The Nutcracker: The Untold Story.

Review #2474: The Nutcracker: The Untold Story.

Cast:

Elle Fanning (Mary), Nathan Lane (Uncle Albert), John Turturro (the Rat King), Charlie Rowe (Prince Nicholas Charles "N.C.", the Nutcracker; Shirley Henderson as the voice of the Nutcracker), Frances de la Tour (Frau Eva / The Rat Queen), Aaron Michael Drozin (Max), Richard E. Grant (Joseph), Yulia Vysotskaya (Louise / The Snow Fairy), with Jonny Coyne (Gnomad), and Peter Elliott and Daniel Peacock (Gielgud; Alan Cox as the voice of Gielgud) Directed by Andrei Konchalovsky (#1876 - Tango & Cash)

Review:

“Our goal was to create a world in which fantasy was intertwined with reality, the way children experience the world. Toys spark their imagination, and we, like children, with incredible technology at our disposal, decided to play with these toys and give our fantasy absolute freedom."

Once upon a time, in 1816, E. T. A. Hoffman wrote a literary fairy tale called "The Nutcracker and the Mouse King" that was published in Berlin. Alexandre Dumas later did a retelling of the work in 1844 (a loose translation) before 1892 saw the premiere of a two-act ballet with music by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Apparently, the first feature film of the Nutcracker was in 1967 in Poland. There have been versions in stop motion (Nutcracker Fantasy [1979]), a version with the Pacific Northwest Ballet (Nutcracker: The Motion Picture [1986]), a 1997 short in IMAX, you get the idea. Apparently, Andrei Konchalovsky (director of films such as Runaway Train) had an interest in doing a film version for forty years, but plans finally came together in 2007. You might wonder what is different, well, it is The Nutcracker music to go along with lyrics written by Tim Rice (known for various things, such as the lyrics for The Lion King) that has the songs based on the dances of the ballet (songs such as "It's All Relative" ended up never getting a soundtrack album release); the movie is cited as a UK-Russia-Hungary production, as one does when filming in English. Apparently, in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, the movie was known as "The Nutcracker in 3D" while Russia called it "The Nutcracker and the Mouse King". It was first released on November 24, 2010 in Canada and the United States to the thunderous applause of nobody. Budgeted at roughly $90 million, the movie made less than a quarter of that back at the box office. Konchalovsky actually argued that the movie just didn't have good enough marketing in America (where it made little money) because the critics "completely misunderstood it" as a dreary movie rather than a "fun fairy tale", and Europe just didn't go to see it besides Russia. No movie with a noted reputation of being a flop is complete without some weird funding: the movie was primarily financed by VEB.RF, a Russian corporation chaired by none other than Vladimir Putin, and they actually sued the producers for unpaid loans in 2020 (in fact they helped to pay for the 3D conversion). The next to try a Nutcracker movie was in 2018, when Disney did The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, which was almost as big of a failure. At least Andrei Konchalovsky kept on directing, doing so as recently as Dear Comrades! in 2020, when he was 83 years old.

  

Apparently, Konchalovsky had to figure out the movie was about loneliness, specifically children who are not heard at home. If Roger Corman watched this movie, he probably would've shook his head at the idea of a movie like this being made for $90 million...because where the hell did the money go? 1920s Vienna could've easily be curtailed for setting this movie in dreary Anytown with how the movie operates. This is supposed to be a fun fairy tale? The movie where the rats are made to look like Nazis? The movie where one character is implied to Albert Einstein for no apparent reason? The movie where barely anyone registers a performance worth mentioning? As a fairy tale, it is a plodding movie, managing to evoke the smallest of interest in the alleged Christmas spirit. As a family movie, the 110 minutes move along with a good deal of nothing actually happening to really latch on to, particularly since the songs don't really make an impact. If the ballet feels like a Christmas tree in its majesty and sense of wonder, this movie basically is the equivalent of a rotted synthetic tree, filled with a whole lot of nothing. Even making fun of the Nutcracker for looking like they mugged Pinocchio (specifically from Shrek) feels like it is stating the obvious, at least when compared to the clown and a person in a monkey-suit. It isn't so much that the cast is bad as is the fact that they feel like cardboard with little to actually latch on to. Lane basically looks like he is staring at one's soul with an expression of "the money, the money, the money", while Grant is bafflingly in a father figure role when he probably seems born to chew the scenery of a villain (hey, I liked Hudson Hawk, sue me). Turturro has the look of Phil Spector but strangely sounds like Bernie Kopell from Get Smart that manages to evoke eye rolls rather than heightened interest. You could say it is meant to be campy, but it isn't particularly funny, at least when compared to his plan of blocking out the sun by putting toys in furnaces to make black smoke. You know, for kids! One wonders if they had a loose inspiration from Life Is Beautiful (1997), which was set mostly in a concentration camp where a father uses his imagination to shield his son from the horrors of the camp. The Producers (1967*) had the idea that if you flung enough absurd things, people will view something as a satire as opposed to being offended by what they saw. Here you get mecha-rat dog things and weird double roles because, uh, reasons. The Nutcracker: The Untold Story proves that you could fling middling visuals (in 3D!) and Nazi-rats to people and they would reject it out of hand rather than accept what the filmmakers were peddling (or smoking). As a whole, this is just a sad little misfire by someone who clearly thought they knew better in making a movie fit for families. The only people who ended up watching the movie either strove to check out the ballet or read the book just to get the taste out of their mouth.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Next up: King Kong Lives.

