to the environment that uses her know-how (i.e. fashion sense) to get what she aims to do before giving a speech at the end while everything goes exactly right for her. It is the equivalent of chewing gum for 95 minutes, where one will find a bit of sweet release on two points: the one moment where chewing it is cool, and the moment when you finally decide enough is enough and spit it out. Folks big on the original might find something okay with this one, but others would do better to look elsewhere.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Legally Blonde.

Review #1698: Legally Blonde.

Cast: 

Reese Witherspoon (Elle Woods), Luke Wilson (Emmett Richmond), Selma Blair (Vivian Kensington), Matthew Davis (Warner Huntington III), Victor Garber (Professor Callahan), Jennifer Coolidge (Paulette Bonafonté), Holland Taylor (Professor Elspeth Stromwell), Ali Larter (Brooke Taylor-Windham), Jessica Cauffiel (Margot), Alanna Ubach (Serena McGuire), Francesca P. Roberts (Judge Marina R. Bickford), Oz Perkins (David Kidney), Linda Cardellini (Chutney Windham), Bruce Thomas (UPS Guy), Meredith Scott Lynn (Enid Wexler), and Raquel Welch (Mrs. Windham-Vandermark) Directed by Robert Luketic.

Review: 

Well, sometimes you need a movie about the law to go with a tale of forging a path forward for oneself with confidence, I suppose. Legally Blonde is adapted from the novel of the same name, which was self-published by Amanda Brown in 2001 (although it should be noted that the 1994 copyright filing lists both Brown and Brigdet Kerrigan, who coincidentally had attended Harvard) based on the writer's experiences in Stanford Law School, which namely involved making fun of her classmates with letters sent back home to Arizona while reading Elle magazine; one key experience involved her going to a group for women attending the school that Brown found amusement over their serious tone (such as trying to change "semester" to "ovester"). She dropped out after two years, but she eventually cobbled a manuscript together; while it didn't attract much attention as a book, it did find interest with film studios, and one pitch that was used for it was "Clueless meets The Paper Chase". At any rate, the film was written by Karen McCullah Lutz and Kirsten Smith, who saw numerous script changes that turned a first draft with raunchy material into one with adversity to overcome and a murder trial (including an ending that came from test audiences caring about the success of its character rather than a kiss on the courthouse). In other words, a script that would probably have come off the heels of stuff like American Pie (1999) ended up being more of a feel-good movie that surely plays its own note in the blonde circuit (which has quite a few stereotypes that I'm sure would make for an interesting discussion somewhere else). This was also the feature film debut of Robert Luketic, a native of Australia who had been making short films since he was a teenager before his short Titsiana Booberini (1997) attracted Hollywood.

Honestly, it's just an okay movie. It's an obvious movie, one that plays exactly to the bone of "being yourself with confidence" that makes for a few chuckles for a 96 minute movie that sure takes its time to really get going, even when it has something to say about workplace dynamics in conduct (or perhaps not judging stuff like sorority life or law school by the cover...?) and something something feminist classic something something. Or something like that, because really it is the trial parts that are more up to speed in actually doing something beyond "aw shucks". You know how folks will randomly approach stars and have them do "classic stuff" at a convention? The appeal for this movie is kind of like that, albeit without as many nerd lingo (as any convention attendee would say). That, or it is basically a sports movie for sorority folks. Strangely enough, with a pitch evoking the name of Clueless (1995), it really doesn't seem to have that much "zing" to it, if you know what I mean. Sure, there are quite a few quirky moments, such as the "bend and snap" sequence, which sounds believable when you note that the writers came up with it while at a bar. It comes and goes, really, when you think about it. There is nothing here that is exactly harmful or ridiculous, and I imagine that it certainly proved an inspiration to at least one person when it came to law or perhaps something else - so yeah, average isn't the worst possible experience one could have with this feature. If it wasn't for Witherspoon, this probably would have been a lesser experience. Her sunny charm and wit certainly play off against the others well enough with flourishing interest that you would see from a "fish out of water" type without being played out, and its easy to see how two decades have only cemented the enduring entertainment that Witherspoon brings here. The others keep up fine for the most part. Wilson is casual enough to keep his portion of the film going well enough without asking for too much more (the aforementioned ending involved the two leads kissing at the end, but I think you can see why they just went with a different one). Blair brings up the snobby parts to where it needs to go (complete with the predictable stuff), which is followed by the snooty snake charm from Davis to go with the slithering calmness generated by Garber. Coolidge gets a chuckle in shyness while others get a line or two to show up (such as Larter doing some well-blown hysterics over gluteal efforts), which means that one will do just fine in keeping their attention airtight. As I stated already, it is the law parts that generate interest more, probably because its predictability is a little less obvious than the school segments, but that is probably just me. In the two decades that have followed the release of this film, a sequel was released alongside a musical and a spinoff, and it is perhaps representative of the legacy of the film that another sequel is in development. Is it predictable? Indubitably, but it has plenty of charm in the right places to make a worthy time for those in the mood for what it yearns to say about having fun as oneself without letting folks or other things get in their way. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Man in the Moon.