*Did you know Nathan Lane was in the 2005 edition of The Producers, the one that was based on the musical? 

Redux: Hudson Hawk.

Redux Review #307: Hudson Hawk.

Cast: 

Bruce Willis (Eddie "Hudson Hawk" Hawkins), Danny Aiello (Tommy "Five-Tone" Messina), Andie MacDowell (Anna Baragli), Richard E. Grant (Darwin Mayflower), Sandra Bernhard (Minerva Mayflower), Donald Burton (Alfred), Don Harvey ("Snickers"), David Caruso ("Kit Kat"), Andrew Bryniarski ("Butterfinger"), Lorraine Toussaint ("Almond Joy"), Frank Stallone (Cesar Mario), Carmine Zozzora (Antony Mario), James Coburn (George Kaplan), Doug Martin (Igg), and Steven M. Martin (Ook) Directed by Michael Lehmann.

Review: 

“It has very intellectual hip humor in it; it has very sophomoric broad slapstick comedy; it has elements of a road picture; it has more romance than any film that I have ever done; it has action; it has big stunts; it has a very dark sensibility… It’s a film that needs to be experienced more than explained…”  - Bruce Willis

A partial reading from my review on December 15, 2012: 

I almost forgot to mention the acting performances, which range from deliberately silly to deliberately over the top (possibly another word for silly), yet again resembling a Batman episode. You might think that it is a bit dumb to criticize this film for its surreal humor (I sure hope so, as for all I know it was meant to be serious, but they did this on purpose) with cartoonish slapstick. However, my reasoning is that it fails in some of those respects. It's mind-numbingly silly, it isn't entirely useful, and it (somewhat) does the crime of not being that funny.  But hey, what do I know.

Really, I could be saying the first few years of watching movies to "talk" about took a while to match my expectations of actually having fun with writing, which, well, eventually went beyond just watching whatever's on the shelf. But there must've been something curious that made my dad get this film on his shelf, because it lurked there for years and years. Most curiously, this was a movie that wasn't a hit with audiences of the time (particularly in America) despite being right in the apex of the career of Willis as a bonafide star. For all the time I remember watching Willis movies, I still have to remember that big steppingstone was winning an audition to star in Moonlighting (1985-1989) opposite Cybill Shepherd that even had him do music numbers on occasion. 

The genesis of the film came from the friendship of Willis and composer Robert Kraft, who were so interested in "The Hudson Hawk" that they even had come up with a song. Willis described it prior to release as "about greed and money in the `90s, with elements of a Bob Hope-Bing Crosby road picture. It`s a comedy with broad slapstick and moronic wit, and it has huge action beats.” Of course, for the screenplay credit, one sees the names of Steven E. de Souza and Daniel Waters (the former had co-written the first two Die Hard films while the latter had written Heathers, which had been directed by Lehmann), although there were plenty of re-writes to go around If one wants an actual detail of the production and its foibles, Richard E. Grant dedicated an entire chapter of his autobiography to it. It is pretty amusing to note to cover Oscar and Hudson Hawk in the same month, because both movies involved action stars trying to do comedy that were not well received and both movies were released a month apart from each other in 1991. And hey, what do you know, count me as a defender of Hudson Hawk, the younger version of myself was an idiot. Of course, one could take the word of one of its stars in Grant when it comes to assessing it as a "stinking pile of steaming hot donkey droppings". But the blend of cartoon sound effects and other various ideas in playing around as a "surreal comedy" is one that takes a while to really appreciate, and I'm surprised that it took me this long to really come around on it. I suppose audiences could accept a little bit of humor when it came to previous Willis works such as Die Hard as quips but they could just not go with a goofy movie that has candy bar names for secret agents to go with heists conducted by songs. Willis and Aiello clearly seem to be having some sort of fun with their back-and-forths, particularly when in song. Apparently both actors tried to get involved in the production (Willis as a producer and Aiello in trying to change the climax), which is amusing. MacDowell (cast at the last minute when Maruschka Detmers got hurt) doesn't have the easiest task and she probably does get swept away in the long run when it comes to middling chemistry with Willis and maybe one amusing scene in which she play acts as a dolphin. Besides, Bernhard acts circles around her in terms of delusional manic energy that proves that Lehmann really had an idea in mind to pair her with Grant in chaotic lunacy (regardless of how the film went, apparently Bernhard and Grant became good friends due to this film) that believes that things like history are trophies to hold in the den. It's funny that a film envisioned as an "anti-James Bond" features Coburn, star of the 60s Bond parody Our Man Flint (1966). He pops in and out for a few scenes of sell out villainy that he sells pretty well to go with a litany of goons in Harvey-Toussiant-Bryniarski (Caruso is also there, giving out note cards) that are goofy enough. In 

The 100-minute runtime is a bit fast-and-loose with its plot construction, with the climax being the flakiest (although it has one amusing idea when it comes to a fake-out that basically is "yeah, sure"). This is a film where its climax involves the last perceived enemy of our hero is blasted out of a window with a tennis ball launcher. It is funny that the movie basically flopped on the same level of Ishtar (1987) in terms of turbulent productions that precluded a litany of rough reviews. But Hudson Hawk has a far more likable duo and an actual aim in madcap stupidity, particularly since it is far more interesting than Lehmann's previous collaboration with Waters in Heathers. Of course, it was marketed as an action film rather than a show of, well, overacting. In the line of Willis movies that came and went in his career, Hudson Hawk was a curious one that maybe was a bit ripe to pick on in over-management but really is something that should be checked out for its idle curiosities in a real "thrown-on-the-wall" caper that might be worth your pleasure. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: ?

L.A. Story

Review #1630: L.A. Story.

Cast: 

Steve Martin (Harris K. Telemacher), Victoria Tennant (Sara McDowel), Richard E. Grant (Roland Mackey), Marilu Henner (Trudi), Sarah Jessica Parker (SanDeE*), Susan Forristal (Ariel), Kevin Pollak (Frank Swan), Sam McMurray (Morris Frost), Patrick Stewart (Maitre d' at L'Idiot), Andrew Amador (Bob), and Gail Grate (Gail) Directed by Mick Jackson (#202 - Volcano)

Review: 

"My mature film career started with All of Me and ends with L.A. Story."

There are plenty of films that involve a depiction or shall we say "love letter" to a city, whether that involves symphonies like Berlin: Symphony of a Metropolis (1927), films involving history with a city like San Francisco (1936), or films with a city in mind for a theme like New York Stories (1989), or even films that just happen to have a city in the title like The Houston Story (1956). But what about Los Angeles? One could offer up La La Land (2016), sure, but there exists a more clear option, one with a dreamy touch. Here is one for the "City of Angels", written and starring Steve Martin, who was raised near the area (in Inglewood and Garden Grove), which even included study at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). This was his sixth writing effort, which he wrote on and off over the course of seven years (while working on other films, of course). Elements of William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream come out in in the film (alongside modified quotations from the author recited in voiceover), although Martin noted that The Bothy Band's "The Maid of Coolmore" affected his writing for the film as well. This was the second directorial effort of Mick Jackson, a British director who went to Hollywood after directing numerous television films.