Review #1499: The Man in the Moon.

Cast: 
Sam Waterston (Matthew Trant), Tess Harper (Abigail Trant), Reese Witherspoon (Dani Trant), Gail Strickland (Marie Foster), Jason London (Court Foster), Emily Warfield (Maureen Trant), Bentley Mitchum (Billy Sanders), Ernie Lively (Will Sanders), and Dennis Letts (Doc White) Directed by Robert Mulligan (#116 - To Kill a Mockingbird)

Review: 
"When I was little, I really wanted to be an actor, which was kind of weird because my mom and dad were both in the medical industry."
"Coming from Bronx Irish is hardly Southern. But there was that sense of the Irish storytellers, the fairy tales.”

When the doors of one film career closes, another career opens up for someone else. This was the last film directed by Robert Mulligan, who had started work in directing after serving in the US Navy and graduating from Fordham University in 1948. A messenger job at CBS led to directing in television in an era soon labeled as the "Golden Age of Television", directing for television programs starting in 1952 for shows such as Suspense, Studio One in Hollywood, and Playhouse 90. His one major award win was a Primetime Emmy Award for his direction of the television production adaptation of "The Moon and Sixpence" (1959). By that time, he had entered into the world of film with Fear Strikes Out (1957), with Alan J. Pakula as producer (the two would produce six more films with each other over the next eleven years). Despite not being known for having a particular personal vision with his films, he managed to cultivate a dedicated career for himself that reflected his attitudes towards honest storytelling, which resulted in notable films such as To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) and Summer of '42 (1971). As for a beginning, this was the debut film appearance of Reese Witherspoon. She had expressed an interest in acting from a young age, doing work in an advertisement for a flower store at age seven. She found herself interested in a casting call for this film hoping to win a teenage bit part but ended up cast as the lead role due to impressing Mulligan.

There is a fair sense of timelessness when it comes to this film, which generally reaches most of its melodramatic points with well-put flourish and a game cast that does not betray its homespun foundations for no good reason. There is a sharp atmosphere that is quite riveting in making an interesting coming-of-age story come through in various forms of careful moments of clicking energy within its young and traditional actors. Witherspoon proves a worthy focus to keep an eye on, wrapped with energy that moves from scene to scene with confidence for someone so young that springs well with any kind of useful scene with others, such as talking about having a first kiss or actually doing one. Waterston seems quite suited to lead the film on with careful honesty to his surroundings without having to say too much. Harper follows along in the same vein, doing fine with carrying the film in the little moments. London alongside Strickland represent the other side to focus on in the film, with the former providing an adequate interest to pair off with Witherspoon (or Warfield) with small bright moments that blend in with some conflict that he runs through without making a clunky note of. On that note, Warfield proves the final key to filling the cast with wandering grace that makes her bonds count fine. On the whole, the pace is kept on the level for 100 minutes with reasonable movements and careful planning in its story of growth and tragedy that proves a worthy winner for Mulligan to go out on and for Witherspoon to start out with.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Hot Pursuit.

Review #783: Hot Pursuit.

Cast
Reese Witherspoon (Cooper), Sofía Vergara (Daniella Riva), Matthew Del Negro (Detective Hauser), Michael Mosley (Detective Dixon), Robert Kazinsky (Randy), Richard T. Jones (Detective Jackson), Joaquín Cosio (Vicente Cortez), John Carroll Lynch (Captain Emmett), and Jim Gaffigan (Red) Directed by Anne Fletcher.