This is certainly a nice little film for what is a romantic comedy that drips satire every which way it can that takes amusement of everyday life in a city as eccentric as Los Angeles with clever interest that hits most of its marks when it comes to amusement made over its pokes that range from architecture to gags involving art (complete with a rolling scene at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art). In addition to that, there are various cameo appearances throughout the film that range from Woody Harrelson to Chevy Chase to Rick Moranis, which result in a few giggles as well. If one lets their mind go, the body (and enjoyment) will follow, you might say - it happens with a film that involves a mix of sight gags and other moments within the sunny superficial city (whether that means gun etiquette on the highway or a scene at lunch for example). In this sense, Martin is obviously in his element here, wry but always on the move when dealing with modern struggles that come with neurotic success. He skates, he (loosely) quotes Shakespeare, and he even gets to have an interesting time to spend in chemistry with Tennant (the two were married at the time of production, coincidentally). Tennant is up to following along with the offbeat times spent as the outsider bemused at what passes for L.A. culture without seeming distant or too wry for bemusement. Grant may not have as much to do, but he sure is nice to see here, offbeat but useful for what is needed in this love rectangle. Parker (best known for work on Broadway as a youth alongside films like Girls Just Want to Have Fun) does well here, playing a Valley Girl type with energy and enthusiasm that counters Martin (and the evident age difference, obviously) without being just being used for cheap gags and nothing else. Others have their moments, such as an accompanying Henner and Forristal in go-getter status and friendly eccentric, respectively. Pollak and others like Stewart (utilized in one fun sequence involving restaurant negotiation) fill in the edges of a L.A. that will feel right at home for those who live there without seeming too lofty for anyone else to enjoy for themselves. At 98 minutes, it sure will make for a fine way to spend one's time for enjoyment, having a touch of the bizarre without any sort of false note or any love lost when it comes to optimism and carefree time spent in a city that still finds way to resonate after three decades like the lights on a freeway sign - it's a labor of love that one could only hope to have for their own city, you might say.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Review #1502: Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Cast:
Gary Oldman (Count Dracula / Vlad the Impaler), Keanu Reeves (Jonathan Harker), Winona Ryder (Mina Harker/Elisabeta), Anthony Hopkins (Professor Abraham Van Helsing/Priest/Principal Narrator), Richard E. Grant (Dr. Jack Seward), Cary Elwes (Lord Arthur Holmwood), Billy Campbell (Quincey P. Morris), Sadie Frost (Lucy Westenra), Tom Waits (R. M. Renfield), Monica Bellucci (Dracula's Bride), Michaela Bercu (Dracula's Bride), Florina Kendrick (Dracula's Bride), and Jay Robinson (Mr. Hawkins) Directed by Francis Ford Coppola (#592 - Dementia 13, #1139 - Supernova, #1460 - Apocalypse Now, #1469 - The Outsiders)

Review:
"I used to be under the impression that in some kind of wanky, bullshit way, acting was like therapy: you get in and grapple with and exorcise all those demons inside of you. I don't believe that anymore. It's like a snow shaker. You shake the thing up, but it can't escape the glass. It can't get out. And it will settle until the next time you shake it up."

Not many directors can make a film worth pages of discussion in multiple decades with a variety of genres. And yet here we are, facing another Coppola film, with this following the end of the Godfather trilogy. It was Ryder who brought the script (done by James V. Hart) to his attention, as she was attracted to the emotional love story while Coppola had first read the book to kids as a teenager (while having seen Dracula movies with his brother as a youth) and was interested in some of the sensual aspects of the film. Oldman was attracted to the idea of doing a film with Coppola (whom he described as one of the great American directors), and this was in the midst of a developing career of versatility in the English-born actor.

It is entirely possible that Coppola really believed that his film would indeed be the definitive version of Dracula. After all, how many book adaptations have the author's name right there on the film title? Of course the main sticking point with that is the fact that the film reminds me as a more refined attempt at doing things others had done before, with mostly decent results moreso on the visual level than anything. On one level, it is definately better than the last high-profile Dracula adaptation by a major American studio in John Badham's cold-blooded flop from 1979 (which also had its own tinges of romance between Dracula and the lead, only much more ridiculous). On the other, it only just barely reaches levels that the Hammer adaptations did with less ridiculousness in refinement. There is such a strange mix of scenes that work with ones that come off as muddled, and it definately doesn't reach as scary as it could have been. Perhaps it relies on first impressions, what with that opening involving Vlad the Impaler and that smooth red suit, which actually is a decent moment for the film...of course it also introduces the whole "lovers played by the same actress centuries apart" cliche, which believe it or not was actually already done before in a 1974 TV adaptation of the same name that also happened to share the Dracula / Vlad connection, which has been speculated by writers for decades.  That sure is one way to start your supposedly more-faithful book adaptation, make a ridiculous historical connection to a fictional character - why stop there, might as well make a film of The Mummy and have him be King Tut while you're at it. I did indeed crack a smile not long after that - the sight of seeing old man Dracula in a kimono and a long hairdo. It may not last long in the film, but is is highly amusing as the first little crack in the "let's take it seriously" approach.
No, having a love story with Dracula isn't exactly what I call an interesting and fresh take. Some things really are best left untouched, and having a Dracula film that actually proves scary is one of them. As much as I would like to resist the urge to compare it with other Dracula adaptations, it is inevitable to talk about relentlessly overblown it looks when compared to the films of the past in really sticking its landing in executing genuine suspense. Excess does not always win the day, no matter how many effects you might throw at it if the other parts are simply not right to go with it. If anything hasn't really changed from the old hammy Dracula films of the past, its the somewhat uneven acting of its main stars. All revolves around how one feels about Oldman in this role, one that seems to exist in contradictions that try to spring fear and passion within madness that in lesser hands would've been red meat material for mockery (try being a romantic antihero and then having to wear wolfman/bat makeup). Oldman does just fine with the role, but it is quite clear that he can only be at most third-best in a turn as Dracula and nothing more (Christopher Lee and Bela Lugosi are the obvious choices for when one thinks of a vampire), one who certainly has some blood in his veins for terror while having to sift through effectswork and campy undertones.  Reeves (chosen after Christian Slater declined the role) is an easy target for ridicule when it comes to that British accent, and both Reeves and Coppola have commented about their regrets in casting (the former describing himself as too tired from a busy schedule and the latter stating that they wanted a matinee idol type for a not-great part). For me, the accent is indeed silly, and it certainly would pale when compared to class acts like Oldman or Hopkins. And yet, Ryder only just does better in matching the others, a bit too quiet to really sell this dark passion between her and Oldman (the parts with Frost and a wolf-man Oldman raping her isn't exactly better in comparison). It would take quite a bit of conviction to win me over to the vampire would-be romance, and they just can't quite make it seem that relentless in interest, particularly with the maddening last meeting for the climax (sure, why not have Mina do the final blow). Hopkins seems to be doing just fine in stoking some dignity to the fire while having multiple roles (for some reason). I do appreciate seeing Grant with Elwes and Campbell, but they somehow don't seem to really make as much impression as when compared to the campy stuff ahead of them (or when faced with even more cofounding casting choices, like singer Waits as the somewhat insane Renfield).

I admire Coppola for his attempts at keeping his intention to use traditional effects, since when he approached his visual effects team in what he wanted from the film, they told him it couldn't be done without computers. With that response, he fired them and just had his son Roman do the effects instead, which involve stuff such as double exposure to show mist coming out of a window or other various camera tricks. There are quite a few moments where it really can feel claustrophic, and credit certainly goes to some interesting design work in costumes and makeup. Then I remember the supposed love story and the scares that die with it, and the film dips back and forth again between looking scary and then flailing around trying to act like it is. It certainly takes inspiration from the Dracula films of the past (ranging as far back as Nosferatu), but it falls firmly in the middle of the pack with them rather than above it all. If you want to make a film about some sort of sensual repression and the nature of love through the centuries, find another vampire to do that crock of shit with. Dracula has been dragged around the woodshed for some good and not-so good films for over a century, and this is one that is just fine for what it is.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.

Review #1311: Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.

Cast: 
Carrie Fisher (Leia Organa), Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Adam Driver (Ben Solo / Kylo Ren), Daisy Ridley (Rey), John Boyega (Finn), Oscar Isaac (Poe Dameron), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Naomi Ackie (Jannah), Domhnall Gleeson (General Hux), Richard E. Grant (Allegiant General Pryde), Lupita Nyong'o (Maz Kanata), Keri Russell (Zorri Bliss), Joonas Suotamo (Chewbacca), Kelly Marie Tran (Rose Tico), Ian McDiarmid (Palpatine / Darth Sidious), and Billy Dee Williams (Lando Calrissian) Directed by J. J. Abrams (#009 - Star Trek, #150 - Super 8, #665 - Star Trek Into Darkness, and #769 - Star Wars: The Force Awakens)

Review: 
Well, isn't this an interesting day. Nine years of Movie Night in written form, and I celebrate it with the ninth (and last) film of the Skywalker Saga (alongside being #98 in the Theater Saga). It sure has been quite a ride over these 3,287 days - basically a review every 2.5 days. The best is yet to come ahead for Movie Night 2020 (or Season X, if you will). If I am not mistaken, this may actually be the longest review yet. May the force be with you. 