Review
Watching this movie is like microwaving a dried out hot pocket near its expiration date: it will either make for a modestly enjoyable experience that you'll forget about conveniently later...or it'll just come off as a stale experience that you'll forget about conveniently later. In my case, this falls in the latter, but what was I expecting? It's difficult to come up with elements to get aggravated about, mostly because there are far better (or worse) movies to talk about. The movie is as cookie-cutter as it gets, with jokes that would be funny if they made sense. The characters/acting are nothing special, feeling like cliches of established cliches, and of course the duo is all bickering at first, but not as much at the end...I suppose. Witherspoon and Vegara never seem at all comfortable together, and any chemistry they could've had is weighed down by tedious plot device that make the movie seem more detailed than it really is. The comedy is not entirely obnoxious, but it just feels so bland that nearly any pairing could be in this "buddy film" without any changes to the plot. Near the end, I wonder if this would've worked better (or at least not as bland) as a drama...probably not. Let's do a little game:
I wish my mind could convince me that my friends care about me and not just merely tolerate me.
If you think there's a joke about Witherspoon looking like a little kid (because 5'1 people are so short), collect 10 points.
If you think there's a joke about Vergara being described as 45-50 years old on TV bullitens, collect 10 points.
If you think the movie is less than 90 minutes, collect 10 points.
If you think this game is an unnecessary exercise in trying to escape having to describe the movie in detail, collect 1,000 points.
While I like doing these reviews, I have a lack of energy to actually review, especially now. Sorry.
If you have 30 points, you either watched one trailer for it, or you flat out used conventional sense.
If you have 1,030 points...you are beyond correct. If you want to see a buddy film, literally google to see if there are other picks. If after exhausting all your options and stuck with no one around to watch it with (or stop you)...go to sleep. Or fix your film shelf. Or try and reach out to friends.
Yea, like that last one will ever happen. Seriously, I watch most of these films alone.
Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Four Christmases.

Review #772: Four Christmases.

Cast
Vince Vaughn (Brad McVie), Reese Witherspoon (Kate), Robert Duvall (Howard McVie), Sissy Spacek (Paula McVie), Jon Voight (Creighton), Mary Steenburgen (Marilyn), Kristin Chenoweth (Courtney), Jon Favreau (Denver McVie), Tim McGraw (Dallas McVie), and Katy Mixon (Susan McVie) Directed by Seth Gordon.

Review
This movie is awful. If I wanted to, I could leave it that. But if I did, then someone might wonder why I only said it was awful and watch it for themselves (just go with the idea that people actually use these reviews as an influence). If you watch about 10-20 minutes of the movie, you will start to have a few questions:

1. Why do Vaughn and Witherspoon look really miscast as a couple?
2. Why can't they arrange the four families to meet at one place instead of having to go to all four in one day?
3. Why did I decide to watch this?
4. Are all romantic comedies like this?
5. Have you ever put a spending limit of $10 for each Christmas gift you gave someone?
6. Are there any likable characters in it?

The answers to the questions are as follows: Pass, Pass, Pass, Maybe, No and...Yes (Jon Voight, who is only in the movie for the last 20 (or so) minutes, and manages to be not only the least annoying character, but also the one who has the least screen time. Go figure.). None of the situations that are set up here are really that funny, feeling either standard or just downright odd. Tell me if this sounds like a goldmine of hilarity: Our main character getting tackled and wrestled with by his two other brothers, and this isn't just one time, no it happens (I think, I lost count) twice more. Of course the movie tries (read: tries) to phone in a happy ending, because I guess having the movie end with them not getting back together seemed not "cheery" enough for Christmas. This a movie that manages to be unlikable at times, but more often than not it's just boring. Why should I care about anything that goes on with these people? It fails as a comedy, it fails as a romance (chemistry clocks in at zero), it fails as a drama (read: last half hour), and its greatest failing is that it fails as a Christmas movie. This isn't a movie you watch to be cheerful around the holidays, this is a movie for people who honestly want to find any reason not to visit their relatives, because they very well may just be as crazy this year as the people in this laugh-forsaken movie. That, and apparently being married and having kids is the only way to be happy. I'd advise you to eat fruitcake before watching this over literally any Christmas movie. Except Deck the Halls. (Yes, I would watch Santa Clause Conquers the Martians again. Even Jingle All the Way). Stay away from this garbage.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.