How did you picture the last Star Wars movie in a trilogy was going to end? That's a question you can now ask three times and get three different answers. One trilogy conclusion had the burden of closing the loop on what was thought to be a six film saga while also sealing up loose ends of its own. Another trilogy conclusion had the burden of ending its story with its beloved characters that made for a worthy space fantasy adventure worth telling again and again. This trilogy conclusion has the burden of sealing a trilogy of trilogies once and for all - 42 years and nine main films with various actors tasked with interesting (for the most part) characters and worlds. Some landed better than others, but there are plenty of people who can say they grew up with a Star Wars trilogy, for better or worse. It is the journey that counts in the end when it comes to Star Wars, really, where George Lucas used his imagination alongside inspiration to cultivate a film all those years ago. He loved his comic books, his fairy tales, his Saturday morning serials, and he loved creating a mythology for a new generation. Everything gets picked apart in the age we live in nowadays, but it doesn't diminish the basic core of what made this series endure for so long. It will be nice to have a rest from these films for a little while, I must admit. After five films in five years, one can appreciate something else taking over the landscape for a bit (for those who refer to television, I have my own things to cycle through). This may seem like an elegy for Star Wars, but it really isn't. I am trying to express my train of thought when it comes to the realization of seeing a saga come to a close yet again and how it ended up following up not just its "polarizing" predecessor film (The Last Jedi, which I ran out of time in regards to re-watching it before doing this) but the others as a whole. Look, the last film had Leia pull herself out of space through the Force and then decided to kill off its big bad villain suddenly (complete with a jump to lightspeed to obliterate a ship because...[BLANK]) and wrote itself into a corner with mawkish sentiment. An intriguing corner, but still a corner that is not easy to pull out from without some sort of effort.

Could it really do a better job at closing a saga that Return of the Jedi did three decades prior? Honestly, it didn't. It sure tries hard to seal it all into a big ball of entertainment, and I applaud the effort - but the film is a mess. However, I enjoy big messes when there is enough positivity to go around (or camp), and this has that in spades. It becomes evident right from the very opening, where text crawls say the dead rise and get things rolling with quick editing and plenty of shots to go around. This is a 142 minute movie (somehow being ten minutes shorter than its predecessor), yet it sure feels like a big roller coaster ride that doesn't want to end. It tries to please everyone and may very well have a different kind of result. That doesn't mean it will go down as a monumental thing to ridicule, it just means it will go down as something to argue for/against when it comes to imagination for a space opera about laser swords and space beliefs. At a certain point, one has to wonder if this is meant to be a comeback on the scale of Elvis, where fan service deliver greatest hits very much like Abrams' previous work in this trilogy - wrapped with a tinge of bittersweet fervor. You know it is the end, I know it is the end - but it wants to throw everything at the void to make sure the end doesn't come easy. If the last one was inherently too ham-handed to stick to its principles in the face of the past, this one is inherently determined to glue everything together to land certain twists down without making too much laughter come out than needed. Allow me to use one pop culture analogy here: this is essentially the equivalent of when Homer Simpson tries to build his own barbecue pit and frantically tries to build it before the wet cement makes it stick permanently, just replace the grill with story toolbox and Homer with...you get the idea. Seriously, the film has four credited writers: Abrams and Chris Terrio for the screenplay while the story credit went to Derek Connolly, Colin Trevorrow (the initial director slated to direct this film before leaving production due to creative differences), Abrams and Terrio.

Golly, there sure a whole bunch of actors and characters present. Some are given their time to shine, some are thrown in there all of a sudden, some are given a bit less to do from before, and some are somehow back in the thick of things (for better or worse). You really have to just roll the dice and see what works and what doesn't, honestly. I didn't so much see a bad performance as I saw actors trying their hardest to stick through a big sprawling adventure with plenty of skepticism and fear circling around. I find that the best ones to come out of it are Ridley and Driver, a duo with their odd own kind of bond of vulnerability and fear over who they think they are and what they must face to step forward beyond their doubts. They definitely do well when it comes to lightsaber fighting, graceful despite rocky environments like a bit of water to get in the way. Granted, their paths seem a bit easy to draw out, where I wonder if it had been better to have swapped the focus to Driver as the main focus (or perhaps better framing to have a trilogy that spans more than a year in movie time). Boyega and Isaac try to fend off being wooden with humor, which goes off okay. They felt better together four years prior with the seventh film, but I do find myself at least going along with them on essentially a scavenger hunt, where characters pop out to wedge their own part to play, because I suppose one needed to try and give some sort of backstory/shared thing for people we just met to people we barely know much of through three films. It is quite striking to see Fisher appear on screen for a few minutes (in the sense just as much as she did for the other two films), where the re-purposed footage of her works for what is needed and gives her a fair way to make farewell without going overboard. It is nice to see Daniels get a bit more scenes to chew upon for another trip down the lane for our favorite fussy golden robot, who delivers a chuckle or two that is welcome here. The sudden new blood of Ackie, Grant and Russell prove alright, moreso for the latter two in that one can seep right into an obvious villain trap without having to get outside and the other can just wear a mask and beat some nobodies for a bit. Gleeson, Nyong'o and Tran seem like they drew small straws when it comes to "Who gets to be in another Star Wars film but doesn't have much meaningful things to say?" (which proves amusing if thought as essentially being Jar-Jarred out of importance). McDiarmid and Williams return to their roles with ease, in that neither have to really move too much to deliver their lines to serve the plot, where it is nice to see them again, if not for the camp of the former and the smooth charm of the latter. Granted, it barely makes sense to see either come back - but why not? The film feels like a whole batch of why nots. One might wonder how much of this is a hand-wave of what happened before - the jokester in me is slightly delighted at the idea of shaking the head-turning predecessor, even if that means more predictability. A good adventure is all that it takes, and this does fine with that. It won't be the kind of thing that inspires navel gazing or anything when it comes to analysis, but always take to heart four words: It's just a movie. Turning off my brain a bit for some ridiculous things in a Star Wars film didn't give me a headache as it did just help my throat get some chuckles.

At least the effects work themselves out pretty good. Sometimes you really need a bunch of flashing lights on a stormy dark world to really make something ooze out well, really. You don't need spoilers to know that the film will fling whatever it takes to make things work - a Skywalker has to stand triumphant after all. It isn't like anyone actually thought this would end on a downbeat note (much like how Lucas liked his happy ending for VI) - by golly one has to sell this product somehow (besides, Rogue One wedged in hope even with its downbeat stuff). One does tend to get tired of saying "X was better than Y", so I'll try to refrain from said comparisons too much. What we have here is an okay sequel trilogy, packed firmly between what was done before through Lucas and others - and that's okay. I'll probably look at these films in retrospect as ones that had their moment in the sun and did what they thought made sense - churning some nostalgia and Internet frothing for better or worse. They aren't the best or worst things to happen to the franchise, that much is for sure (a statement one could even see someone saying about the previous trilogy). Everything moves in a flash to get to some sort of point that matters, and I liked more than what I shook my head at. If you want to see something with space action and a bunch of things that relate to the stuff of the past, go right on ahead. If you want something a bit deeper or perhaps more fitting for the end of a space opera, consult oneself first. In my heart I enjoyed this weird little film, but I know the rating it really does deserve - it's an average film, but at least it isn't a complete mediocre one for the books.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Withnail and I.

Review #956: Withnail and I.

Cast:
Richard E. Grant (Withnail), Paul McGann ("...& I" - Peter Marwood), Richard Griffiths (Uncle Monty), Ralph Brown (Danny), Michael Elphick (Jake), Eddie Tagoe (Presuming Ed), and Daragh O'Malley (Irishman) Directed by Bruce Robinson.

Review:
How can a film feel (and look) so rough and yet manage to be such a gripping dark comedy cult classic? Made in England,  Based on Robinson's life in London during the late 1960s, there is something magnetic about watching Grant and McGann (both in their first film roles) throughout its 107 minute run-time that never ceases to be anything other than darkly amusing. They don't chew the scenery as much drown it with alcohol and manic energy that is amazing to watch play out, with numerous highlights (one of which being them trying to cook a chicken) throughout. It's interesting watch Grant play an eccentric alcoholic, who in real life has a health condition that makes him incapable of processing alcohol properly, and he certainly pulls off a great performance that is endlessly watchable. McGann (who also narrates the film at times) also does a commendable job, conveying the neurotic level-headedness (as one can be when paired with a character like Withnail) that makes him easy to watch. Griffiths does a fine job in being exuberantly larger-than-life, and his last scene with McGann is quite riveting in its exchange. The rest of the cast is also pretty good in their roles as well, contributing to some excellent lines (one particular line involving bald people). The look of the movie is also easy to highlight, in part because of how it achieves a time capsule look (with one quote saying they were "91 days from the end of this decade" near the end of the film), with the scenery also looking quite fitting for the movie. On the whole, this is a roller coaster ride of a movie, with Grant and McGann pulling off great performances in a film that stands out among the countless British films featured throughout Movie Night.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Logan.

Review #912: Logan.

Cast:
Hugh Jackman (Logan / X-24), Patrick Stewart (Charles Xavier / Professor X), Dafne Keen (Laura / X-23), Boyd Holbrook (Donald Pierce), Stephen Merchant (Caliban), Richard E. Grant (Dr. Zander Rice), Elizabeth Rodriguez (Gabriela), Eriq La Salle (Will Munson), Elise Neal (Kathryn Munson), and Quincy Fouse (Nate Munson) Directed by James Mangold.

Review:
In the films that I have watched where Hugh Jackman played the Wolverine (X-Men (#008), X2 (#010), X-Men: The Last Stand (#012), X-Men: First Class (#042), X-Men: Days of Future Past (#584); I haven't seen X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and X-Men: Apocalypse), it's evident to say that Logan stands out as the best of the bunch. Seeing this film in a packed theater certainly helped make for a homelier atmosphere, and the first five minutes certainly make for an intense if not riveting start to a movie that never really relents on entertainment. That's not to say that the movie is only full of action and language (after all, this is an R-rated film), as the film also has a good deal of emotional depth along with good performances from Jackman, Stewart, and Keen. Jackman and Stewart have already been in enough X-Men films together to make for fine chemistry already, but the road trip nature of this movie manages to give these two a good amount of highlights. Jackman and Keen have great chemistry together, just clicking immediately, with good writing also being helpful. Keen (in her first ever film) does a neat job, managing to bring out the humanity in what could've been either too sentimental or the opposite, and I hope to see more films revolving around this character. Jackman plays this withered role with the right kind of humility and timing, being entertaining as ever. Stewart certainly does a fine job once again, conveying the unstable and aged nature of the character in an emotionally satisfying way. Probably the only real flaw is that the villains aren't too great, though they do have a useful presence. Holbrook is pretty decent, managing to be arrogant enough to root against. Grant doesn't have too much screen time until the last half, but he is somewhat serviceable as a puppet master, just not very distinguishable from other mad scientists, minus hammy overacting at least. The action in the movie is thrilling, never managing to become too stale or rely on egregious killing just for killing. There is also a fairly competent story along with this movie, having a good time with a premise that could've been dreary with a lesser director/cast. On the whole, it's an excellent film that has both excitement and competency while being a good film for Wolverine to go out on.

On a sadder note, Robert Osborne, film historian and primary host for Turner Classic Movies (one of my favorite places to watch movies) died today at the age of 84. It is sad to see him pass on, particularly someone as knowledgeable and passionate about movies as he was. Rest in peace, Mr. Osborne.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Corpse Bride.

Review #262: Corpse Bride.

Cast
Johnny Depp (Victor Van Dort), Helena Bonham Carter (Emily), Emily Watson (Victoria Everglot), Tracey Ullman (Nell Van Dort/Hildegarde), Paul Whitehouse (William Van Dort/Mayhew), Joanna Lumley (Maudeline Everglot), Albert Finney (Lord Finis Everglot), Richard E. Grant (Lord Barkis Bittern), Christopher Lee (Gallswells) and Michael Gough (Elder Gutknecht) Directed by Tim Burton (#40 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, and #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) and Mike Johnson.

Review
Once again I'm reviewing a Tim Burton film, and it is filled with familiar faces (This is the 3rd review with Johnny Depp, the 8th with Helena Bonham Carter, and the 7th with Christopher Lee.) So how is this film? It's...Good. Not great, but good. The animation is stellar, and it does have a well developed story. The acting is stellar, Depp and Carter do a fine a job along with the rest of the supporting cast (One standout being Richard E. Grant portraying an excellent villain) It has some good moments combined with good animation and acting to make a good film. A good success in all in all. The month is nearly over, but October is still going well.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.